whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Biblical Contradictions => Topic started by: Lectus on November 15, 2013, 05:49:52 PM

Title: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Lectus on November 15, 2013, 05:49:52 PM
If he is a lesser god why Christians commit the idolatry of worshiping Jesus?

If they're the same God why pray to himself?

Quote
I and the Father are one.
John 10:30

Quote
About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[c] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
Matthew 27:46

Quote
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

Quote
“You shall have no other gods before[a] me."
Exodus 20:3
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on November 15, 2013, 05:59:07 PM
If you can't worship yourself, who can you worship?

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nick on November 15, 2013, 07:48:03 PM
Same thinking can be used when He dies to sacrifice Himself to Himself.  Some crazy shit there.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Shaffy on November 16, 2013, 12:29:49 AM
Same thinking can be used when He dies to sacrifice Himself to Himself.  Some crazy shit there.

Exactly it is all so..delusional
-Shaffy
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: G-Roll on November 16, 2013, 09:25:45 PM
Why does jesus have to be god? I thought it made sense that jesus is the son of god anointed with the holy spook. That would make the trinity wouldn’t it? I have no idea who made it all complicated.. I guess its Johns fault. Perhaps he and Matt should have compared notes.

And it's pretty ballsy of Matt to claim that at 3 in the afternoon jesus said something. Not sometime during the day, not around late afternoon... NO IT WAS 3PM!! And people laugh when scientologist claim to know the name of the alien that created humans or whatever their silly claim is. 3pm bitches.

Matt is by far the best book of all the new testament books. It's almost as if he just sat down and was like "this is going to be epic!"
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 17, 2013, 07:58:40 AM
According to some theists, he is god.

And according to others he is the son of god.

Then there is the oddballs who say he is god and is the son of god...
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Antidote on November 18, 2013, 12:26:37 AM
According to some theists, he is god.

And according to others he is the son of god.

Then there is the oddballs who say he is god and is the son of god...
And then there is the odd balls who claim he never existed... oh... wait...
*shifty eyes*

Not without reason though. The only thing of Jesus' supposed home town that was found was a well.

EDIT:
Also isn't it odd that a massive census was performed, but there is absolutely no record of it anywhere but the bible? Seems like something that would get the attention of neighboring kingdoms.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: The Gawd on November 28, 2013, 11:58:58 AM
According to some theists, he is god.

And according to others he is the son of god.

Then there is the oddballs who say he is god and is the son of god...
And then there is the odd balls who claim he never existed... oh... wait...
*shifty eyes*

Not without reason though. The only thing of Jesus' supposed home town that was found was a well.

EDIT:
Also isn't it odd that a massive census was performed, but there is absolutely no record of it anywhere but the bible? Seems like something that would get the attention of neighboring kingdoms.

After reading Bart Erhman try to make the case for the historical Jesus, I am more convinced that he was a myth and never existed outside of text.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 02, 2013, 03:34:10 AM
I'll try this one. Although there are many Christians that discuss the same thing. Many That don't get it. Denominations have formed and split over this very question. I doubt I can make any of you understand. It's a tough concept. I have to admit I don't understand how it works, but the bible teaches it so I accept it. Anyway, here goes. 3in one and one in 3. Jesus is both God AND The Son of God.
John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
john 1:14 The Word became flesh that He may dwell among us.
Jesus is The Word. The son is the Son. The Father is the Father. Yet both are God. they are separate and distinct individuals. The word was/is both with God and IS God.
I could share and compare other verses if this is a topic you truly wish to understand. true or not is up to you of course.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: The Gawd on December 02, 2013, 03:53:22 AM
I'll try this one. Although there are many Christians that discuss the same thing. Many That don't get it. Denominations have formed and split over this very question. I doubt I can make any of you understand. It's a tough concept. I have to admit I don't understand how it works, but the bible teaches it so I accept it. Anyway, here goes. 3in one and one in 3. Jesus is both God AND The Son of God.
John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
john 1:14 The Word became flesh that He may dwell among us.
Jesus is The Word. The son is the Son. The Father is the Father. Yet both are God. they are separate and distinct individuals. The word was/is both with God and IS God.
I could share and compare other verses if this is a topic you truly wish to understand. true or not is up to you of course.
I have a thread here showing that John 1:1 cannot mean Jesus.

but what it boils down to is that Jesus would have been non-existent "in the beginning" as there is no need for a savior for human kind as no sin has been committed. Also, it makes no sense for a god to have a son, really think about that, how does that work with them both being eternal. That is an obvious remnant of their pagan history. Also, having a son implied there is a mother. Again supporting the notion that this was just their pagan religion.

You have to understand that just because you can type it/say it doesnt mean it makes any sense what-so-ever. Its not that we atheists dont understand what is being said, its that whats being said is ridiculous and makes absolutely no sense.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Anfauglir on December 02, 2013, 05:37:29 AM
I doubt I can make any of you understand.....I have to admit I don't understand how it works.....

I could share and compare other verses if this is a topic you truly wish to understand. true or not is up to you of course.

My apologies: but if this is a topic that YOU don't understand, how can you expect to be able to share verse to enable US to understand?  If the teacher doesn't get it, what hope is there for those he is trying to enlighten?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Jonny-UK on December 02, 2013, 07:37:57 AM
Just another angle here but why only one child.
A god must have known that the telephone, film cameras, internet etc were still a couple of thousand years off so why not send a dozen children down and have them spread out over the planet a bit more? Not very smart  to have one child in one place and then hope that man can accurately remember all the events, write them all down and then spread the word to the whole planet.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Mrjason on December 02, 2013, 08:02:08 AM
Just another angle here but why only one child.
A god must have known that the telephone, film cameras, internet etc were still a couple of thousand years off so why not send a dozen children down and have them spread out over the planet a bit more? Not very smart  to have one child in one place and then hope that man can accurately remember all the events, write them all down and then spread the word to the whole planet.

One child would make sense if that child didn't perform miracles and then disappear.
If jesus were still around now with holes and all, and had been evident all through the ages, who wouldn't believe him?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Ataraxia on December 02, 2013, 08:16:23 AM
Just another angle here but why only one child.
A god must have known that the telephone, film cameras, internet etc were still a couple of thousand years off so why not send a dozen children down and have them spread out over the planet a bit more? Not very smart  to have one child in one place and then hope that man can accurately remember all the events, write them all down and then spread the word to the whole planet.

One child would make sense if that child didn't perform miracles and then disappear.
If jesus were still around now with holes and all, and had been evident all through the ages, who wouldn't believe him?

<Raises hand>

Me. He'd still be indistinguishable from an advanced, deceptive alien lifeform. Just because he says he's God doesn't mean I'm going to take his word for it - that's something he needs to demonstrate, which he couldn't.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Mrjason on December 02, 2013, 08:26:33 AM
One child would make sense if that child didn't perform miracles and then disappear.
If jesus were still around now with holes and all, and had been evident all through the ages, who wouldn't believe him?

<Raises hand>

Me. He'd still be indistinguishable from an advanced, deceptive alien lifeform. Just because he says he's God doesn't mean I'm going to take his word for it -


True.

that's something he needs to demonstrate, which he couldn't.

Having demonstrated a life span that is much longer than a human lifespan and an ability to get better after being killed would you be more willing to view a demonstration with an open mind?

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Ataraxia on December 02, 2013, 08:32:36 AM
that's something he needs to demonstrate, which he couldn't.

Having demonstrated a life span that is much longer than a human lifespan and an ability to get better after being killed would you be more willing to view a demonstration with an open mind?

Why are such occurrences limited to God and not to advanced aliens? It still offers no distinction between the two. I'd say that's keeping your options open and not punting for one over the other.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 02, 2013, 08:34:15 AM
I'll try this one. Although there are many Christians that discuss the same thing. Many That don't get it. Denominations have formed and split over this very question. I doubt I can make any of you understand. It's a tough concept. I have to admit I don't understand how it works, but the bible teaches it so I accept it. Anyway, here goes. 3in one and one in 3. Jesus is both God AND The Son of God.
John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
john 1:14 The Word became flesh that He may dwell among us.
Jesus is The Word. The son is the Son. The Father is the Father. Yet both are God. they are separate and distinct individuals. The word was/is both with God and IS God.
I could share and compare other verses if this is a topic you truly wish to understand. true or not is up to you of course.
I have a thread here showing that John 1:1 cannot mean Jesus.

but what it boils down to is that Jesus would have been non-existent "in the beginning" as there is no need for a savior for human kind as no sin has been committed. Also, it makes no sense for a god to have a son, really think about that, how does that work with them both being eternal. That is an obvious remnant of their pagan history. Also, having a son implied there is a mother. Again supporting the notion that this was just their pagan religion.

You have to understand that just because you can type it/say it doesnt mean it makes any sense what-so-ever. Its not that we atheists dont understand what is being said, its that whats being said is ridiculous and makes absolutely no sense.
also your John 1:1 thread. Be careful. I'm almost positive that it was written by Mormons or Jahova witness. Neither are Christian. that being said I would read it if you gave the link.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jetson on December 02, 2013, 08:39:29 AM
I'll try this one. Although there are many Christians that discuss the same thing. Many That don't get it. Denominations have formed and split over this very question. I doubt I can make any of you understand. It's a tough concept. I have to admit I don't understand how it works, but the bible teaches it so I accept it. Anyway, here goes. 3in one and one in 3. Jesus is both God AND The Son of God.
John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
john 1:14 The Word became flesh that He may dwell among us.
Jesus is The Word. The son is the Son. The Father is the Father. Yet both are God. they are separate and distinct individuals. The word was/is both with God and IS God.
I could share and compare other verses if this is a topic you truly wish to understand. true or not is up to you of course.

Here's a thought for you: Why not look at this from the other side of the fence?  If YHWH is truly nothing more than a man-made idea, that very clearly, simply, and succinctly explains the entire problem.  Is it really that difficult for you to treat the problem using the most obvious and simple explanation?  If there was a man named Jesus (which I doubt was his actual name), then why guess that he was more than a man based solely on pieces of ancient writings that have no evidence other than someone said so?

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Mrjason on December 02, 2013, 08:47:11 AM
that's something he needs to demonstrate, which he couldn't.

Having demonstrated a life span that is much longer than a human lifespan and an ability to get better after being killed would you be more willing to view a demonstration with an open mind?

Why are such occurrences limited to God and not to advanced aliens? It still offers no distinction between the two. I'd say that's keeping your options open and not punting for one over the other.

They're not really. The Arthur C Clarke addage[1] comes into play here. 
I suppose I should have said

"If jesus were still around now with holes and all, and had been evident all through the ages, would you not be more inclined to believe him, or at least warrant further investigation into his claims.?
 1. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Ataraxia on December 02, 2013, 08:58:37 AM
They're not really. The Arthur C Clarke addage[1] comes into play here. 
I suppose I should have said

"If jesus were still around now with holes and all, and had been evident all through the ages, would you not be more inclined to believe him, or at least warrant further investigation into his claims.?
 1. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

No, I wouldn't feel more inclined to believe him, but further investigation would be a no brainer, to which you could then potentially forge a belief from.

What he is claiming though is beyond the realm of investigation. How does one demonstrate that they exist outside of nature from inside nature? An alien claim is different, as that can (generally) be attributed to something inside nature.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Anfauglir on December 02, 2013, 09:20:17 AM
What he is claiming though is beyond the realm of investigation. How does one demonstrate that they exist outside of nature from inside nature? An alien claim is different, as that can (generally) be attributed to something inside nature.

Perhaps more pertinently: what test could they pass to prove that the consequences of believing in them (or not) are true?

On Earth, we see multi-billionnaire atheist with fantastic lives, while the poorest and most miserable countries in the world have the highest levels of belief.  We're also regularly told by believers that belief will not necessarily bring you a better life here (right before they swear blind it does).  Certainly the evidence is that if the Jesus under discussion was around today, we might believe in him, or we might not, but it would not necessarily affect our lives one way or the other.

The true "worth" of belief comes in what one gains or loses in the alleged afterlife.  And what test could this Jesus pass to prove that there was an afterlife in the first place, let alone whether belief (or not) in him would give you a better place in the hypothetical afterlife?

There is also no way the character could prove that he was the ultimate creator of everything.  Holes in the hand, walking on water, water into booze, could all maybe convince me he was the character written of in the Bible.....he'd tick all the boxes.  But does any of that mean that he or his father/brother/other-half-of-the-gestalt actually created the universe, as opposed to simply being powerful and with enough longevity to have been around before mankind and thus able to make up any story they wanted?

Point being: there seems to be NO test that Jesus or Yahweh could pass today to convince most of us that there is a long-term benefit to worshipping them, nor that there is any true reason to be grateful to them at all.  The chief test of a benevolent god - is life getting better NOW for the people he claims to value most - is clearly and demonstrably failing, at least until such time as the Catch-22 is resolved to determine exactly which alleged group really ARE his chosen people.

So I'm left with the conclusion that belief in a particular god must indeed be solely and exactly that - a belief, a faith, a wishful and hopeful thought that one would want to be true but which one can in no way demonstrate or prove, even so far as a "clearly most likely".

Which unfortunately means that NO faith is any more - or less - likely than the next one on the list, and the whole shebang comes down to which particular fable one feels most comfortable with.  SPAG is indeed the only conceivable reason for choosing a particular faith.

Maybe we should cut the SPAGgers more slack?  They are after all only taking the most logical path?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Jonny-UK on December 02, 2013, 10:22:16 AM
^^Excellent point about the afterlife.
Bringing a dead relative back for a chat could be quite convincing.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: The Gawd on December 02, 2013, 03:43:37 PM
also your John 1:1 thread. Be careful. I'm almost positive that it was written by Mormons or Jahova witness. Neither are Christian. that being said I would read it if you gave the link.
I see, so you are the One who decides who is and who isnt Christian? I see. I know Christians who would claim YOU are not the Christian. That leaves us at an impasse. How do we determine who is the Christian? Is there a set of criteria? Who made the criteria? Where is it located? How can we be sure that is the correct criteria? And assuming you are right, why do so many people have it wrong?

And my John 1:1 thread was not written by Mormons or JW's... it was written by me and other contributors here.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24309.0.html
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 02, 2013, 04:42:11 PM
I'll try this one. Although there are many Christians that discuss the same thing. Many That don't get it. Denominations have formed and split over this very question. I doubt I can make any of you understand. It's a tough concept. I have to admit I don't understand how it works, but the bible teaches it so I accept it. Anyway, here goes. 3in one and one in 3. Jesus is both God AND The Son of God.
John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
john 1:14 The Word became flesh that He may dwell among us.
Jesus is The Word. The son is the Son. The Father is the Father. Yet both are God. they are separate and distinct individuals. The word was/is both with God and IS God.
I could share and compare other verses if this is a topic you truly wish to understand. true or not is up to you of course.

Harbinger,

If you want to understand this - as far as it is possible to do so anyway-  you are going to have to study some of the early history of the church, a specialty called Patristics (Fathers of the Church). Loosely....

Jesus, while on the earth is reported in the gospels as reject9ing the title of Son of God. Now one can take the study of titles of Jesus a bit too far and make too big a thing out of them but I think the gospel writers showing the Jesus rejected that title measn there is something to note.

The Early Church was born, so says Luke, on the basis of the Resurrectoin and so on of Jesus. The thing was that the people were not that happy for Jesus to be seen as a man at all - to have risen from the dead made him a god. We can find this in the various interactions with the risen Jesus in the gospels and, more importantly, in John 1 where Jesus seems to be indentified with god.

The problem was that the Jewish religion was montheistic and the the leaders of the new religion wanted to retain that yet there was the fact that everyone was seeing Jesus as god and worshipping him. Add that to the gospels referring to the sending of the holy spirit in personl terms and there in the bible are the three persons that are, today called the trinity. Getting there was not that easy though.

The first few hundred years of the church had a constant struggle going on to expplain how there would be one god yet three persons - after all to an outsider that's plainly just 3 gods. All sorts of idea were tried and condemned (read a book on Patristics if you are interested in the details)

Finally in the early 300's came along a priest in Alexandria who claimed the Jesus was not pre-existent but part of creation, although an exalted one. His followers had the slogan 'there was when he was not' whicyh is a lot more catchy in Greek! Essentially, Jesus waas created being whose life had a beginning. This is a philosophical problem as if creation has to be forgiven then surely it is going to need something divine to do it and Aruis' Jesus was not divine.

In 325 in Nicea Emperor Constantine arranged a meeting of all the bishops and one of the things they did was to settle this matter and the Nicean Creed the agreed used all biblical language with the exception of 'of one substance with the father' (technically homoousios) Substance is a techincal term in Aristotelian philosophy and means the root or gorudn of what something is as disticnt from what it appears to be. Now since the father, the son and the holy ghost were or the same substance it meant that there was onely one godhead but still three persons. That definition is whaat has stuck ever since (apart from the JW's and the Mormons anyway.

There is one problem, though. This whole definition has really only re-stated the problem of the three persons and one god rather than solved anything but I guess solving things would make priests redundant and that would never do!

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on December 02, 2013, 05:07:15 PM
Being the resident ex-JW here, we were taught that we were the only true Christians on the planet. Like, where in the bible does it say to celebrate Jesus' birthday? Huh? And what's with all the pagan decorating of eggs and trees? And why all the hanging dead images of Jesus around the house? None of that in the bible.

And as for all this new-fangled science that so-called modern Christians accept, if it is not in the bible we did not believe it. None of this "Jesus riding on a dinosaur" creationist crap. There were no dinosaurs! No evolution, either. Garden of Eden, baby, all the way. Fossils and DNA are just lies made up by Satan to fool the gullible. No blood transfusions. No "Christian" rock music. And, yes, women should shut up in church.

If any of this does not sit well with you, then you are no Christian.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: magicmiles on December 02, 2013, 10:03:49 PM
harbinger, there is a test area on the forum where you can practice quoting. Very last option on the main page. FYI.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on December 03, 2013, 12:48:25 AM
harbinger, there is a test area on the forum where you can practice quoting. Very last option on the main page. FYI.

I've told him three times. Seems he doesn't care. Makes excuses.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jetson on December 03, 2013, 07:23:53 AM
harbinger77,

Please use the tutorials links in my signature to learn how to properly quote.  It is very confusing when you do not do this properly.  Practice in the test area if you need to.

Jetson
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Anfauglir on December 03, 2013, 10:34:54 AM
I have removed 3 posts of Harbinger's where he quoted an entire response, but added no further comment of his own.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wolfunchained on December 08, 2013, 04:56:55 AM
I have not read all the posts in this topic but i have a few thoughts.

Why does there need to be 3 gods that are all different but the same? Surely 1 god is enough and could design a perfect species of humans. Not a bunch of sinners doomed from the first 2 humans created!
Gods says to himself, " better create a human form of me to save all human kind from my stuff up in design!
Ill even make a backup copy in ghost form in case jesus doesnt work out."

I ask what i called "sheep believers" who just follow the herd,  thier understanding of the trinity and i get object lessons, e.g "its like a tree, God is the trunk, jesus is the branches and the holy spirit is the leaves. They r all seperate but they make up one object, a tree".

i can manipulate that in 1000 different ways.  A biscuit is made of flour, cocoa and eggs. Seperatly they are different but together they are a delicous treat called a biscuit. To a sheep im being pathetic and poking holes in thier faith but im merely pointing out they r simply being feed object lessons they can recall at a moments notice to help them understand something that cannot be proven or explained properly.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 08, 2013, 06:57:37 AM
wolfunchained,

If you read my post (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25855.msg586738.html#msg586738) in which I detail a little bit of early church history that explains how it came to be that the Christian church talk about the Trinity you will at least understand why it is part of belief today.

As far as your post is concerned, it certainly is the case that one would have thought that al all-powerful god could manage everything on his own so that there is clearly no need for more than one god, yet Christians will tell you they only believe in one god  - albeit one with more than one person.

However the most sense is made by just deleting god from any explanation as one is not needed.

(Link to post added GB Mod)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Anfauglir on December 09, 2013, 02:49:52 AM
I doubt I can make any of you understand.....I have to admit I don't understand how it works.....

I could share and compare other verses if this is a topic you truly wish to understand. true or not is up to you of course.

My apologies: but if this is a topic that YOU don't understand, how can you expect to be able to share verse to enable US to understand?  If the teacher doesn't get it, what hope is there for those he is trying to enlighten?

Harbinger PM'd me a while back to say that I had misunderstood what he said about what he did, and did not, understand.  He suggested that we just wanted to pick holes, didn't really want to understand, and would be leaving the site and not returning.  As such, I didn't see any need to respond.

However, I see he has now returned and is posting again, so I repeat my question.  Harbinger, if I misunderstood what you meant when you said "I have to admit I don't understand how it works", I apologise - presumably then you DO understand exactly how the 3-in-1 works and can explain it clearly and without hyperbole?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 09, 2013, 10:42:03 AM
Hey Harbinger, you lucked out.  You now can admit to Anfauglir that you DO understand the nature of the Godhead.  We live in an amazing age of communication.  God has given you a glimpse into the throne room of heaven and we have a recording of God the Father and Jesus nailing down the correct understanding of the Godhead.  God (they) used the internet to communicate the correct understanding of their nature. Now humans don't have to be confused over the doctrine of the Trinity.  We now know how the 3 in 1 works.       Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII6-IyaT3o
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on December 09, 2013, 07:37:21 PM
^^^^They are so gonna burn! And this cute discussion led to actual killing wars back in the day.

You say monophysite, I say duophysite, you say Armenian Church, I say Jehovah's Witnesses. You say Jesus is god in man and I say, you die, infidel heretic and epitome of all that is evil! Eat my sword!  >:(

I love me some Mr. Diety. ;D
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Anfauglir on December 14, 2013, 06:10:35 AM
Harbinger, I'm not sure what device you are using to post, but I have just removed several posts where you quote and say nothing,  or post responses in different threads to where the questions were asked.

Please review the quoting tutorial that Screwtape has directed you to, first off.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Patrick Henry on December 14, 2013, 08:56:39 PM
I'm new to the website.  Just picked a forum at random to get started. 
I will answer the question from a christian perspective. 

What you are referring to is the trinity, so I will answer your question on that basis.
The quick answer is that Jesus is both. Positionally He is the Son of God.  But He is united with God to the extent that we can worship Him as we would God Himself.  I think of it like this:  the name "God" is one name given to three persons who are Father, Son, and Spirit. 
The way I try to understand the trinity is by relating it to things that we see here on earth.

1.  Marriage.  A man and woman become "one flesh" Two people united to become one union.  Genesis 2:24, Eph 5:31
This means two individuals who are united in thought and in a sense even their bodies, and love one another so much that they give their entire selves to each other.  Also, they know one another so well that one can speak for the other in full confidence.
2.  My son or daughter are people who are related to me so closely and I love them so much and know them so well that I can trust them, speak for them, share my life with them in full confidence that they will never break my trust or abandon me when I need them.  Some day in my old age, this will become more and more the case.   The reverse was true when they were in my household growing up and were dependent upon me (at each stage in their young lives). 

Now obviously we are not perfect people and these are not perfect examples, but God's reality has many parallels here on earth that we can draw from.  Our imperfections give us hope that we will someday see Him in His perfection and enter in with Him in an eternal place where all things that are not perfect here on earth will be redeemed.
- Patrick
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: xyzzy on December 14, 2013, 11:47:08 PM
I'm new to the website.  Just picked a forum at random to get started. 
I will answer the question from a christian perspective. 

What you are referring to is the trinity, so I will answer your question on that basis.
The quick answer is that Jesus is both. Positionally He is the Son of God.  But He is united with God to the extent that we can worship Him as we would God Himself.  I think of it like this:  the name "God" is one name given to three persons who are Father, Son, and Spirit. 
The way I try to understand the trinity is by relating it to things that we see here on earth.

1.  Marriage.  A man and woman become "one flesh" Two people united to become one union.  Genesis 2:24, Eph 5:31
This means two individuals who are united in thought and in a sense even their bodies, and love one another so much that they give their entire selves to each other.  Also, they know one another so well that one can speak for the other in full confidence.
2.  My son or daughter are people who are related to me so closely and I love them so much and know them so well that I can trust them, speak for them, share my life with them in full confidence that they will never break my trust or abandon me when I need them.  Some day in my old age, this will become more and more the case.   The reverse was true when they were in my household growing up and were dependent upon me (at each stage in their young lives).

Those examples are all to separate, discrete, physical entities. By extension, is Jesus a separate, discrete, physical entity to Yahweh? Would that, then, make Jesus his son and not "god"? If not, I'm missing the analog in your analogy.

Quote
Now obviously we are not perfect people and these are not perfect examples, but God's reality has many parallels here on earth that we can draw from.  Our imperfections give us hope that we will someday see Him in His perfection and enter in with Him in an eternal place where all things that are not perfect here on earth will be redeemed.

That sounds very deep. What does it mean?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 15, 2013, 05:30:31 AM
Patrick Henry,

Your analogies are all very well, though in fact they don't work. I have been married for nearly 40 years and we are still two people - separate in where we go, in our tastes etc. Of course we do things together as a couple and we share a lot in common but we are still two people. Whoever wrote the 'one flesh' line must have been thinking not of our modern understanding of marriage of two equal partners but of a man 'buying' a wife and she becoming his property. Even then it doesn't work.

So, the Trinity - I detailed a very sketchy outline of how it got accepted as a doctrine by the church but, honestly, it does mean that people believe it at all. See, if we don't understand the fact that a married couple as 'one flesh' as we can see them separately doing different things and having different personalities and so forth, and this is physical things on earth we can touch and feel and observe, then what chance have we of understanding anything about an undetectable god who effect on earth seems to be nil? Taking the odd lines of text written by people who never met Jesus and claiming that they tell us about a realm of which we have no way of knowing about seems to be highly suspect. There is precisely zero evidence for the existence of any god - yes any of the thousands that have been invented yet we have this doctrine that claims to understand the make-up of one particular god (although it really only states the problem!)

Patrick Henry, can you tell us your basis of believing anything of the Christian faith given this complete lack of any evidence for it? 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Patrick Henry on December 15, 2013, 01:37:25 PM
Patrick Henry,

Your analogies are all very well, though in fact they don't work. I have been married for nearly 40 years and we are still two people - separate in where we go, in our tastes etc. Of course we do things together as a couple and we share a lot in common but we are still two people. Whoever wrote the 'one flesh' line must have been thinking not of our modern understanding of marriage of two equal partners but of a man 'buying' a wife and she becoming his property. Even then it doesn't work.

It's important to understand that analogies aren't exact representations of the point.  So yes, you and your wife are still two people.  But, so is Jesus and the Father.  But they are one in nature, meaning they share the same perfect nature and somehow are united in the sense that they share perfect love with one another.  The Christian belief from the bible is that they have always existed together.  From my limited point of view they are two beings who are one in nature.
I see that you don't believe as I do but if a person does believe in God, then he can infere from the bible that we are talking about a God who operates in a multi-dimensional realm.  So it stands to reason that maybe we won't completely understand everything about Him




Patrick Henry, can you tell us your basis of believing anything of the Christian faith given this complete lack of any evidence for it?

I don't see a complete lack of evidence for the Christian faith.  Otherwise I would not believe.  The short answer is that we box ourselves in if we say that only science and physical evidence can be our proving ground.  I believe that humans are more complex than just the physical.  There is evidence of that.  But I think to answer your question in detail may require a different thread, if I understand the rules of the forum correctly. 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 15, 2013, 01:49:54 PM
Patrick Henry,

1. Yes, evidence for the Christian Faith ought to be a new thread so go ahead and start one and I'll be there to discuss.

2. As far as belief in the Trinity is concerned, whilst it is true that the doctrine can find support in biblical texts - though I think the key ones are rather later that the gospel writings - the problem is that the texts equally support other explanations and it is hard to separate out one from another. So, for example

Adoptionsism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism)
Jesus adopted as his son by god either at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.

Sabellianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism) is the idea that the separate characters of the Trinity are, in reality different aspects of the one god.

Arianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism) the idea that Jesus, though unique was still part of creation.

The thing about these, and loads more, is that they work with the bible texts as explanations and can only be satisfactorily declared heresies after one of the ideas is accepted. in any if the three I present above, things become much more straightforward than the trinitarian approach and, remember, the church has felt the need to call it a mystery (meaning we don't understand it either) so that it doesn't explain much at all.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 15, 2013, 04:58:45 PM


What you are referring to is the trinity, so I will answer your question on that basis.
The quick answer is that Jesus is both. Positionally He is the Son of God.  But He is united with God to the extent that we can worship Him as we would God Himself.  I think of it like this:  the name "God" is one name given to three persons who are Father, Son, and Spirit. 
The way I try to understand the trinity is by relating it to things that we see here on earth.


Welcome Patrick Henry!

All analogies concerning the Trinity fail in my opinion and I would say it is impossible to relate the Trinity to things that you see here on earth.  Creating an analogy for the Trinity is impossible from a human perspective because it is contradictory.  It would be like trying to come up with an analogy for a squared circle.  It is not logical!  It's just like imagining a person can have the qualities of man and the qualities of the the God of the bible at the same time.  As a former believer, I struggled with the Trinity as I did not think that the scriptures taught that Jesus was "co-equal, co-eternal, or consubstantial (one being)" with the Father.  It is not logical and extremely contradictory to think that a person can be fully man and fully God at the same time.  That is why the doctrine of the Trinity can only be viewed as a mystery.

I have a question for you or any other Christian on this forum.  It is popularly interpreted that Jesus is the great "I AM" in John 8:58.  If I want to become a Christian do I have to believe that Jesus is the great "I AM" referred to in Exodus 3:14?  In other words, do you let the doctrine of the Trinity overlap into the doctrine of salvation?  John 8:24 says that I will "die in my sins" if I don't believe that Jesus is "I AM".  A lot of bibles have "he" after "I am" which takes away from the Title of "I AM".  Notice that the "he" is italicized which means that this word "he" is not found in any manuscripts that make up the New Testament. 

Should I interpret the "I AM" as a just a verb or a definite title in John 8:24?

Do I have to believe Jesus is the "I AM" in Exodus 3:14 in order to be saved and not "die in my sins"?  Is believing this a requirement for salvation?

P.S. Just for your information, the name "God" DOES NOT just "refer to one name given to three persons who are Father, Son, and Spirit".  Satan (I think) is called "God" (2 Cor. 4:4), Angels are called "Gods" (compare Heb. 2:7 to Psa. 8:5).  In addition, people (judges and rulers) are called "Gods" (Psa. 82:6) and this Psalm was the scripture that Jesus used to correct the wrong understanding that he was making himself out to be God in John 10:33-36.  The word "God" can be legitimately used in the bible to refer to others than "God" himself.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 15, 2013, 05:27:04 PM
Just thought of a better analogy. Is light an electro-magnetic wave or a stream of particles called photons? Well it can't be both.. can it?

The Double Slit Experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) shows that light can be both wave and particle at the same time. The light's behavious an anaolgy ofr this Trinity thing?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 15, 2013, 11:18:19 PM
Just thought of a better analogy. Is light an electro-magnetic wave or a stream of particles called photons? Well it can't be both.. can it?

The Double Slit Experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) shows that light can be both wave and particle at the same time. The light's behavious an anaolgy ofr this Trinity thing?

Wheels, that is a an excellent analogy of a binity.  I think this Trinitarian God is intentionally making it hard for us finite minded humans to come up with a perfect analogy for this "Trinity thing".  I found your analogy compelling so I went a step further and googled "Triple-slit experiment" to see if such an experiment could result in finding a good analogy for the "Trinity thing".  I couldn't believe that such an experiment existed but the powers of this Trinitarian God really making it hard for anyone to come up with the perfect analogy for his nature.  This article states:

"Although it is easy to add a third slit to the double-slit experiment, it has been more challenging to do it in a way that allows the precise measurements needed to check the validity of quantum mechanics."

Link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19215-tripleslit-experiment-confirms-reality-is-quantum.html#.Uq5x_Y1Y41A

In addition, "The result was a wavy interference pattern that matched the predictions of Born's rule to within the experiment's error margin of 1 per cent."  I think this God of the bible really wants the understanding of himself to remain a mystery that no human analogy can capture. 

This ambiguous doctrine of the "Trinity thing" remains contradictory to me which should not be the case for the God of the bible who doesn't wish "any to perish" (2 Peter 3:9).  I have a hard time believing that any God would make his nature out to be a squared circle. 

And the Christian God would have to be a MASSIVE TURD if he would make believing in a contradiction a requirement for salvation.  I guess it is however one wants to interpret John 8:24 since I believe this is the only verse that makes this belief a requirement for salvation.  Even if it is just a requirement to believe in at least a binity from the correct understanding of John 8:24, I believe the Christian God is a MASSIVE TURD for making this a requirement for salvation.  Especially since it is such an ambiguous verse and can be interpreted differently.  John 8:24 is a verse that deals with salvation and if even one verse about salvation can be interpreted differently--the conclusion is that the doctrine of salvation is unclear.  And who wants to go swimming in the pool of salvation if there is a MASSIVE TURD at the bottom.

I did think of an analogy that (I believe) captures the true essence and nature of the Trinitarian God.  Although my analogy is faulty (as all analogies are), my analogy has all the ingredients that make up the formula for the Trinity. My analogy really brings out the fact that the three "persons" have the same beginning, are co-equal, and are of one essence:

The trinity is like somebody who eats a healthy midnight snack which consists of corn, carrots, and cauliflower. These are all co-equal in that they are all vegetables. In addition, they all have the same beginning in that all three vegetables begin with the letter "c". The next morning the individual wakes up and takes a dump and one MASSIVE TURD comes out. The one turd consists of all three vegetables and all three vegetables make up the one turd. All three vegetables, although separate vegetables, are of one essence in the turd. Thus, you can see that my analogy really brings out the formula of the trinity in that all three entities have the same beginning, are co-equal, and are of one substance. Thus, the trinity can be defined as three separate entities that make up one MASSIVE TURD.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 16, 2013, 02:04:44 AM
Since the question has turned to salvation... No almost everything we discuss on this whole site is not a requirement to believe. Rather road blocks for the wise.

If you Believe (i) you are a sinner in need of a savior. and (ii) That Jesus died for you. Then That his blood will wash you and cover you. ThenThat your sins may be forgiven. and through this unselfish act you can be made right with God and be saved. Christians such as I believe That He rose again on the third day and defeated death. This ability to have your sins removed It's is a free gift. He did all the work for you me. All you have I had to do is was accept it.

Harbinger77,
This post was, in its original form, reported as "preaching" which is against the rules. However, it is rare that WWGHA receives such a definition of "Salvation" and therefore I have allowed the post to stand but in an amended form: it is now "information" supported by personal experience.

I have left as much of the original as possible and therefore the punctuation and capitalisation may seem strange. I hope nothing of importance has been lost.

Please try and avoid anything that might be seen as proselytising.

GB Mod


Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Jag on December 16, 2013, 02:14:26 AM
Believe you are a sinner in need of a savior.
Why would I take your word for this? I'm going to skip everything else you said and just focus on this for now. Why should I believe that I'm a sinner in need of salvation?

Edited to add: I just noticed how late it is here. No more from me tonight, I'll check back tomorrow.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Patrick Henry on December 16, 2013, 03:43:48 AM
Patrick Henry,

1. Yes, evidence for the Christian Faith ought to be a new thread so go ahead and start one and I'll be there to discuss.

2. As far as belief in the Trinity is concerned, whilst it is true that the doctrine can find support in biblical texts - though I think the key ones are rather later that the gospel writings - the problem is that the texts equally support other explanations and it is hard to separate out one from another. So, for example

Adoptionsism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism)
Jesus adopted as his son by god either at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.

Sabellianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism) is the idea that the separate characters of the Trinity are, in reality different aspects of the one god.

Arianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism) the idea that Jesus, though unique was still part of creation.

The thing about these, and loads more, is that they work with the bible texts as explanations and can only be satisfactorily declared heresies after one of the ideas is accepted. in any if the three I present above, things become much more straightforward than the trinitarian approach and, remember, the church has felt the need to call it a mystery (meaning we don't understand it either) so that it doesn't explain much at all.

It is a mystery but that doesn't surprise me coming from a Being much higher than myself.  I would expect some mystery.  Certainly doesn't get in the way of belief.  Though fun and important to discuss.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Anfauglir on December 16, 2013, 04:53:01 AM
Believe you are a sinner in need of a savior. That Jesus died for you. That his blood will wash you and cover you. That your sins may be forgiven. through this unselfish act you can be made right with God and be saved. That He rose again on the third day and defeated death.

But as Jag says: WHY should I believe that?

I have a Jewish friend who is just as firm that I should believe what he says is true - that this "Jesus" you talk about certainly did not die for me sins, likely never even existed.

I also have a Muslim friend who will tell me that while Jesus existed, he was a prophet, not god.

So why should I just believe everything you say, without any evidence whatsoever?
It's a free gift. He did all the work for you. All you have to do is accept it.

Really?  Cool!  I accept.

I'm saved now, right?  I don't have to do ANYTHING else?

Or are there indeed some strings and conditions to this "free gift"?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Graybeard on December 16, 2013, 06:50:15 AM
Since the question has turned to salvation... No almost everything we discuss on this whole site is not a requirement to believe. Rather road blocks for the wise.

Believe you are a sinner in need of a savior. That Jesus died for you. That his blood will wash you and cover you. That your sins may be forgiven. through this unselfish act you can be made right with God and be saved. That He rose again on the third day and defeated death. It's a free gift. He did all the work for you. All you have to do is accept it.

Of course that is what you say and you must be aware that this is the same as my telling you about how to cure the disease, "Flakey Hoof" in unicorns. As there is nothing to support the idea of their being unicorns, the disease has nothing to to be a disease of.

All this above also rest on several other assumptions and one inconsistency.

The main inconsistency is that God The Father sacrifices God the Son to... to whom? -> In the OT, there are many instances of animals being sacrificed to Yahweh: You have led an imperfect life, you give something of yours to Yahweh, and Yahweh forgives you - The Cosmic protection racket.

But here, who owned the sacrifice to start with and in whose honour is the sacrifice? Did God the Father (Yahweh) "own" Jesus? Did Yahweh create Jesus, "before the world began" or was there always a Yahweh, a Jesus and "The Holy Spirit" who were separate and independent?.

Once we have decided that, we have to decide: "In whose honour was the sacrifice?" Did Yahweh make a sacrifice to "mankind"? How strange... this is totally out of character. If so, Yahweh was asking mankind to "do Him a favour."

The next is "If I sacrifice my sheep to Yahweh, may I then eat the sheep?" If so, I don't seem to have lost much, so it really isn't a sacrifice, is it? In the same way, "If Yahweh gets Jesus back in heaven, has Yahweh actually lost anything?" After all, Jesus was said to be in heaven since before Creation, and will be there for Eternity, so 30 or so years don't seem very important, do they?

Finally, in the case of Jesus, He must have known He was going to heaven, so anything that happened to Him on Earth, really did not matter, did it? Look at this:

1. My teeth are fine -> Jesus lives in Heaven
2. One of my teeth starts hurting -> Jesus comes to Earth to tell us something is wrong. He has a bad time.
3. The dentist fills the tooth but it is painful -> Jesus is crucified
4. My teeth are fine. -> Jesus is back in heaven.

So can you have one more attempt at explaining to us how all this "Salvation" works?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 16, 2013, 07:18:10 AM
The whole thing is rather like nailing jelly to the ceiling! The fact is, the whole story will have different interpretation on it depending of the part of Christendom Harbinger comes from. So, a question first -

Harbinger, what denomination do you belong to? This is important if we are to understand wher you thinking comes from. Thanks

The basics are simple enough - everything that is a sin (i.e the a priest has declared to be a sin) breaks to relationship of the person with god. To put it right, the person has to do certain things that might include the sacrifice of an animal for example. (Think of Catholics today - confession, absolution and performing various prayers tec.)

When Jesus was killed and the disciples thought they had seen him later, they realised that there was the replication of the process of sacrifice to clear sin and used that model to explain the death of Jesus which was, otherwise, just another killing by the Romans. I'm not sure that the people who came up with this were the ones who thought Jesus was divine, in which case it makes more sense. Paul talks about the ';new Adam' - sinless man to put right the sins of the first Adam. That makes sense, at least in the 1st century

Now, today, it makes a lot less sense because we have the problem of the Trinity - Jesus being part of the godhead and thus sacrificing himself to himself etc. Thus Christians must have to put some of this stuff out of mind to take on salvation. The one thing that puzzles me is, though, why did anyone have to die? All that is needed is the god and a penitent sinner and it can be all sorted out in prayer.I'd love to know the answer to that one.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 16, 2013, 09:00:08 AM
 When I type out a msg and click preview it's all there. when I click post, my response deletes and the quote is posted alone. To my knowledge, your tutorial doesn't cover this issue.

I would also add because of this I have been double checking the post and editing as needed. unless these posts went back a while I am unaware of any blank posts.

I'll get to you salvation questions later.. I have to go to work now.. all good questions though.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 16, 2013, 11:34:18 AM
Since the question has turned to salvation... No almost everything we discuss on this whole site is not a requirement to believe. Rather road blocks for the wise.

If you Believe (i) you are a sinner in need of a savior. and (ii) That Jesus died for you. Then That his blood will wash you and cover you. ThenThat your sins may be forgiven. and through this unselfish act you can be made right with God and be saved. Christians such as I believe That He rose again on the third day and defeated death. This ability to have your sins removed It's is a free gift. He did all the work for you me. All you have I had to do is was accept it.



Many Christian commentators would disagree with you.  They would say that believing Jesus is Yahweh IS A REQUIREMENT and here are a few commentaries on John 8:24 you can look at: 

Matthew Henry:  "He had said, You shall die in your sins, and here he stand to it: "Therefore I said, You shall die in your sins, because you are from beneath;' and he gives this further reason for it, If you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sins, v. 24. See here, (1.) What we are required to believe: that I am he, hoti egoµ eimi-that I am, which is one of God's names, Ex. 3:14.

John Wesley: "8:24 If ye believe not that I AM - Here (as in John 8:58) our Lord claims the Divine name, I AM, Exod 3:14. But the Jews, as if he had stopped short, and not finished the sentence, answered, Who art thou?"

Chuck Smith: "Jesus is actually using the name of God, "I AM." The word "he" was inserted by the translators (Exodus 3:14; John 8:58)."

David Guzik:  "If you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins: Jesus called them to believe that I am. The "He" is rightly in italics and added by the translators. The title "I am" is a claim to deity, and if the Pharisees will be saved from dying in their sins, they must believe in Jesus and in who He really is - God the Son."

John MacArthur: "The word "He" is not part of the original statement.  Jesus' words were not constructed normally but were influenced by OT Heb. usage.  It is an absolute usage meaning "I AM" and has immense theological significance.  The reference may be to both Ex 3:14 where the Lord declared His name as "I AM" and to Is 40-55 where the phrase "I am" occurs repeatedly.  In this, Jesus referred to himself as the God (Yahweh-the Lord) of the OT, and directly claimed full deity for Himself."



Now I'm sure you could find many commentators/Christians who would agree with your stance on this requirement in John 8:24 but that is my whole point.  If one verse concerning salvation can be interpretated differently amongst Christians then the doctrine of salvation is deemed unclear.  And like I said, who would want to go swimming in the Christian pool of salvation with even one MASSIVE TURD in it?

Now who should I believe?  Harbinger77 or Matthew Henry, John Wesley, Chuck Smith, David Guzik and John MacArthur?  You say that it IS NOT a requirement for one to believe that Jesus is Yahweh (I AM) and these other Christian commentators say that IT IS a requirement to believe that Jesus is Yahweh unless I will "die in my sins".  Who's gospel is right?

Who should I believe is "accursed" according to Paul (Gal. 1:9)?  Who is preaching to me a contrary gospel to Paul's gospel?  Do you have a good defense as to why these popular commentators might be accursed in Paul's eyes?  Why should the "I AM" not be taken as a title in John 8:24?  Please, "make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).  What is your "hope" that your gospel is right?

P.S.  Isn't it unfortunate and frustrating that the bible calls this faith "the hope" and not "the assurance"?  I know when I leave a doctor's office I want the doctor to say, "I am assured you will get better" --- Not "I hope you get better". 



Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 16, 2013, 02:47:45 PM

It's a free gift. He did all the work for you. All you have to do is accept it.

Really?  Cool!  I accept.

I'm saved now, right?  I don't have to do ANYTHING else?

Or are there indeed some strings and conditions to this "free gift"?

Some definitions of "free" (Webster's): 
                                1. "Not burdened by obligations or debts"
                                2. "With no cost or charge"
                                3. "exempt from duties"
                                4. "clear of obstructions"

For a skeptic like me, it could not be considered a "free gift" like Harbinger77 says.  It would take major WORK for me to believe that the story of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is true.  There are too many "obstructions".  I see nothing supernatural around me and all I am given in this 21st century is a contradictory "word of God".

I am given a contradictory genealogy of Jesus (compare Matt. 1 and Luke 3). I am given a contradictory time of death from these supposed eyewitnesses (compare Mark 15:25 with John 19:14). I am given a contradictory day of death from these supposed eye witnesses among many other contradictions. Did Jesus die on the afternoon on the day before the Passover meal (Jn. 18:28, 19;24) or the mid-morning on the day after the Passover meal (Mk. 14:12, 15:25)?  And I'm supposed to believe that these authors were eye-witnesses?

Tis' the season.  I put Harbinger77's gospel to a classic Christmas song.  Now his gospel might be more catchy to non-believer's since it can be put to a Jingle:


You better watch out, repent if you lie;
Believe you are a sinner I'm telling you why.
Jesus Christ is coming to town.

He knows when you are sinning,
You can avoid the fiery lake;
Just believe that Jesus died for you
and you'll be in heaven through your wake.

Oooooh, you better watch out,
In your sins you will die,
accept this free gift I'm telling you why.
Jesus Christ is coming to town!
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jdawg70 on December 16, 2013, 03:04:01 PM
Patrick Henry,

1. Yes, evidence for the Christian Faith ought to be a new thread so go ahead and start one and I'll be there to discuss.

2. As far as belief in the Trinity is concerned, whilst it is true that the doctrine can find support in biblical texts - though I think the key ones are rather later that the gospel writings - the problem is that the texts equally support other explanations and it is hard to separate out one from another. So, for example

Adoptionsism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism)
Jesus adopted as his son by god either at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.

Sabellianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism) is the idea that the separate characters of the Trinity are, in reality different aspects of the one god.

Arianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism) the idea that Jesus, though unique was still part of creation.

The thing about these, and loads more, is that they work with the bible texts as explanations and can only be satisfactorily declared heresies after one of the ideas is accepted. in any if the three I present above, things become much more straightforward than the trinitarian approach and, remember, the church has felt the need to call it a mystery (meaning we don't understand it either) so that it doesn't explain much at all.

It is a mystery but that doesn't surprise me coming from a Being much higher than myself.  I would expect some mystery.  Certainly doesn't get in the way of belief.  Though fun and important to discuss.
Out of curiosity, what would get in the way of belief?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 16, 2013, 10:38:20 PM
The whole thing is rather like nailing jelly to the ceiling! The fact is, the whole story will have different interpretation on it depending of the part of Christendom Harbinger comes from. So, a question first -

Harbinger, what denomination do you belong to? This is important if we are to understand wher you thinking comes from. Thanks

The basics are simple enough - everything that is a sin (i.e the a priest has declared to be a sin) breaks to relationship of the person with god. To put it right, the person has to do certain things that might include the sacrifice of an animal for example. (Think of Catholics today - confession, absolution and performing various prayers tec.)

When Jesus was killed and the disciples thought they had seen him later, they realised that there was the replication of the process of sacrifice to clear sin and used that model to explain the death of Jesus which was, otherwise, just another killing by the Romans. I'm not sure that the people who came up with this were the ones who thought Jesus was divine, in which case it makes more sense. Paul talks about the ';new Adam' - sinless man to put right the sins of the first Adam. That makes sense, at least in the 1st century

Now, today, it makes a lot less sense because we have the problem of the Trinity - Jesus being part of the godhead and thus sacrificing himself to himself etc. Thus Christians must have to put some of this stuff out of mind to take on salvation. The one thing that puzzles me is, though, why did anyone have to die? All that is needed is the god and a penitent sinner and it can be all sorted out in prayer. I'd love to know the answer to that one.

 I agree that knowing a persons denomination can tell quite a bit of their theology in one word. However, you should never assume things.

I claim no denomination. I refer to myself as simply Jesus freak sometimes I throw in narrow minded, Bigoted, Bible thumpin, Gospel preachin, Jesus freak! I stole some of that from a Baptist preacher I like. Most of that is for comedic effect though. Quite honestly, and I have a few ideas as to why, but I would argue with any church doctrine I've ever read. Therefore, I can claim no denomination. I guess for your own knowledge I am fundamentalist and slightly charismatic.

your second question, sins can only be forgiven by blood. Even the Jews knew that. Now days they have no temple so they lie to themselves and say sin may be forgiven by prayer.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 17, 2013, 12:30:33 AM

your second question, sins can only be forgiven by blood. Even the Jews knew that. Now days they have no temple so they lie to themselves and say sin may be forgiven by prayer.

You mean, THE BIBLE LIES TO THE JEWS and says sin may be forgiven by prayer?  In other words there is a contradiction in the bible concerning the fact that "sins can only be forgiven by blood".  2 Chronicles 7:13-14 states:

     "If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and PRAY and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, WILL FORGIVE THEIR SIN and will hear their land."

I thought you said "sins could only be forgiven by blood" and Jews are lying to themselves by thinking that sins might be forgiven by prayer.  Where is the blood in 2 Chronicles 7:13-14?
 

This might be the contradictory verse you are referring to.  Leviticus 17:11 states:

     "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement". 

It seems like all you are doing here is agreeing with one side of a contradiction. 


Option 1.  These are different OT authors writing at different times with different ideas on forgiveness of sins.

Option 2.  OT authors were devious and just made this stuff up.

Option 3.  OT authors were delusional enough to think that God was talking through them.

Option 4.  Sins are forgiven through blood (Lev. 17:11).

Option 5.  Sins are forgiven through 1. humbling themselves, 2. praying, 3. seeking God's face and 4. turning from wicked ways (2 Chron. 7:13-14)

Option 6.  God's teaching on forgiveness evolved from the times of the writing of Leviticus to the times of the wrinting of 2 Chronicles. 

Option 7.  Harmonizing this contradiction by mashing option 4 and 5 together.  This makes a total of 5 requirements (that I know of) for sins being forgiven in the Old Testament.



I would say that option 7 is entirely implausible because I find it unlikely that the God that "inspired" this bible would leave out any requirement for the forgiveness of sins either in Leviticus 17 or in 2 Chron. 7.  Some of these options could overlap but I will know here in a second what the correct answer is.  I could have possibly left out an option but I just bought the newest version of the Christian apologetic survey computer and the computer will let me know if I left out a viable option according to the majority view of Christian apologetics.

Let me plug these options into my Christian apologetic survey computer and see what option is the most plausible.

The Christian apologetic survey saaaaaaaaayys............Option number 7.  Dang it, I'm wrong again.  I should have known it was the option that I found least plausible.  My excuse is that I am spiritually appraised (1 Cor. 2) and the "God of this world" is blinding my mind (2 Cor. 4).

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Patrick Henry on December 17, 2013, 12:42:55 AM

Welcome Patrick Henry!

All analogies concerning the Trinity fail in my opinion and I would say it is impossible to relate the Trinity to things that you see here on earth.  Creating an analogy for the Trinity is impossible from a human perspective because it is contradictory.  It would be like trying to come up with an analogy for a squared circle. .......  It is not logical and extremely contradictory......

I have a question for you or any other Christian on this forum.  It is popularly interpreted that Jesus is the great "I AM" in John 8:58.  If I want to become a Christian do I have to believe that Jesus is the great "I AM" referred to in Exodus 3:14?...................Should I interpret the "I AM" as a just a verb or a definite title in John 8:24?
Do I have to believe Jesus is the "I AM" in Exodus 3:14 in order to be saved and not "die in my sins"?  Is believing this a requirement for salvation?

P.S. Just for your information, the name "God" DOES NOT just "refer to one name given to three persons who are Father, Son, and Spirit".  Satan (I think) is called "God" (2 Cor. 4:4), Angels are called "Gods" (compare Heb. 2:7 to Psa. 8:5).  In addition, people (judges and rulers) are called "Gods" (Psa. 82:6) and this Psalm was the scripture that Jesus used to correct the wrong understanding that he was making himself out to be God in John 10:33-36.  The word "God" can be legitimately used in the bible to refer to others than "God" himself.

Sorry I messed up your quote......
I relate the trinity to things here on earth as only something to try and attach to for understanding. I believe that clues or reflections of other dimensions are a possibility.  It's like a two dimensional creature (if you know the flatlander concept) trying to understand a three dimensional creature.  It is impossible to completely understand, but clues or reflections of other dimensions can provide a kind of evidence. 
I think that "I AM" is a title with an understanding that it means God has always existed.  It would seem important to understand that for a clear belief in God.  Jesus thought it was important that He be understood in that way.  Since He announced it.
I didn't take the time to look at the original Greek or Hebrew for the words used when calling satan god, or rulers gods.  It's clear when reading those scriptures in their context that they are gods with a little "g" and not God Himself or equated to God at all.  I think actually that Jesus was not denying what He claimed but actually reiterated it again in John 10:38......I am in the Father and the Father is in me.  It certainly made the Jewish leaders angry.  - Patrick
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 17, 2013, 01:37:34 AM
Learn to quote please...

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Graybeard on December 17, 2013, 10:55:33 AM

I claim no denomination. [...] I would argue with any church doctrine I've ever read.

You are not alone in this. If you ask 1,000 Christians which parts of the Bible they agree with and which they think are wrong for today's society, they all have their own opinion. If you then ask them how they understand various passages of the Bible, you would probably get 1,000 different answers.

You see, it is not just religion, it is everyone who learns a philosophy has their own way of interpreting it. Here's an experiment you can do: Ask a few folk about why murder rates are falling in the US. Let them talk for a while.

You will find that everyone has their own opinion that differs in some way from everyone else's.

This should tell you something about religious belief.

I see that you are strong on telling us such things as "only blood can forgive sins" which is quite untrue (as Andy pointed out)... and yet you say it! If I wanted proof that you have invented a religion, I would have it there, wouldn't I?

But again you are not alone. Every religious person invents their own religion: they invent their own god. Their belief is no more than "Fan-Fiction."

The questions that interests me most are (i) "Why do you feel the need to say the things you do?" (ii) "What do you get from saying these things?"
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 17, 2013, 11:28:15 AM

Sorry I messed up your quote......
I relate the trinity to things here on earth as only something to try and attach to for understanding. I believe that clues or reflections of other dimensions are a possibility.  It's like a two dimensional creature (if you know the flatlander concept) trying to understand a three dimensional creature.  It is impossible to completely understand, but clues or reflections of other dimensions can provide a kind of evidence. 

Ah, the chance of actual evidence of a god? Might we be able, at least in principle, to detect god in some way? If we could do that we would not even have this forum any more!

Quote
I think that "I AM" is a title with an understanding that it means God has always existed.  It would seem important to understand that for a clear belief in God.  Jesus thought it was important that He be understood in that way.  Since He announced it.
I didn't take the time to look at the original Greek or Hebrew for the words used when calling satan god, or rulers gods.  It's clear when reading those scriptures in their context that they are gods with a little "g" and not God Himself or equated to God at all.  I think actually that Jesus was not denying what He claimed but actually reiterated it again in John 10:38......I am in the Father and the Father is in me.  It certainly made the Jewish leaders angry.  - Patrick

Playing with names and titles of Jesus and god was quite an academic industry a while ago but interest has turned in other directions since. There's only so much one can learn about anything just from titles.

I think the quote you want for Jesus is, "Before Abraham was I am"[1] and that certainly looks like a quote of the tetragrammaton. personally, I would have some doubts about the authenticity of the phrase, though, as I can't imagine people taking that statement seriously, even if it was true.

So far as capital letters are concerned, the whole of the Greek manuscripts, the oldest ones, are written in all-capitals (uncials) and without spaces between the letters (see here P45 (https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=manuscript+p45&tbm=isch&source=iu&imgil=IOwsbfmQ5tgSyM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcQwx3mqI-1S-9X4CTegiKduM39y1h6Hex0j5W0W9jidFBhTxVv-%253B600%253B287%253B5mWdL0osGGYoAM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fen.wikipedia.org%25252Fwiki%25252FPapyrus_45&sa=X&ei=5nqwUrHCCuWR7AbhlYDYDw&ved=0CE0Q9QEwBA&biw=1264&bih=1030#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=0SRFbbHPnJC4FM%3A%3B9Vmclibhmd3X8M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252F8%252F8f%252FP45_Marc_8.35-9.1.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcommons.wikimedia.org%252Fwiki%252FFile%253AP45_Marc_8.35-9.1.jpg%3B640%3B280)). Later manuscripts started to use lower case letters as well and scribes applied capital letters for words that seemed to need them. Naturally, those who provide translations of the bible for Christians use a capital 'g' for god to match the requirements of that religion.
 1. John 8:58
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on December 17, 2013, 02:16:24 PM
Same with the Quran-- Arabic was like Hebrew, a written language without upper and lower case, or even vowels as we think of them in English. There are words that can mean one thing if written with certain vowels and something else if written differently.

Like, there is such a big difference between the meanings of sick, sack, sock and suck that you can't just wave away one little vowel change as insignificant. Pick one vowel over the others and you have a completely different sentence:

"I'm sorry to tell you, but your brother made me sick."
"I'm sorry to tell you, but your brother made me suck."

"Santa brings gifts in his magic sack."
"Santa brings gifts in his magic sock."


Multiply that by thousands of words..... and you have the King James Bible. No wonder so many passages read like medieval gibberish. They are medieval gibberish![1]

Hard to imagine there wasn't also a leeeettle leeway in the interpretations as people transcribed the manuscripts. Some Roman Empire monk in the 400's with a difficult passage of Hebrew:

"Of course god would not say that there were other gods equivalent in power and majesty to him. He had to be talking about something else when he said 'we' and 'us'. Let's see, let's see. Oh, I got it! He meant himself, his son and his spirit! See, now, this makes perfect sense in light of what we now understand about god's triune nature..."

And in a stroke of his quill, he erases a hundred rounds of debates and a few hundred banished heretics and a few thousand people killed over the nature of god. Fast forward 1600 years, and people will read what the monk wrote, translated into Shakespearean English (a bastard language made up of low German and high French that the monk never even heard of) and declare it the unchanged word of god, breathed straight from his own holy lips. &)
 1. I mean, parables, metaphors, symbolism too profound for mere mortals to understand....
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 17, 2013, 03:32:52 PM

Sorry I messed up your quote......

That's O.K.   The tutorial really helped me out (in the Main Discussion Zone) when I started on this forum.  It took me about 10 times (posts) before I figured it out.

I relate the trinity to things here on earth as only something to try and attach to for understanding. I believe that clues or reflections of other dimensions are a possibility.  It's like a two dimensional creature (if you know the flatlander concept) trying to understand a three dimensional creature.  It is impossible to completely understand, but clues or reflections of other dimensions can provide a kind of evidence.
 

The reason why you can't relate the trinity to things here on earth is because we don't have any "squared circles" here in this "dimension" on earth.  The reason why the doctrine of the trinity is impossible to completely understand is because it is contradictory.  For instance, if you think Jesus is claiming to be the "I AM" (Yahweh) then Jesus is claiming that there is no God besides him (Is. 44:6-8).  And then the resurrected Jesus says in John 20:17 that He has a God.  This is a contradiction. 

It's better, in my opinion, to not relate the trinity to things on earth because we don't have contradictions like this in the "real world".  It's better to just throw out the "trump" card and say that the Trinity is a mystery.

Even the titles in the trinity contradict with the definition of the trinity.  The title SON implies that he was descended from his FATHER.  It would follow then that the Father and Son can't be co-eternal like the definition of the trinity suggests.  Another contradiction!  If God wanted me to think that the Father and Son were co-eternal with one another, why would he call the second person of the trinity the Son which means "a descendent"?  Is God just messing with the minds of people?  Or maybe people got the concept of the nature of the Godhead wrong.  Or another thought is maybe this God doesn't even exist.     

I think that "I AM" is a title with an understanding that it means God has always existed.  It would seem important to understand that for a clear belief in God.  Jesus thought it was important that He be understood in that way.  Since He announced it.

There is very convincing evidence out there (for an open mind) that Jesus was not claiming the title of "I AM" in John 8:58.  There is an excellent book out called, "Truth in Translation" by Jason David BeDuhn.  I will type out the two pages of his book for you that makes a convincing counter-argument so you don't have to buy the book.  He looks into the Greek text and "textually" makes a great case in my opinion.  However, I don't want to take the time if you are not interested in the opposing view.  Just let me know. 

In addition, there is some evidence that a couple of early Church Fathers didn't think Jesus was claiming the title of Yahweh in John 8:58.

Furthermore, the evidence you have to say that Jesus was claiming the divine name ("I am") in John 8:58 is only circumstantial as the Jews picked up stones to stone him.  A counter-argument could be that Jesus was obviously not claiming the divine name and the Jews picked up stones to stone him for another reason besides claiming the divine name because Jesus said "I am" in John 8:24 and the Jews responded by saying, "Who are you" in v. 25.  Didn't Jesus just tell the Jews he was God?  The Jews ask a really dumb question here in John 8:25 unless Jesus wasn't claiming the divine name.   

I didn't take the time to look at the original Greek or Hebrew for the words used when calling satan god, or rulers gods.

I did the homework for you.  Links:

2 Cor. 4:4 (theos-god): http://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_corinthians/4-4.htm

Psalm 8:5 (me-elohim - god): http://biblehub.com/hebrew/meelohim_430.htm

Psalm 82:6 (elohim - god(s)): http://biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/82-6.htm

CONCLUSION:  You cannot say the name "God" in the bible just refers to one name given to three persons who are Father, Son, and Spirit.

It's clear when reading those scriptures in their context that they are gods with a little "g" and not God Himself or equated to God at all. 

Clear maybe to you.  But you have a presupposition that the bible only reveals a trinity.  For example: after reading 2 Cor. 4:4, how could you prove me wrong that this "God" being mentioned here (whoever he/she is) shouldn't be included in the Godhead.  For instance, I could actually make an argument that the bible reveals a quadrinity.  My argument would be, "Just because this 'God' is only mentioned once should not mean that we should take he/she/it out of the Godhead."  Yes, the forth person of the quadrinity is a major jerk for taking away people's free will by "blinding the minds of the unbelieving" but I would say that this is nothing different than the "God" of the old testament "hardening Pharaoh's heart" (Ex. 10:27). 

Sorry, I take issue when people say the words "clear" and "scripture" in the same sentence.  If I was God and inspired a book I would definitely only use the titles for God (Hebrew/Greek or otherwise) to represent myself.  I would definitely make humans invent different words to mean gods with a little "g" to avoid confusion.  If I did allow gods with a little "g" to share the same name as me then I would consider myself a God of confusion.  And then I would consider myself a jerk if I actually allowed gods with a little "g" to share the same name as me to cause confusion and then allow humans to write in my inspired word that I am "not a God of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33). 

I think actually that Jesus was not denying what He claimed but actually reiterated it again in John 10:38......I am in the Father and the Father is in me.  It certainly made the Jewish leaders angry.  - Patrick

I don't by it!  If Jesus reiterated the fact that he was making himself out to be God then you are going to have to ask yourself, "Why all the rhetoric from John 10:34 to 10:37.  All this only adds to confusion.  Jesus should have just said, "Damn right I'm God" in verse 34.  I mean, according to your view Jesus already claimed the divine name ("I am") way back in Chapter 8 of John.  Why all this confusion?  First you should ask yourself why the Jews asked, "How long will you keep us in suspense?  If you are the Christ, tell us plainly" (John 10:24).  What a stupid question!  The Jews already knew that Jesus claimed to be the "I am" in chapter 8 right?  Could it be that Jesus was correcting the claim of making himself out to be the one true God in verses 34-37?  This verse should give it away: "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die, because He made Himself out to be the SON OF GOD" (John 19:7).   

In addition, I'm not buying your evidence that Jesus is claiming to be God by saying "the Father is in Me, and I in the Father".  The same language is used in Chapter 17 of John:

1.)"...that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in me and I in You, that they also may be in Us..."(v. 21).

2.)"...I in them and You in me..." (v. 23)

3.)"...the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them." (v. 26)

Using your logic and interpreting John 10:38 the way you do, I would have to also believe that Christians can be ONE BEING with God since the same language is used in chapter 17.

Furthermore, you can't definitely say that the Jews were angry in 10:39 because Jesus was claiming to be the one true God.  The text doesn't say why the Jews wanted to seize Jesus in v. 39 after he corrected the claim of making himself out to be God.  There are many other options.  To name a few: 

1.) Maybe the Jews misunderstood Jesus' ambiguous language and mistakingly thought Jesus was making himself out to be God.

2.) They wanted to seize Jesus because they were envious (Matt. 27:18)

3.) The Jews thought their nation would perish because this one person could possibly start a revolution and piss off the Romans. (John 11:50)

4.) They wanted to seize Jesus because although he corrected the claim of being the one true God, He admitted to being the Son of God in 10:36 (John 19:7)

5.) They wanted to seize Jesus because they thought Jesus was delusional, smug, and a jerk.


One last thing.  The one thing I always had a hard time understanding is the fact that the writer of the gospel of Mark left out any evidence that Jesus was actually one being with his father.  Don't you think this is an important piece of information to leave out of a gospel? 



   
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 17, 2013, 03:52:29 PM

One last thing.  The one thing I always had a hard time understanding is the fact that the writer of the gospel of Mark left out any evidence that Jesus was actually one being with his father.  Don't you think this is an important piece of information to leave out of a gospel? 
 

This is a good point. Mark seems to have been the model gospel that the other evangelists used in composing their own. Arguably, if it isn't in Mark we ought to suspect it of being an invention by its author. Yes, I know, Matthew Luke and John hand the 'special sources' - but what does that mean? It means these are the bits of the gospels that have no parallels in the other gospels. What it doesn't mean is that we have located the earlier texts they used.

While you are at it, Matthew, Mark and Luke are claimed to have used a single source for the parts of their gospels when they all agree - a source called Q (quelle - German, source). People have even published the text of this source and even the layers they claim to find in it (three apparently!) Yet, for this material , we have nothing positive to suggest a source - only common passages. So we could be in a position (I think we are) where Mark is the base text that the others take and adorm and if we take the order of Matthew, Luke and John, we can see the adornments grow with time - a sure sign that the materil is being created and not passed down from sources.

I mean, look at those splendid Birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. Here's a question for you, Patrick. Where wre Mary and Joseph living before the birth of Jesus and did they have to make a journey before Jesus was born?

The point here is that basic facts ought to agree and if they don't one has a right to be suspicious about the material being written. This is why I am very suspicious about the whole NT and am not at all convinced that we know much about what Jesus actually said as distinct from what the gospel writers say he said. The 'IAM' bit in John is far to much like his whole view of Jesus which is quite different from Mark. Then again another 15 years theology has deduced more that Mark knewand it is reflected in the texts but whatever, it is invented by the author and not verbatim history.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 17, 2013, 04:14:33 PM

While you are at it, Matthew, Mark and Luke are claimed to have used a single source for the parts of their gospels when they all agree - a source called Q (quelle - German, source). People have even published the text of this source and even the layers they claim to find in it (three apparently!).

I definitely think there was such a document as the "Q source".  I have researched how the NT was put together and there are too many similarities (word for word) in Matthew and Luke.  FYI, The consensus is that the author of Mark did not have access to this Q source.  Only the writers of Matthew and Luke.  Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source 

 
Title: .
Post by: wheels5894 on December 17, 2013, 04:27:56 PM
Mmmmm, Q?

I had better spill the beans on this one a bit. I was taught Greek by a scholar called Michael Goulder. His academic life had been very varied but it included al lot of work on the Q Problem. Broadly, he concludes that Q requires that Luke did not see Matthew. However, Luke has quite a few minor agreements with Matthew - minor agreements as word for word bits of text. Goulder et al contend that the source is Matthew and that Luke copied it. Viper's Brood is a favourite Matthean expression but Luke has it only once - in a supposed Q passage - but if he copied it, the need for Q goes.There are others but it is getting late here so I'll not be looking it up tonight.

The question of evidence is another case against Q. Nowhere is it referenced - no ancient text has a quote from it - it is thought it would be a saying gospel like Thomas but it isn't Thomas. Q is solely a hypothesis for which there is no evidence - like god say!

I studied NT with a Q scholar and the first Xmas I was studying, I got a card from Goulder with the message, 'don't believe what ---- says about Q'. I did push the question quite a bit in class but don't think I got anywhere. The fact is that there is no evidence at all and, of course, there is no evidence for the various special sources either. I tend to think the special sources, especially the passages that suit the time of writing and not the time of Jesus, were composed for the purpose of the particular community where the author was writing.

Title: Re: .
Post by: Andy S. on December 17, 2013, 10:53:08 PM
Mmmmm, Q?

I had better spill the beans on this one a bit. I was taught Greek by a scholar called Michael Goulder. His academic life had been very varied but it included al lot of work on the Q Problem. Broadly, he concludes that Q requires that Luke did not see Matthew. However, Luke has quite a few minor agreements with Matthew - minor agreements as word for word bits of text. Goulder et al contend that the source is Matthew and that Luke copied it. Viper's Brood is a favourite Matthean expression but Luke has it only once - in a supposed Q passage - but if he copied it, the need for Q goes.There are others but it is getting late here so I'll not be looking it up tonight.

The question of evidence is another case against Q. Nowhere is it referenced - no ancient text has a quote from it - it is thought it would be a saying gospel like Thomas but it isn't Thomas. Q is solely a hypothesis for which there is no evidence - like god say!

I studied NT with a Q scholar and the first Xmas I was studying, I got a card from Goulder with the message, 'don't believe what ---- says about Q'. I did push the question quite a bit in class but don't think I got anywhere. The fact is that there is no evidence at all and, of course, there is no evidence for the various special sources either. I tend to think the special sources, especially the passages that suit the time of writing and not the time of Jesus, were composed for the purpose of the particular community where the author was writing.

I disagree with a few things that Michael Goulder claims here but I think we might be getting off topic a bit.  I said, "I definitely think there was such a document as the Q source" but I think that sounds too dogmatic.  I retract and will say that after looking at all the evidence concerning the hypothetical Q source I find it plausible that such a document existed.  There are lots of good articles about the Q source on this website:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html

It has been awhile since I have studied all of this but I found the existence of the Q source to be the most plausible and following in close 2nd is the idea that Matthew was the source that Luke copied as your professor suggested.  I can't remember all the reasons I rejected your professor's hypothesis as most favorable but a couple off the top of my head is that Matthew and Luke have too many differences to conclude that Luke copied from Matthew.  Contradictions in genealogies, birth narratives, and resurrection accounts between Matthew and Luke just to name a few. 

In addition, I agree with you on the order the gospels were written (Mark, Matthew, Luke then John) and agree that there was embellishment as time progressed.  However, I don't see too much embellishment from Matthew to Luke.  In fact, sometimes I see it the other way around in that Matthew is embellishing the account like for instance the zombie apocolypse found only in Matthew (chap. 27).  Why would Luke not want to copy this zombie account into his gospel?  Typical Christian response: "Luke's focus was not on the revealing of the zombies and he didn't find this to be important enough to put in his gospel" :laugh: 

You are right in saying that there is no concrete evidence for the Q source but after investigating Matthew and Luke textually I can see that it is plausible that Matthew and Luke copied off another source ("Q") without copying off one another. 

Furthermore, I would say that the evidence for a Q  source is more convincing to me than the evidence for God even though the comparative analogy was a clever one of yours.  Of course, I can see why you might think I sound crazy.  I probably sound like the Christian who says there is evidence of intelligent design - thus the Christian God exists.

Arguing over this is like arguing over which New Testament textual variant is the closest to the original manuscript.  You can make an argument and say what variation is probably original but you can't be dogmatic because we don't have the original manuscripts.  It is like the intelligent design argument.  If everybody was honest they would say they have no idea what caused the universe.  Agnosticism is why forum's like this thrive.  Sorry if I sounded a bit dogmatic in my last post about the "Q" source.  Honestly, I am agnostic and can only "guess" what is most probable (in my opinion) based on the evidence.   

What I can conclude is that there was plagiarism going on within the gospels and possibly other hypothetical sources.  I come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit did not inspire the texts because the Holy Spirit doesn't exist.  Oh crap, I can't believe I just said that.  I blasphemed the Holy Spirit.  I think I just committed the unforgivable sin.  There goes my plan to live like hell and then accept Jesus on my death bed.         
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 18, 2013, 11:13:37 PM
Hey wheels, I have been thinking about the "Q" source today.  Maybe in a time in my life when I wasn't so skeptical I accepted the "Q" document as being plainly plausible.  However, I have a question for you that you might be able to answer (or maybe a link).   Since you studied under a professor who had knowledge on this subject do you remember how many verses or words were copied WORD FOR WORD from the gospel of Matthew to the gospel of Luke?  Also, how many verses share the EXACT WORDING from the gospel of Matthew and Luke to the gospel of Thomas? 

Throughout my research, I concluded that the "Q" source was primarily a "sayings" source that was plagiarized by Matthew and Luke.  In addition, I think it goes without saying that Matthew and/or Luke plagiarized off of Mark.  But I actually don't think I ever examined the verse count of exact wording between all these gospels to make a "most plausible" conclusion.

Since I don't think there is such thing as the Holy Spirit anymore, I would be really interested in the exact wording of these gospels.  I think examining the "exact wording" verses between Matthew and Luke would somewhat help me in coming to a logical conclusion.  The gospel of Thomas is interesting to me too.  How many "exact" verses or words do these gospels share. 

I appreciate your help. 

Why do I care about all this??????   I don't know.  Maybe God will possibly forgive my sin of blaspheming the holy spirit since I am seeking the truth and the credibility of the gospel accounts. ;D

Maybe we should also consider developing a new thread to discuss topic????  In a way it would be like discussing the existence of God since we would be discussing a hypothetical source that has little evidence.   
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 19, 2013, 05:38:31 AM
Mark Goodacre has taken up the job of arguing against "Q" and his website on the topic is well worth a read. For example, to see Matthew and Luke at work look here (http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/fallacy.htm#2). Here you see Luke just copy the words of Matthew - you really need to read it in Greek to see this but it comes out well enough in English.

I haven't a list of the minor agreements to hand but have a look at the whole site (http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/index.htm) and see what you think.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 20, 2013, 03:37:43 AM
Mark Goodacre has taken up the job of arguing against "Q" and his website on the topic is well worth a read. For example, to see Matthew and Luke at work look here (http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/fallacy.htm#2). Here you see Luke just copy the words of Matthew - you really need to read it in Greek to see this but it comes out well enough in English.

I haven't a list of the minor agreements to hand but have a look at the whole site (http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/index.htm) and see what you think.

Thanks Wheels for the website.  I don't have time to read the whole website as I am extremely busy getting ready for the holidays.  But trust me, I will.  Mark Goodacre's examples (in the website) is exactly what I'm looking for to get a good argument against the existence of the "Q" source.

I don't think Mark had access to "Q" (too many deletions) so my argument against Mark Goodacre's examples would not be what he included in "The explanation".  I would argue (probably unconvincingly) that the preaching of John the Baptist, Jesus' temptation, and the mustard seed were popular stories and the writer of "Q" copied these stories from another sayings source (or vice versa). 

The source that Mark copied these stories off of was not "Q" but another source that wrote these stories down similarly.  Your examples have turned my argument into there being more than one "sayings gospel" other than "Q" that was written prior to Mark's gospel.  Yes, my claim has turned into an argument for more than one hypothetical "sayings gospel" before Mark was written.  I am arguing for more than one "cause" of the synoptic gospels which is analogous to arguing for polytheism.

Do I have scriptural evidence for this?  Mmmmm, well, maybe I do.  Luke 1:1 states, "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us."  I'm going to interpret "many" as more than two (two or more hypothetical gospels and Mark).   

I am arguing for more than one "cause" of the synoptic gospels which is analogous to arguing for polytheism.  What have I gotten myself into?  Speaking of believing in non-existent things without sufficient evidence, Robert Price says, "What a tangled web you weave once you think you can believe".  Isn't that the truth.

I just thought of something.  Another alternative could be that Matthew's and/or Luke's account overlapped (possibly orally) into Mark's account over time and that's why these three popular stories seem to match in some aspects.  Remember we only have the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy... of Mark.  Grrrreat, this thought might keep me up all night thinking.

I do remember one thing that made me so convinced that there was such thing as a "Q" source and that Luke could not have been copying from Matthew.  The evidence is where Luke places some of these word for word ("Q") sayings.  For instance, a popular word for word agreement is when John's disciples are sent to ask Jesus if he is the "expected one" (Matt. ch.11/Luke ch.7).  Matthew places this story after the demands of discipleship (v. 18-22), the stilling of the sea (v. 23-27), the demons are cast into swine (28-34), restoring the life of the official's daughter (18-26), and the sending and instructing of the twelve apostles.

Luke places the word for word agreement of the sending of John's disciples before all these events.  Now I know your response might be that Luke is writing a "consecutive order" (Lk. 1:3) but it seems to me that Matthew was trying to write an orderly account as well.  Matthew never says, "And some time during Jesus' life he did ....".  Matthew specifically tells of Jesus' journies in his life.  For instance, He departed ____ and went into _____ (12:9,13:53 etc.). 

So we have a problem.  If Luke is copying from Matthew then he is saying that the writer of this gospel is an eyewitness (Luke 1:2).  How can he believe that the writer of Matthew is an eyewitness when he gets the order of Jesus' ministry wrong.  Not only that but Luke is going to say that this writer is an eyewitness and then jot down a different genealogy, birth narrative, and resurrection account??? 

Furthermore, if Luke is copying Matthew then he leaves out the killing of all the babies two and under (ch. 2); the calling of the disciples(Ch. 4); Jesus' teaching on being salt and light, murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, retaliation, love (Ch.5); charitable deeds, fasting (ch. 6); Restoring the sight of two blind men, healing a mute - demon possessed man (Ch. 9); The invitation to come to Jesus (ch. 11); The committing of the unpardonable sin, dissing his real mother and brothers (ch. 12); The parables of the wheat and tares, the hidden treasure, the pearl of great price, the dragnet, the householder, the rejection at Nazareth (ch. 13); The recount of the murder of John the Baptist, the walking on water, the healing of many (ch. 14.); The debate over tradition, the healing of the gentile woman's daughter, the feeding of the 4,000 (ch. 15); The debate over a sign from heaven, Jesus calling his disciples faithless idiots (ch. 16); Instruction about taxes (ch. 17); Cutting off evil hands and feet, instruction on a sinning brother, instruction about forgiveness (ch. 18); Instruction about divorce (ch. 19); The parable of the Laborers, instruction about ambition (ch. 20); The cursing of the fig tree, the parable of the two sons (ch. 20); The parable of the Marriage feast, the greatest commandment (ch. 22); The condemnation of the pharisees, the lamentation of Jerusalem (ch. 23); The parable of ten virgins, parable of the talents, judgement of the gentiles (ch. 25); The zombie apocalypse (ch. 27). The appearance of Jesus to the women, the bribery of the soldiers and last, but definitely not least, the great commission (ch. 28).

It is mind boggling to me to think that Luke has Matthew's gospel in his hands and he is going to leave out some of these important things.  And at the same time he is going to say the accounts handed down to him were "by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word".  If he thought the writer of Matthew was an eyewitness, then why leave out so many important details?  How can Luke compile an accurate account and leave out so much?

Honestly, all you have to do is say that I have no evidence of this non-existent thing or things and you win the debate.

One thing I think we can agree on is that the writers of the gospels were delusional.           




 
I wanted to mention something else since Christmas is approaching.  I noticed you know about some of the different views on the nature of Christ in post #39 of this thread.  You mentioned "Adoptionism", "Sabellianism" and "Arianism".  Here's some trivia for you. 

Question: Out of these three views, which view of Christ is the "naughtiest"?

Answer: "Arianism"

At the council of Nicaea, Nicholas of Myra (St. Nick - a.k.a Santa Claus) bitch slapped Arius across the face for his views on the nature of Christ.  I am not kidding.  Trust me, I couldn't make up something this funny.  I will cut and paste from the article and then give you the link at the end.

Noting the attendees of the Council of Nicaea, the article states, "circumstances suggest that Nicholas of Myra attended (his life was the seed of the Santa Claus legends)."

Then under the Arian controversy heading, the article states, "The Arian discussions and debates at the council extended from about May 20, 325, through about June 19.  According to many accounts, debate became so heated that at one point, Arius was struck in the face by Nicholas of Myra, who would later be canonized.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Two things strike me as odd.

1.)  If the nature of Christ is so clear in the bible according to fundamentalist Trinitarians, why did it take almost a month to hammer out the correct nature of Christ.  Shouldn't someone just have pointed to the "I AM" statements in John and say, "This debate is over because it is so clear here in John 8:58 that Jesus is claiming to be God!"  As a skeptic I had to ask myself why wasn't the "I AM" statements clear enough during the time of this council.  After researching, I found some convincing evidence for myself that Athanasius (the catalyst of the budding Trinitarian movement) didn't even think Jesus was claiming to be God by saying "I AM" (Against The Arians - Discourse IV Chap. 20).  I'll poke around and find the link if you are interested.  It's getting late. 

2.)  As you probably know, the Arian controversy didn't end after the council of Nicaea (google Arian controversy).  It is mind boggling to me how Arius could convince people to follow him after people found out that Santa Claus disapproved of his teachings.  WHAT IDIOTS!  DIDN'T THEY KNOW THAT BY FOLLOWING ARIUS THEY WOULDN'T GET ANY CHRISTMAS PRESENTS!!!

I am leaving for a week for the holidays and will be in a remote area with no internet service.  To the three people still viewing this thread (moderators included), I wish you a merry xmas.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL,
AND TO ALL A GOOD FIGHT (with religious family members) 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 20, 2013, 03:54:59 AM
Sorry, I pushed quote instead of modify on last post.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Patrick Henry on December 20, 2013, 03:35:16 PM

The reason why you can't relate the trinity to things here on earth is because we don't have any "squared circles" here in this "dimension" on earth.  The reason why the doctrine of the trinity is impossible to completely understand is because it is contradictory.  For instance, if you think Jesus is claiming to be the "I AM" (Yahweh) then Jesus is claiming that there is no God besides him (Is. 44:6-8).  And then the resurrected Jesus says in John 20:17 that He has a God.  This is a contradiction. 

It's better, in my opinion, to not relate the trinity to things on earth because we don't have contradictions like this in the "real world".  It's better to just throw out the "trump" card and say that the Trinity is a mystery.

Jesus is saying there is no God except Him.  But He also said that "I and the Father are One".  So He isn't contradicting Himself if you understand the trinity is a possibility outside of our earthly dimension. 
 
Even the titles in the trinity contradict with the definition of the trinity.  The title SON implies that he was descended from his FATHER.  It would follow then that the Father and Son can't be co-eternal like the definition of the trinity suggests.  Another contradiction!  If God wanted me to think that the Father and Son were co-eternal with one another, why would he call the second person of the trinity the Son which means "a descendent"?  Is God just messing with the minds of people?  Or maybe people got the concept of the nature of the Godhead wrong.  Or another thought is maybe this God doesn't even exist.     
My guess is that He is called the Son, because He came to earth from heaven and was forever changed.  Before that, He was always with God as it says in John 1.  Christian belief is that Jesus has a resurrected body that is capable of living in heaven and manifesting here on earth as He did in the upper room.  A body that all believers will have someday.
 
There is very convincing evidence out there (for an open mind) that Jesus was not claiming the title of "I AM" in John 8:58.  There is an excellent book out called, "Truth in Translation" by Jason David BeDuhn.  I will type out the two pages of his book for you that makes a convincing counter-argument so you don't have to buy the book.  He looks into the Greek text and "textually" makes a great case in my opinion.  However, I don't want to take the time if you are not interested in the opposing view.  Just let me know.
   
Yes, I'm always interested in the opposing view.  Feel free to send it to me or link it somehow. Thanks
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 20, 2013, 04:01:26 PM


Yes, I'm always interested in the opposing view.  Feel free to send it to me or link it somehow. Thanks

Great Patrick Henry.  I wish I had time to type out the two pages of his book now but my plane leaves in a few hours.  Like I said in my above post, I am going to a remote place without internet service for the holidays.  I will type out his argument when I get back on the 26th.  I found his argument convincing in addition to the evidence of the early Church fathers.  I'll give you that evidence as well.  I want to know what you think of the evidence so maybe I'll PM you when I return to remind you to look at this thread.

I don't think his book is online unless I would definitely link it to you. 

I would also like to address your above arguments/comments as well.  I just don't have time right now.  Merry Christmas!
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 20, 2013, 04:07:43 PM
What's the book and author, Andy. I could try the university library to read it.

Merry Christmas
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Patrick Henry on December 20, 2013, 05:48:26 PM

One last thing.  The one thing I always had a hard time understanding is the fact that the writer of the gospel of Mark left out any evidence that Jesus was actually one being with his father.  Don't you think this is an important piece of information to leave out of a gospel? 
 
 

I mean, look at those splendid Birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. Here's a question for you, Patrick. Where wre Mary and Joseph living before the birth of Jesus and did they have to make a journey before Jesus was born?

The point here is that basic facts ought to agree and if they don't one has a right to be suspicious about the material being written. This is why I am very suspicious about the whole NT and am not at all convinced that we know much about what Jesus actually said as distinct from what the gospel writers say he said. The 'IAM' bit in John is far to much like his whole view of Jesus which is quite different from Mark. Then again another 15 years theology has deduced more that Mark knewand it is reflected in the texts but whatever, it is invented by the author and not verbatim history.
I can't get too wrapped up in every detail that I think should be in the gospels. Each is told from a different perspective and they seem to fit together.
Luke says that Joseph came out of Nazereth and took Mary to go to Bethlehem prior to Jesus birth.  There, they met the shepherds, in a stable.  Matthew says that the Magi came to a house and saw the Child.  Sounds to me like Joseph took Jesus and travelled back to his house in Nazareth, where they met the Magi.   
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 20, 2013, 06:01:24 PM
What's the book and author, Andy. I could try the university library to read it.

Merry Christmas

"Truth in Translation" by Jason David BeDuhn (Chapter 10 - Tampering with Tenses).  It would be great if I didn't have to type out all of his arguments but I'm afraid I might have to when I return home.  Maybe it's online though - I hope so!   Gotta Run!
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on December 20, 2013, 08:15:42 PM

One last thing.  The one thing I always had a hard time understanding is the fact that the writer of the gospel of Mark left out any evidence that Jesus was actually one being with his father.  Don't you think this is an important piece of information to leave out of a gospel? 
 
 

I mean, look at those splendid Birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. Here's a question for you, Patrick. Where wre Mary and Joseph living before the birth of Jesus and did they have to make a journey before Jesus was born?

The point here is that basic facts ought to agree and if they don't one has a right to be suspicious about the material being written. This is why I am very suspicious about the whole NT and am not at all convinced that we know much about what Jesus actually said as distinct from what the gospel writers say he said. The 'IAM' bit in John is far to much like his whole view of Jesus which is quite different from Mark. Then again another 15 years theology has deduced more that Mark knewand it is reflected in the texts but whatever, it is invented by the author and not verbatim history.
I can't get too wrapped up in every detail that I think should be in the gospels. Each is told from a different perspective and they seem to fit together.
Luke says that Joseph came out of Nazereth and took Mary to go to Bethlehem prior to Jesus birth.  There, they met the shepherds, in a stable.  Matthew says that the Magi came to a house and saw the Child.  Sounds to me like Joseph took Jesus and travelled back to his house in Nazareth, where they met the Magi.
Were the guys who wrote the gospels present as eyewitnesses to these events? If not, then how do they know what happened. I am not trying to be tricky here. I really want to know where the stories came from, esp. being these days bombarded with Christmas cheer every where I go. How much of the first noel story is factually documented, as opposed to some sort of urban legend?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 21, 2013, 07:46:23 AM
What's the book and author, Andy. I could try the university library to read it.

Merry Christmas

"Truth in Translation" by Jason David BeDuhn (Chapter 10 - Tampering with Tenses).  It would be great if I didn't have to type out all of his arguments but I'm afraid I might have to when I return home.  Maybe it's online though - I hope so!   Gotta Run!

darn it! Just checked - its not in the library near me. Could you scan the pages rather than type them?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 21, 2013, 08:18:33 AM
I can't get too wrapped up in every detail that I think should be in the gospels. Each is told from a different perspective and they seem to fit together.
Luke says that Joseph came out of Nazereth and took Mary to go to Bethlehem prior to Jesus birth.  There, they met the shepherds, in a stable.  Matthew says that the Magi came to a house and saw the Child.  Sounds to me like Joseph took Jesus and travelled back to his house in Nazareth, where they met the Magi.

No, you can't get too wrapped up in detail because you know that the two stories differ so much that they are hardly about the same thing.

Look, Luke has in mind Nazareth as to where the couple are living whilst Matthew has them in Bethlehem. Nazareth, at the time, was little more than a couple of houses. Now what you call details, harbinger, I call facts that add credibility to the accounts. Detail that is unimportant might be more 'who stood next to who at the crib'.

The fact of Jesus' place of birth is significant too - in a house or in a stable? Surely that is a solid fact to go on? Yet, no, we have two versions. This has to suggest either than one verison is plain wrong or both versions are made up. That the variation is so stark it suggests that these were made up much later than the gospels too.

harbinger, you need to look carefully at the texts and not skim over the stuff. You need a long hard look and decide what is going on when we have two almost completely divergent accounts of the same event. They just can't both be right!
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 21, 2013, 02:54:12 PM
I can't get too wrapped up in every detail that I think should be in the gospels. Each is told from a different perspective and they seem to fit together.
Luke says that Joseph came out of Nazereth and took Mary to go to Bethlehem prior to Jesus birth.  There, they met the shepherds, in a stable.  Matthew says that the Magi came to a house and saw the Child.  Sounds to me like Joseph took Jesus and travelled back to his house in Nazareth, where they met the Magi.

No, you can't get too wrapped up in detail because you know that the two stories differ so much that they are hardly about the same thing.

Look, Luke has in mind Nazareth as to where the couple are living whilst Matthew has them in Bethlehem. Nazareth, at the time, was little more than a couple of houses. Now what you call details, harbinger, I call facts that add credibility to the accounts. Detail that is unimportant might be more 'who stood next to who at the crib'.

The fact of Jesus' place of birth is significant too - in a house or in a stable? Surely that is a solid fact to go on? Yet, no, we have two versions. This has to suggest either than one verison is plain wrong or both versions are made up. That the variation is so stark it suggests that these were made up much later than the gospels too.

harbinger, you need to look carefully at the texts and not skim over the stuff. You need a long hard look and decide what is going on when we have two almost completely divergent accounts of the same event. They just can't both be right!

I don't know why you addressed this to me. the comment wasn't mine. However let me answer your question. Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth. they were traveling when Jesus was born in Bethlehem Most likely in the tower of the lamb, where the spotless lambs were raised for the passover sacrifice. This fulfilled prophesy (350 of them fulfilled in christ alone)  of Micah 4:8
By the time wise men traveled from the east Jesus was no longer a fresh new born babe and was surely not still in the stable.

In the four gospels you see Each Gospel writer giving account from 4 different perspectives. Each telling the story from their own perspective. The story of the first advent would have no doubt been orally given from either Mary or Joseph seeing none of the 12 would have been there. Each told the story as they remembered it and gave the details they thought were important according to Gods will. I know you want to argue this, but the 4 gospels do not contradict each other More importantly None of your questions or doubt change that Christ has come.. and will come again.

http://bible-truth.org/BirthPlaceofJesus.html
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 21, 2013, 03:01:48 PM
What's the book and author, Andy. I could try the university library to read it.

Merry Christmas

"Truth in Translation" by Jason David BeDuhn (Chapter 10 - Tampering with Tenses).  It would be great if I didn't have to type out all of his arguments but I'm afraid I might have to when I return home.  Maybe it's online though - I hope so!   Gotta Run!

darn it! Just checked - its not in the library near me. Could you scan the pages rather than type them?

 I forget the word for it but you know when your library gets a book from another library and loans it to you. You could do that...right?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 21, 2013, 03:09:50 PM

I don't know why you addressed this to me. the comment wasn't mine. However let me answer your question. Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth. they were traveling when Jesus was born in Bethlehem Most likely in the tower of the lamb, where the spotless lambs were raised for the passover sacrifice. This fulfilled prophesy (350 of them fulfilled in christ alone)  of Micah 4:8
By the time wise men traveled from the east Jesus was no longer a fresh new born babe and was surely not still in the stable.

OK, let's start.Jesus was either born in his parents house in Bethlehem (Matthew) or in the stable of an hotel, probably a cave, (Luke) No matter how hard you try these facts cannot be matched together. one of them is wrong. Here's a clue - if there was a census that required everyone to go back to their home town (how likely is that method of census?) then the Romans, who apparently wanted this, failed to make a record of it. This is either handy or make the census of Luke invented.

Then, tower with spotless lambs? Why did Matthew not mention this explicitly? He was using the Septuagint, of course, so maybe that explains why he didn't?

Now, and here's the rub, can you detect a method of writing of Matthew? Have you noticed how he keeps banging on about the fulfillment of prophecies? Now, things could be as it says on the ting but more likely is that Matthew is looking these verses up and is using them to write his story - a story which is not so much factual as a sermon which is there to explain who Jesus was using the various quotes? What do you think??

Quote
In the four gospels you see Each Gospel writer giving account from 4 different perspectives. Each telling the story from their own perspective. The story of the first advent would have no doubt been orally given from either Mary or Joseph seeing none of the 12 would have been there. Each told the story as they remembered it and gave the details they thought were important according to Gods will. I know you want to argue this, but the 4 gospels do not contradict each other More importantly None of your questions or doubt change that Christ has come.. and will come again.

http://bible-truth.org/BirthPlaceofJesus.html

Four writers, four perspectives sounds fine but in some places the facts are the important bit. Are you working on the basis that Matthew and Luke were eye witnesses of the events of Jesus - at least his ministry? If so, you have some explaining as to why they didn't bother to put pen to paper for 40 to 50 years of the death of Jesus. On that basis, Paul had finished his letter writing and Mark had written his gospel. Is it likely them kept silent for that long and then, finally as really quite old men, decided to write it down?

Or is it more likely that they had no contact with the characters of the stories and wrote down the stories going around their own churches and, maybe, added the birth narratives last of all to counter claims from Jews that Jesus was not, in fact, the messiah?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on December 21, 2013, 03:22:47 PM
Don't churches generally just pick the one that sounds good, and narrate it as the Christmas story? Not even trying to reconcile all the different versions?

Besides the fact that 1)nobody ever does a traveling census like that, you count people where they are; 2)women don't often travel when they are about to give birth, and 3)if Joseph was in his home town, there would probably have been some folks to stay with while his young bride had their first baby. And a midwife and some women helping out. Having a baby alone while hiding out in the barn is what slaves, runaways and other marginal people do. Nobody brings gifts.

"No room at the inn" for a woman in labor has always seemed bogus to me. Maybe Trump Tower would turn them out into the street, but poor people in desert cultures don't act like that.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SocialConstruct on December 21, 2013, 05:04:11 PM
In order for Christianity to be self-consistent here, Christianity must necessarily hold that Jesus is both God and the Son of God. Some Christians refer to God as the Trinity, which is composed of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 21, 2013, 11:24:25 PM
Doesn't that kind of cause an issue...

Because how can one thing be three separate things...
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 22, 2013, 05:14:59 AM
If we are saying that god is both son and father and, in effect, using a different face for each, that is one of the first Christian heresies, Sabellianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism). It was the first that involved people being hcucked out of the church for heresy.

The Trinity seems well described by this picture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-compact.svg)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 22, 2013, 01:32:13 PM
Knowing in advance some will reject this right off I would like to try the trinity explanation. This thought crossed my mind at work a couple of days ago. YOU are a trinity...

Bible verse is not needed for the explanation but it is what came to me...

1Thes5:23
23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body
be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
http://biblehub.com/1_thessalonians/5-23.htm

Let me demonstrate this.
body= The vessel I really hope none will dispute this one :)
soul= The emotion
spirit= The will

I have been helping with a female friend of mine who is finally leaving an abusive relationship. All to common. I use this because it is what came to me and unfortunately I think at least most of us can relate to it.

The abused woman is beat (body/The vessel) by her so called man. She knows if she stays there that things may get worse. she may even end up dead. She wants to leave him. (will/soul) However due to feelings of helplessness, fear, and inadequacy, and perhaps the worst "I love him" (spirit/ The emotion) she goes against her own will and stays with him, even if it means the destruction of her body.

I think if we spit ball this we could come up with many examples to demonstrate the will is often separate and even in conflict with emotions. sometimes even to the destruction of our own body.

Thus you have 3 "things" that make you one, and because of the conflict that often appears we can make the case these are all separate parts of your oneness.
Let me also use this opportunity to say when a Christian says The lord has shown, spoken, revealed whatever it is. This is an example. Something deep hit my soul out of the blue. A deeper thought than what is mine. I wasn't even thinking about it. It even came with a scripture reference. For me the explanation is the wisdom of God. For you (generally speaking) it's just a chemical reaction of the subconscious mind.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Anfauglir on December 23, 2013, 05:24:53 AM
Let me demonstrate this.
body= The vessel I really hope none will dispute this one :)
soul= The emotion
spirit= The will

Can you give any examples of where one can manifest without both the others?  How, for example, would I detach my emotion and send it off around the world to interact with someone?

Now I can see the "Spirit" as being a particular part of "Yahweh", that's fine.  In the same way that we say "that Sean Connery, he has a magnetic personality".  But nobody would ever consider that Connery could detach his "magneticness" and send it off to speak to people.

That's where the 3-in-1 argument fails, and where your analogy fails.  Because at one and the same time, you want the 3 to all be aspects of the 1, AND want one of the three to be something so separate that it can be detached and "sacrificed".  Push the analogy too far in one direction, and the other end falls apart - its why it only works if you don't think about it too hard or try to explain it.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 23, 2013, 07:51:28 AM
not worth arguing really, Anfauglir, this harbinger is not a Christian. He's a Sabellian and a heretic. He also knows better than all the Christian theologians since the 1st century - or likes to think so. Really, he running his onw one man religion.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 23, 2013, 09:26:24 AM
Let me demonstrate this.
body= The vessel I really hope none will dispute this one :)
soul= The emotion
spirit= The will

Can you give any examples of where one can manifest without both the others?  How, for example, would I detach my emotion and send it off around the world to interact with someone?

Now I can see the "Spirit" as being a particular part of "Yahweh", that's fine.  In the same way that we say "that Sean Connery, he has a magnetic personality".  But nobody would ever consider that Connery could detach his "magneticness" and send it off to speak to people.

That's where the 3-in-1 argument fails, and where your analogy fails.  Because at one and the same time, you want the 3 to all be aspects of the 1, AND want one of the three to be something so separate that it can be detached and "sacrificed".  Push the analogy too far in one direction, and the other end falls apart - its why it only works if you don't think about it too hard or try to explain it.

What about Astral projection? I once save a friends life through an out of body experience. Since you like Science though. Many world governments have tried to harness this as a weapon of some sort. American government saw results. However, the success rate was to low to continue the program. Even a small success rate shows that Astral projection is possible.

ezinearticles.com/?Astral-Projection-Spy---The-Amazing-Truth-Revealed&id=1023921
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 23, 2013, 09:29:42 AM
not worth arguing really, Anfauglir, this harbinger is not a Christian. He's a Sabellian and a heretic. He also knows better than all the Christian theologians since the 1st century - or likes to think so. Really, he running his onw one man religion.

I am in no way a modalist nor do I have even slight leanings in this direction. I don't even know how you came up with this idea... any of them for that matter.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 23, 2013, 10:18:54 AM
not worth arguing really, Anfauglir, this harbinger is not a Christian. He's a Sabellian and a heretic. He also knows better than all the Christian theologians since the 1st century - or likes to think so. Really, he running his onw one man religion.

I am in no way a modalist nor do I have even slight leanings in this direction. I don't even know how you came up with this idea... any of them for that matter.

Maybe, but your posts apoint that way and you don't see that keen on the Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon. What would you say you are then?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 23, 2013, 08:01:47 PM
I'll try this one. Although there are many Christians that discuss the same thing. Many That don't get it. Denominations have formed and split over this very question. I doubt I can make any of you understand. It's a tough concept. I have to admit I don't understand how it works, but the bible teaches it so I accept it. Anyway, here goes. 3in one and one in 3. Jesus is both God AND The Son of God.
John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
john 1:14 The Word became flesh that He may dwell among us.
Jesus is The Word. The son is the Son. The Father is the Father. Yet both are God. they are separate and distinct individuals. The word was/is both with God and IS God.
I could share and compare other verses if this is a topic you truly wish to understand. true or not is up to you of course.

Maybe this passed by and you didn't notice it. I would add The Holy Spirit is also The Holy Spirit separate and distinct individual. Yet also IS God. all three share the same will and nature

 This thread questions The position of Jesus in the Godhead. I guess naturally that took us into the trinity though. I was really addressing The original question though.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Anfauglir on December 24, 2013, 03:01:16 AM
Let me demonstrate this.
body= The vessel I really hope none will dispute this one :)
soul= The emotion
spirit= The will

Can you give any examples of where one can manifest without both the others?  How, for example, would I detach my emotion and send it off around the world to interact with someone?

Now I can see the "Spirit" as being a particular part of "Yahweh", that's fine.  In the same way that we say "that Sean Connery, he has a magnetic personality".  But nobody would ever consider that Connery could detach his "magneticness" and send it off to speak to people.

That's where the 3-in-1 argument fails, and where your analogy fails.  Because at one and the same time, you want the 3 to all be aspects of the 1, AND want one of the three to be something so separate that it can be detached and "sacrificed".  Push the analogy too far in one direction, and the other end falls apart - its why it only works if you don't think about it too hard or try to explain it.

What about Astral projection? I once save a friends life through an out of body experience. Since you like Science though. Many world governments have tried to harness this as a weapon of some sort. American government saw results. However, the success rate was to low to continue the program. Even a small success rate shows that Astral projection is possible.

ezinearticles.com/?Astral-Projection-Spy---The-Amazing-Truth-Revealed&id=1023921

Yeah, and what about teleportation too?  Not to mention magic spells, I have a friend saved my life once through casting Tenser's Magnificent Shield.

Is this SERIOUSLY your rebuttal?  Astral projection exists, therefore Yahweh and Jesus a re separate but the same?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 24, 2013, 04:38:02 AM
ezinearticles.com/?Astral-Projection-Spy---The-Amazing-Truth-Revealed&id=1023921

I am calling bullshit here, i agree that out of body experiences happen (mostly on drugs), but to use one for "spies" makes no sense, as you would still only see/know/whatever, what you already know.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Anfauglir on December 24, 2013, 08:43:35 AM
ezinearticles.com/?Astral-Projection-Spy---The-Amazing-Truth-Revealed&id=1023921

Well, I read the link.  It said "lots of information on the experiments", but declined to actually give any links itself.  So I googled a bit, and found lots of "puff" about the "Indigo Swann" mentioned, but (thus far) no links to any of the double-blind controlled experiments that (I'm sure) were carried out.  If you can link me to any of the actual research papers, I will gladly take a look.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 24, 2013, 09:53:39 PM
Let me demonstrate this.
body= The vessel I really hope none will dispute this one :)
soul= The emotion
spirit= The will

Can you give any examples of where one can manifest without both the others?  How, for example, would I detach my emotion and send it off around the world to interact with someone?

Now I can see the "Spirit" as being a particular part of "Yahweh", that's fine.  In the same way that we say "that Sean Connery, he has a magnetic personality".  But nobody would ever consider that Connery could detach his "magneticness" and send it off to speak to people.

That's where the 3-in-1 argument fails, and where your analogy fails.  Because at one and the same time, you want the 3 to all be aspects of the 1, AND want one of the three to be something so separate that it can be detached and "sacrificed".  Push the analogy too far in one direction, and the other end falls apart - its why it only works if you don't think about it too hard or try to explain it.

What about Astral projection? I once save a friends life through an out of body experience. Since you like Science though. Many world governments have tried to harness this as a weapon of some sort. American government saw results. However, the success rate was to low to continue the program. Even a small success rate shows that Astral projection is possible.

ezinearticles.com/?Astral-Projection-Spy---The-Amazing-Truth-Revealed&id=1023921

Yeah, and what about teleportation too?  Not to mention magic spells, I have a friend saved my life once through casting Tenser's Magnificent Shield.

Is this SERIOUSLY your rebuttal?  Astral projection exists, therefore Yahweh and Jesus a re separate but the same?

I gave you a tangible scenario where we can see 3 parts of one woman in conflict. I was then asked for an example as to how "sean connery's magnetic personality can separate and visit someone" I suggested astrol projection. I gave a personal testimony AND backed it up with a hasty link. I wasn't thinking burden of proof. Only provoke the thought. I'll try to remember this in the future.

I was only attempting to demonstrate something tangible  AND earthly that we may use to describe something that is 3in1.

Anyway, after one google search I have this link with double blind university credited evidence.
The question was fair and has been addressed by science.

http://www.astraltravelsecrets.com/astral/science.aspx
 
I like this quote from the site:

This helps us to gather information about what is actually happening (scientifically-speaking) behind the scenes. And as a result of the later experiments with such Astral Travel and Remote Viewing, here is what Stanford Research Institute (SRI) scientists R. Targ and H. Puthoff concluded following experiments conducted with Uri Geller:

“Geller was successful in obtaining information under conditions in which no persons were knowledgeable of the target.�

And, with reference to other similar experiments...

“The probability of this occurring by chance is approximately one in 10 to the power 6.�
(Information Transmission under Conditions of Sensory Shielding. Nature: October 1974)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Anfauglir on December 25, 2013, 02:37:15 AM
Anyway, after one google search I have this link with double blind university credited evidence.
Ah - no, you haven't.  You have a site that firmly believes in Astral Travel, that selectively "quotes" from what appear t be the summaries of articles.

http://www.astraltravelsecrets.com/astral/science.aspx

To be clear: what I am after are direct links to the body of the alleged research, so that I can read the methodologies used, and how they eliminated the possibility for fraud.

And - to be blunt - I would like to see the studies done in the last quarter of a century that supports the claims - not examples from the 70s and 80s when the equipment used was a heck of a lot less advanced than we have today.  I want to see the exact measurements taken.  I want to see the processes by which they checked what they found.

To digress.....last year I went to see Derren Brown.  He did a number of things that looked just like psychic abilities.  But he is quite clear that it was all bogus.  I want to read the clear methodologies of these studies to see how they eliminated any chance that people like Geller and Swann were using magician's tricks to fool them.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 25, 2013, 10:35:13 AM
The Astral travel site is about selling a book and DVDs. It does not have anthing like a demonstration that it works. We would need to see an article in Nature or a similar publication to take it seriously.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 26, 2013, 08:00:38 AM
Whybnot do the same? show me it's bunk. If you wish to be convinced of it then look into it. Why should one side do all the home work? Find the book(s) the site quotes. I am only presenting the possibility that it happens. I think to explore it further is dodging the real topic. A tangible example of the trinity. scientists have studied astrol projection. and written papers and books. world governments have tried to use it as a weapon. there is no doubt that you can't dissmiss it 100% Apparently a couple of scientists concluded this:

Conclusions of double-blind Astral Travel experiments
In 1977, Targ and Puthoff published a book entitled Mind Reach in which they presented the results of
their remote viewing experiments. They also evaluated the ways in which remote viewing could be put topractical use. They listed:
(a) Survival value — many spontaneous OBE's occur at the time of a serious accident, injury or during
surgery. “It is in primarily life-threatening situations that exceptional spontaneous functioning seems to occur.�
(b) Executive ESP — use of remote viewing and other anomalous abilities in the business world;
(c) Futuristic predictions ;
(d) Medical diagnosis ; and
(e) Space exploration.
(Puthoff, Harold E., and Russell Targ. Mind-Reach: Scientists Look at Psychic Ability. New York: Delacorte
Press, 1977)
From these and other experiments Targ and Puthoff concluded that:
“- A channel exists whereby information about a remote location can be obtained by means of an as yet unidentified perceptual modality.

I think I have done exactly what I set out to do. It's your turn. Thank you.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 26, 2013, 09:28:46 AM

The reason why you can't relate the trinity to things here on earth is because we don't have any "squared circles" here in this "dimension" on earth.  The reason why the doctrine of the trinity is impossible to completely understand is because it is contradictory.  For instance, if you think Jesus is claiming to be the "I AM" (Yahweh) then Jesus is claiming that there is no God besides him (Is. 44:6-8).  And then the resurrected Jesus says in John 20:17 that He has a God.  This is a contradiction. 

It's better, in my opinion, to not relate the trinity to things on earth because we don't have contradictions like this in the "real world".  It's better to just throw out the "trump" card and say that the Trinity is a mystery.

Jesus is saying there is no God except Him.  But He also said that "I and the Father are One".  So He isn't contradicting Himself if you understand the trinity is a possibility outside of our earthly dimension. 

If Jesus is saying there is no God except Him then why does he say he has a God in John 20:17?  By Jesus saying "I and the Father are ONE" is not clearly stating that Jesus is ONE BEING with the one true God.  John 17:22 says, "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be ONE, Just as we are ONE; I in them and You in Me that they may be perfected in unity".  So with this logic I'm supposed to believe that the disciples are literally ONE BEING just like you think Jesus and his Father are ONE BEING.   
 



Even the titles in the trinity contradict with the definition of the trinity.  The title SON implies that he was descended from his FATHER.  It would follow then that the Father and Son can't be co-eternal like the definition of the trinity suggests.  Another contradiction!  If God wanted me to think that the Father and Son were co-eternal with one another, why would he call the second person of the trinity the Son which means "a descendent"?  Is God just messing with the minds of people?  Or maybe people got the concept of the nature of the Godhead wrong.  Or another thought is maybe this God doesn't even exist.     
My guess is that He is called the Son, because He came to earth from heaven and was forever changed.  Before that, He was always with God as it says in John 1.  Christian belief is that Jesus has a resurrected body that is capable of living in heaven and manifesting here on earth as He did in the upper room.  A body that all believers will have someday.

That's a good guess but I think you are wrong according to the bible.  The Son was called Son BEFORE "He came to earth from heaven and was forever changed".  Prov. 30:4 states, "Who has ascended into heaven and descended?  Who has gathered the wind in His fists?  Who has wrapped the waters in His garmet?  Who has established all the ends of the earth?  What is His name or His SON'S name"?  (c.f. John 17:5).



 
There is very convincing evidence out there (for an open mind) that Jesus was not claiming the title of "I AM" in John 8:58.  There is an excellent book out called, "Truth in Translation" by Jason David BeDuhn.  I will type out the two pages of his book for you that makes a convincing counter-argument so you don't have to buy the book.  He looks into the Greek text and "textually" makes a great case in my opinion.  However, I don't want to take the time if you are not interested in the opposing view.  Just let me know.
   
Yes, I'm always interested in the opposing view.  Feel free to send it to me or link it somehow. Thanks


Great, here's Jason De BeDuhn's arguments along with some of my own.  WARNING: To those Christians who could care less if Jesus claimed the divine name/title ("I AM"/Yahweh) in John 8:58---QUIT READING NOW!!!  This is only for those like Patrick Henry who are "always interested in the opposing view".  This gets "scholarly" and requires some "homework" to those who are really interested in wanting to know the truth behind the "I AM" statement in John 8:58.  This is time consuming!!! 

For Christians, the study of the "I AM" (EGO EIMI) is crucial.  If you believe that Jesus is the "I AM" in John 8:58 then you have to believe that a person will "die in their sins" if they don't believe that Jesus is "I AM" (John 8:24).  If a Christian believes that you have to believe that Jesus is the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14 then they allow the doctrine of the Trinity (or Binity) to overlap into the doctrine of salvation.  And you want to get this right as a Christian because the GOSPEL is about salvation.  If you have a different gospel than Paul then you are "accursed" in his eyes (Gal. 1:9).

As a former Christian, I always found it curious that Paul never said in any of his writings that one HAD TO BELIEVE that Jesus was Yahweh.  I always wondered if Paul would think that John is "accursed" because John said that people would "die in their sins" if they didn't believe Jesus was the "I AM" of the Old Testament.  This requirement is absent from all of Paul's writings. 

In addition, Jesus says, "...have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Mark 12:26)?  The writer of the book of Mark seems to be excluding Jesus from being the God speaking at the burning bush as it seems like Jesus is speaking of someone else besides himself.  If Jesus wanted people to believe that He was the entity speaking at the burning bush the verse would say, "In the passage about the burning bush I spoke to Moses saying...".   So it seemed to me like this passage in Mark contradicted John 8:58.  In addition, I thought it was odd that Mark never mentioned anything about Jesus being the one true God in his entire gospel.   

I witnessed to many people while I was a Christian and I never mentioned to any of the possible converts that they had to believe that Jesus was Yahweh in order to be saved.  Was I leaving out a crucial element to salvation?  I only told people they had to believe Jesus was the Christ, the Son OF God.  I started researching and I came across Jason David BeDuhn's book and found a lot of his arguments convincing concerning the understanding of John 8:58.


First, let's start our journey by getting two opposing views concerning the understanding of the "I AM" (GREEK - EGO EIMI).  First you must understand that different English translators and bibles translate John 8:58 differently.   

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_eimi

Verbal tense and aspect
"...I am"

It is generally considered, for example by Daniel B. Wallace,[15] that if that the intention of John was to state "I was" then the text should instead contain the corresponding past tense form is ego en "I was", as in English and elsewhere in the New Testament.

    KJV (1611) RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV: "Before Abraham was, I am."
    ASV, NASB (1995): "before Abraham was born, I am."

"...I have been"

However in John 8:58 a few Bibles have renderings of eimi in past tenses:

The United Bible Societies Hebrew New Testament has ani hayiti "I was" not ani hu "I am".

George R. Noyes, Unitarian - The New Testament (Boston, 1871). “Before Abraham was born I was already what I am” and (in the 1904 edition) “I was”
   
The Twentieth Century New Testament (TCNT) supervised by J. Rendel Harris and Richard Francis Weymouth (Britain, 1900). “I have existed before Abraham was born”
   
James Moffatt, The Bible A New Translation (New York, 1935). “I am here – and I was before Abraham!”
   
J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed An American Translation (1935) "I existed before Abraham was born!"
   
The New World Translation (1950, 1984) "before Abraham came to be, I have been."“From before Abraham was, I have been”
   
J. A. Kleist S.J. and J. L. Lilly C.M., Roman Catholic - The New Testament (Milwaukee, 1956). “I was before Abraham”
   
William F. Beck, Lutheran - The New Testament in the Language of Today (St. Louis, 1963). “I was in existence before Abraham was ever born”
   
Kenneth N. Taylor, The Living Bible (Wheaton, 1979). “I am from before Abraham was born!”
   
The poet Richard Lattimore, The Four Gospels and the Revelation (New York, 1979). “I existed before Abraham was born”
   
ed. Stanley L. Morris, The Simple English Bible (1981) "I was alive before Abraham was born"
   


So....the people who translate the divine name in past tense are possesed by Satan and want to "twist scripture" and teach demonic doctrines right?  All these translations are from Christian Heretics or, better yet, Satan himself right? 

Well, let's investigate.  In my opinion, Jason De BeDuhn makes some great arguments concerning this issue.  I will give you some of his arguments from chapter 10 of his book "Truth in Translation".  Sorry wheels, I don't have a scanner.  I would love to write the entirety of chapter 10 in this post but will have to just "highlight" his main argument(s).  BeDuhn goes into more detail and I will try to answer any questions concerning this issue if I didn't give enough information in my (and BeDuhn's) argument against Jesus claiming to be Yahweh in John 8:58.     

BeDuhn starts off saying that John 8:58 is an " awkward, ungrammatical rendering" of the "I AM" claim in all of the Trinitarian translations of the bible.

In John 8:58, "What Jesus says here is fine, idiomatic Greek.  It can be rendered straightforwardly into English by doing what translators always do with Greek, namely, rearrange the word order into normal English order, and adjust things like verbal tense complementarity into proper English expression.  These steps of translation are necessary because Greek and English are not the same language and do not obey the same rules of grammar.  Leaving the translation at the stage of a lexical ("interlinear") rendering, which is one way to describe what most translations do here simply won't work.  That is because Greek has more flexibility with word order than English does, and it can mix verbal tenses in a way English cannot.  On the matter of word order, normal English follows the structure we all learned in elementary school: subject + verb + object or predicate phrase.  The order of the Greek in John 8:58 is: predicate phrase + subject + verb.  So it is the most basic step of translation to move the predicate phrase "before Abraham came to be" from the beginning of the sentence to the end, after the subject and verb".

In other words it is not proper English to say, "Patrick Henry I am".

To get a good idea that Greek is in a mangled word order compared to English just view the verse just before 8:57.  It sounds like Yoda is talking.  Also, click one verse ahead on this link to look at the first part of John 8:58.  The word order is mangled. 

Link:  http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/8-57.htm

BeDuhn goes on to say, "When verb tenses or any other part of grammar is used in a way outside of usual expectations, we call it an "idiom".  Because Greek idioms are different from English idioms, translators do not translate these expressions word-for-word, but rather convey the meaning of the Greek idiom in proper comprehensible English.  At least, thats what translators are supposed to do." 


BeDuhn argues, "Why would translators, whose job it is to make the Bible into comprehensible, good quality English, choose an awkward, ungrammatical rendering instead?  Why do Bible translations which in thousands of other verses freely change word order relative to the original Greek, suddenly find a reason to follow exactly the Greek, producing an ungrammatical and syntactically strained sentence, in this instance?  The answer is theological bias."

"In John 8:58, since Jesus' existence is not completed past action, but ongoing we must use some sort of imperfect verbal form to convey that : 'I have been (since) before Abraham come to be.'  That's as close as we can get to what the Greek says in our own language if we pay attention to all parts of the sentence."

"Translating back from English into Greek is one way to see if a translation has been faithful to the original.  There is never any indication that Jesus is quoting 'I am'. "

He says that translators are familiar with this idiomatic aspect of Greek verbs, because they usually translate such expressions accurately into correct English and he gives some examples.  One example he provides you is John 14:9.  Part of the verse reads in Greek "…tosouto chrono meth hymn eimi…"  (So long a time with you am I).  All major translations change the word order and verb tense to translate this expression accurately into "correct English".  The King James says "…Have I been so long time with you…".

Link: John 14:9 (PRESENT TENSE "EIMI" TRANSLATED AS PAST TENSE):      http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/14-9.htm

Another example is John 15:27 (PRESENT TENSE "ESTE" TRANSLATED AS PAST TENSE IN OUR MODERN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS).

Link:  John 15:27:      http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/15-27.htm

"In both of these passages most of the modern translations translate the present tense form of 'to be' ('I am';'you are') as 'HAVE BEEN' because of its relation to an expression of past time.  This is exactly the same grammatical construct as found in 8:58."

In addition, BeDuhn says, "One passage usually missing from the discussion of the expression 'I am' in the Gospel according to John is John 9:9.  In this expression 'I am' in the gospel according to John is John 9:9.  in this verse, the words EGO EIMI are heard from the mouth NOT of Jesus, but of a blind man cured by Jesus.  He, too, uses the words to say 'I AM', the man who before was blind, but have been cured.  If anyone needs proof that EGO EIMI need not be a quote from the Old Testament, and is not reserved as a title of God, here it is."

Link: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/9-9.htm

"Once again, our attention is drawn to inconsistency in how words are handled by biased translators.  If EGO EIMI is not a divine self-proclamation in the mouth of the blind man of John 9, then it cannot be such a proclamation in the mouth of Jesus just a few verses earlier.  None of the modern Trinitarian translations , of course, have the blind man saying 'I am,' let alone 'I AM'.  According to the reasoning of those who insist that the phrase must be understood as a declaration of divine identity, and so preserved in its 'interlinear' form, the blind man is also GOD.  John 9:9 is a clear example of the idiomatic use of the expression EGO EIMI in Greek speech."

"In John 8:58, most all translations break the first-person-pronoun + verb ("I am") clause out of its relation to the syntax of the sentence, and place it artificially, and ungrammatically, at the end of the English sentence."

"These modern translations violate their standard practice of using correct English word order by in this case slavishly following the Greek word order."

In other words, most modern translations (which are Trinitarian), "ignore the true relation between the verbs of the sentence and produce a sentence that makes no sense in English.  These changes in the meaning of the Greek and in the normal procedure for translation point to a bias that has interfered with the work of the translators."

"It is natural to assume that the majority of translations are correct and the odd ones at fault.  It is only when translations are checked against the original Greek, as they should be, that a fair assessment van be made, and the initial assumption can be seen to be wrong."

BeDuhn concludes, "It is Jesus' claim to be superior to Abraham, and to have a superhuman longevity, not a claim to a divine self-designation, that enrages his audience.  Jesus' argument in 8:58 is that he has seniority over Abraham, and so by the standards of Jewish society, he has greater authority than the patriarch."

BeDuhn argues that the Living Bible which is actually a "paraphrase" Bible actually translates John 8:58 from Greek to English most accurate: "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born".


So is Jesus saying in John 8:58 that He just existed before Abraham???  As a skeptic, I wanted to find more evidence as to how John 8:58 is/was supposed to be interpreted.  So I turned to the early Church Fathers.  Two examples:

1.) Iranaeus (120-202 AD)         
(Fragments from the lost writings - LII):

"And as He was from Abraham, so did He also exist before Abraham"

Link: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.i.html

2.) Athanasius (major supporter and proponent of the Trinity at the council of Nicaea 325 AD.  I did not expect to find this quote from such a staunch Trinitarian.  I could not believe that he did not say that Jesus was claiming the divine title for the one true God.  Instead, he seems to agree with BeDuhn's assessment of the correct translation of John 8:58.  Out of all the early Church Fathers, I would expect the Trinitarian Athanasius to say that Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh here and make the connection from the "I am" statement in John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14 - the meaning of the tetragrammaton.  But he doesn't!)
(Discourse IV "Against the Arians" Chapter 20):

"And they will be compelled to say that through the Man Himself the world came into being, and that the Man was He who came not to judge the world but to save it; and that He it was who was in being before Abraham came to be. For, says Scripture, Jesus said to them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.’ And is it not absurd to say, as they do, that one who came of the seed of Abraham after two and forty generations, should exist before Abraham came to be?"

Link:  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.vi.vii.html


All John 8:58 seems to be proving is the pre-existence of Jesus and it is evident to me that early apologists who were reading the text in Greek had no idea of this alleged claim to be YHWH.

It is my opinion based on the evidence that Jesus was not claiming to be the "entity Moses encountered in Ex. 3:14 (Thus dost thou say to the sons of Isreal, I AM hath sent me unto you.)"  First, it is a reach to translate the transliterated Hebrew word "HAYAH" to "I AM". 

I just went BlueLetterBible.org and found this out for myself.  (Hebrew word HAYAH - strongs #1961).  THIS WAS SHOCKING TO ME! 

Link:  http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?page=1&strongs=H1961&t=KJV#lexResults

This word "hayah" appears in 72 verses and why is it only translated as "I AM" in Exodus 3:14?  This seems to me like more theological translational bias.  If the word in Ex. 3:14 was the Hebrew word, "ANI" (strongs #589) which is translated as "am" many times in the Old Textament then I would be somewhat convinced that there is a connection to the "I am" in John 8:58. 

In studying Ex. 3:14 I found the "meaning" of the tetragrammaton has been variously interpreted.  Some meanings or translations to YHWH in Exodus 3:14 can be: "I will be that I will be", "I will be that which I now am", "I will become whatsoever I please", "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be", "I am the Being", "I am the Existing One", "He brings into existence whatever exists", and of course, "I am who I am".  It's definitely a little suspicious to me that our Trinitarian translators of our Bibles would use this last meaning to make a connection, in my opinion, to John 8:58.  In my studies, I found that the "meaning" and translation to Yahweh in Ex. 3:14 is ambiguous.  Conclusion:  It seems to me that bias is interfering with translation!

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton 
 
Furthermore, the Septuagint which was used by some New Testament authors translated this phrase in Ex. 3:14 as "ego eimi HO ON" (I am THE BEING).  The Septuagint goes on to read "Thus dost thou say to the sons of Israel, THE BEING (HO ON) hath sent me unto you."  So for me to be even somewhat convinced that Jesus is trying to connect Himself to the phrase in Ex. 3:14 then He would have had to say, "Before Abraham was, THE BEING (HO ON)".  Instead the Greek words EGO EIMI are used here in John 8:58.

(Link showing Septuagint uses the Greek words HO ON instead of EGO EIMI in Exodus 3:14:  "...HO ON (not EGO EIMI) has sent me to you" ---- Translated:  "...THE BEING (not I AM) has sent me to you")

Link:  http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=2&page=3


Patrick Henry, you said in post #55 of this thread, "I think that 'I AM' is a title with an understanding that it means God has always existed.  It would seem important to understand that for a clear belief in God.  Jesus thought it was important that He be understood in that way.  Since He announced it."

What is obvious to me is that the correct understanding of the "I AM" statement in John 8:58 is not only important for a Christians' understanding of who Jesus is/was but also important for salvation.  The correct understanding of the "I AM" statement has an influence on a person's view on salvation.  John 8:24 states, "...unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins".  Does one have to believe that Jesus is the "I AM" of the Old Testament in order to be saved?  Are all the people involved in these Christian groups (below) who are non-Trinitarian and do not believe that Jesus is the "I AM" of the Old Testament going to "die in their sins" for not believing that Jesus is the "I AM" of the Old Testament?


    American Unitarian Conference
    Arianism
    Bible Students
    Christadelphians
    Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Scientists)[106][107]
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)
    Church of the Blessed Hope (sometimes called "Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith")
    Doukhobors
    Friends of Man
    Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ)
    Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ
    Jehovah's Witnesses
    Members Church of God International
    Molokan
    Monarchianism
    Muggletonianism
    New Church
    Many members of the Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland
    Oneness Pentecostals
    Polish Brethren
    Some Quakers
    Shakers
    Socinianism
    Swedenborgianism
    The Way International
    True Jesus Church
    Two by Twos (sometimes called The Truth or Cooneyites)[108]
    Unification Church
    Unitarian Christians
    Unitarian Universalism
    United Church of God

Well Patrick Henry, I would hate for you to live your whole life thinking you have the right view of salvation as a Christian and then end up being "accursed" because you didn't have the correct understanding of the "I AM" in John 8.  Should it be translated as a title for Yahweh or just a verb?  I would appreciate your feedback.  Was any of this convincing to you?  Do you have any arguments against?  I think you now know why I, personally, have a problem with people saying "clear" and "scripture" in the same sentence.  In this case it is a problem with translating Hebrew and Greek into proper English.

If those darn people wouldn't have built a tall tower in Babel (Gen. 11) we wouldn't have this problem as we would all be speaking the same language right?

What about all the skeptics out there.  Did you manage to wade through all these tedious, scholarly arguments?  Are these arguments convincing? 

Let's say you Wheels.  Did Jesus claim the divine self-designation (the Tetragrammaton) in John 8 or not?  I know I know, it's probably more plausible that this God that says he is not a God of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33) doesn't exist but let's pretend he's real.  Arguments for or against?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 26, 2013, 11:17:54 AM
Well that is an interesting discussion on a couple of words - but these words are important to many people as evidenced by the fact that so many translations continue with the translation that looks so odd.

I started out with  A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce Metzger (http://www.amazon.com/Textual-Commentary-Testament-Ancient-Edition/dp/1598561642) which is a companion volume to the Bible Societies 3rd edition Greek New Testament. It goes through the whole NT listing problem verses and explaining decisions taken with the text. The first thing to establish is if there are variation in the Greek Text. There is nothing listed and the Greek Text inself has nothing significant in the apparatus. So, our Greek is correct. 

There is nothing in the text that requires the present tense in the Greek to be translated into the present tense in English. The only odd thing is that the present tense is there - the imperfect tense would carry the same meaning in Greek - a continuing state. However, the Septuagint (LXX) reading of Exodus 3:6 this early Greek translation of the OT has (http://www.septuagint.org/LXX/Exodus/3)[1]

Note the ego eimi. The author of the Gospel could well have either read the text of had it the text to hand when writing and so might have had the text in mind and made a deliberate copy to emphasise his point about the divinity of Jesus. He might.... but the trouble is the 'ego eimi' is not the tetragramaton and doesn't sound like it so it might have been a risky move in the sense that many would not have got the link.

So, all in all, I can't see why we do not have the translation such as the Living Bible's "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born". (http://"I was in existence before Abraham was ever born".) or something along those lines. I think I would prefer 'I existed before Abraham was born' but that's picking at a perfectly good reading.

Now whether this detracts from the Trinitarian view of god is open to discussion. It seems clear that the church was convinced of Jesus' divinity on the basis of his rising from death and his ascension. (It doesn't matter if these really happened.) So there is enough texts to support this view and to agree the Nicean and Chalcedon creeds and losing this one verse is hardly likely to change this.
 1. Sorry, tried posting the Greek text but it all changes to question marks when posted.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Anfauglir on December 26, 2013, 11:19:29 AM
Whybnot do the same? show me it's bunk. If you wish to be convinced of it then look into it. Why should one side do all the home work?

Because  YOU are the one making the claim.  All you have done so far is said "astral travel exists, some guys say so in a BOOK!!"  I doubt you have read the book - fact, I'm sure you haven't, otherwise instead of quoting the conclusions from one of the astral-promoting websites, you'd have answered the actual questions I had about methodology.  And since you haven't bothered to critically examine the claim you are making, I see no reason I should do your work for you. 

Tell you what Harbinger - yeti exist.  I read a BOOK that said so.  And it was on a website too, that sold MORE books about yeti!!  Now....do you accept they exist?  If not, who do you think should be the one to present the evidence?  The person making the unsubstantiated claim, or the person they are trying to convince? 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 26, 2013, 11:21:48 AM

Let me demonstrate this.
body= The vessel I really hope none will dispute this one :)
soul= The emotion
spirit= The will

I have been helping with a female friend of mine who is finally leaving an abusive relationship. All to common. I use this because it is what came to me and unfortunately I think at least most of us can relate to it.

The abused woman is beat (body/The vessel) by her so called man. She knows if she stays there that things may get worse. she may even end up dead. She wants to leave him. (will/soul) However due to feelings of helplessness, fear, and inadequacy, and perhaps the worst "I love him" (spirit/ The emotion) she goes against her own will and stays with him, even if it means the destruction of her body.

I think if we spit ball this we could come up with many examples to demonstrate the will is often separate and even in conflict with emotions. sometimes even to the destruction of our own body.

Thus you have 3 "things" that make you one, and because of the conflict that often appears we can make the case these are all separate parts of your oneness.
Let me also use this opportunity to say when a Christian says The lord has shown, spoken, revealed whatever it is. This is an example. Something deep hit my soul out of the blue. A deeper thought than what is mine. I wasn't even thinking about it. It even came with a scripture reference. For me the explanation is the wisdom of God. For you (generally speaking) it's just a chemical reaction of the subconscious mind.

Harbinger77, this is classic!  If the CONTRADICTING God of the Bible exists then I would not be surprised that he "showed, spoke, or revealed" this analogy to you.  This might be an eye opener to you as you will see first hand why I reject the bible as authoritative.

Here is a comparison for you:  I reject the bible as authoritative just like I reject Harbinger77's analogy/explanation of the Trinity because BOTH ACCOUNTS HAVE CONTRADICTORY INFORMATION IN THEM.  In your demonstration you say the soul = emotion and the spirit = the will.  Then in your example of the abused woman the spirit = emotion and the soul = the will.  Which is it?  Is the soul the emotion or the will? 

Just like I reject the notion that God "showed, spoke, or revealed" anything to the writers of the bible because of all the contradictions that are present; I also reject the notion that God revealed you this "wisdom" because of your contradictions. 

By the way, how can I believe that God "showed, spoke, or revealed" this to you when it goes against his revealed word (the bible).  According to John 6:38 the second person of the trinity has a SEPARATE WILL than the first person of the trinity.  So your analogy should be spirit = the WILLS or the soul = the WILLS which ever one it is.  John 6:38 says, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do MY OWN WILL, but the WILL OF HIM WHO SENT ME. 

As a former fundamentalist Christian, I believed that I too had revealed knowledge from Yahweh at times.  However, if this revealed knowledge went against scripture, I used to believe it was revealed to me by Satan.  I think your analogy was revealed to you by Satan.  Harbinger77, TEST THE SPIRITS!!! (1 John 4:1).

On a separate note, according to Jesus you are supposed to tell this abused woman to stay with the abusive husband.  Jesus only gives ONE exception to the requirement of staying married and that is fornication (Matt. 5:32 and 19:9).  My morality (and possibly yours) is greater than Jesus' because I would add abusiveness (especially physical) to the list of exceptions.  In my opinion, someone who says they must stay with a spouse if they are being physically (or severely emotionally) abused is a MASSIVE TURD.  Jesus should have at least added this as another exception to the requirement of staying married.  But lets stay on topic.       

Harbinger77, don't expect most people to believe that God "showed, spoke or revealed" this to you?  I would have kept this to yourself.    If God did "reveal" this through His "wisdom" to you then he is a MASSIVE TURD in that he would allow you to write something so contradictory.  It was a good try Harbinger77 but my analogy captures the TRUE ESSENCE of the Trinitarian God better than yours.  My analogy is at the end of post #42 of this thread.

Yes, I do think this was just a "chemical reaction" to your "subconscious mind".  However, if you think that God "revealed" this to you then I think this "subconscious mind" of yours is a bit delusional.  However, I don't think delusion is a disease that can't be cured.  I think you can overcome delusion by taking a few pills coated with reason.





As for astral projection, I have found all this evidence of yours to be extremely anecdotal and unconvincing.   I think that those who claim to have experienced being out of their bodies may be OUT OF THEIR MINDS!  For instance, Paul may or may not have been in his body in his vision (2 Cor. 12:2-4) but I conclude, with some degree of certainty, that he was OUT OF HIS MIND! 

Until better evidence is presented to me, I cannot believe people are gullible enough to believe in astral travel. 

But then again, whoever can worship a Trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything.



By the way, I hope you had a good Christmas!           
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 26, 2013, 11:33:38 AM
Harbinger,

The others have put this very well already but let me just ask you this?

You proposed the astrl-travel might exist and pointed us to a website. As it turns out, that webiste was more concerned with selling a book than analysing the evidence either way. Now I don't think there is any such thing as astral-travel even though it appears that you do. Now, how would I go about proving it was false to you. I would have to read every book ever written on the subject, check out all the claims ever made on the subject and even then it could still exist as the one person who managed it hasn't yet published. It is no feasible for anyone to do this in a way that would even convince a non-believer.

You, on the other hand, Harbinger, are prefectly placed to show us why you think it exists. You must think so for a perectly good reason and based on some sort of evidence but all you do is a link to a dodgy commercial, website. You can do better than that so, come on, let's see what persuaded you.

(As a side note - isn't a Christian suppose to persue the kindom of god and not get sidetracked with other beliefs?)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Graybeard on December 26, 2013, 11:41:15 AM
What about Astral projection?
It is complete hogwash.

Here's the plan. I write a few words on a piece of paper. I place it face up 1 foot from the ceiling. You "astrally project" and come back and tell me what I wrote.

OK - off you go. I have placed the paper with the writing uppermost on the top of my bookshelf. What does it say?

If you want some real insight into this delusion, Try [wiki]Albert Stubblebine[/wiki] and other sites detailing his obsessive  mental illness.

OK? Now we have disposed of that garbage: what's your next shot?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Anfauglir on December 26, 2013, 01:49:57 PM
You, on the other hand, Harbinger, are prefectly placed to show us why you think it exists. You must think so for a perectly good reason.....

Actually, his "reason" is that he was desperately searching for something in the real world to use as a parallel for the Trinity.  And since the only thing he could find was astral projection, he HAS to accept it without evidence in order to "prove" his prior assertion.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 26, 2013, 03:09:57 PM
You, on the other hand, Harbinger, are prefectly placed to show us why you think it exists. You must think so for a perectly good reason.....

Actually, his "reason" is that he was desperately searching for something in the real world to use as a parallel for the Trinity.  And since the only thing he could find was astral projection, he HAS to accept it without evidence in order to "prove" his prior assertion.

Ah... that explains it!  ;D
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 26, 2013, 06:45:23 PM


I want to respond to a lot of posts here but i'm pressed for time thisone is quick... i've done it :)


Harbinger, if you will not be addressing posts, do not quote them.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 26, 2013, 10:36:33 PM


Here's the plan. I write a few words on a piece of paper. I place it face up 1 foot from the ceiling. You "astrally project" and come back and tell me what I wrote.

OK - off you go. I have placed the paper with the writing uppermost on the top of my bookshelf. What does it say?


Harbinger77.  Before you tell Graybeard what the few words on the piece of paper say, contact James Randi with the JREF so you can collect a million dollars.  Here's how you apply: 

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 26, 2013, 10:48:06 PM
I might as well join in.

Harbinger, i have a vinyl model of a certain character on my shelf.

Use astral projection to know what it is, then post who it is.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Antidote on December 26, 2013, 11:43:35 PM
Harbinger, I have 7 large items on my desk that are not computer or electronic related, can you tell me what they are?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 26, 2013, 11:53:32 PM
Well that is an interesting discussion on a couple of words - but these words are important to many people as evidenced by the fact that so many translations continue with the translation that looks so odd.

I agree.  The words "I AM" are important to many people "as evidenced by the fact that so many translations continue with the translation that looks so odd".  The words are important to the majority of Christian translators and the majority of Christian translators are Trinitarian. 

It seems apparent to me that most of the modern Christian translations (which are Trinitarian) are under the influence of the Trinitarian KJV which was translated by Trinitarian translators.  However, these modern Trinitarian translations violate the standard practice of using correct English word order by following the Greek word order in John 8:58.  I say this stinks of translational bias.     

 

There is nothing in the text that requires the present tense in the Greek to be translated into the present tense in English. The only odd thing is that the present tense is there - the imperfect tense would carry the same meaning in Greek - a continuing state. However, the Septuagint (LXX) reading of Exodus 3:6 this early Greek translation of the OT has (http://www.septuagint.org/LXX/Exodus/3)[1]
 1. Sorry, tried posting the Greek text but it all changes to question marks when posted.

It's O.K.  If you did post the Greek text of Exodus 3:6 my response would have been ???????????? because I can't read Greek.  I looked at the link but I am confused.  Can you explain the Septuagint reading of Exodus 3:6.  Are you saying the verb "am" of this verse of the Septuagint is seen as present tense or imperfect tense (a continuing state)?  I don't know if this is an argument for or against BeDuhn.  The transition word "However" threw me off.

Note the ego eimi. The author of the Gospel could well have either read the text of had it the text to hand when writing and so might have had the text in mind and made a deliberate copy to emphasise his point about the divinity of Jesus. He might.... but the trouble is the 'ego eimi' is not the tetragramaton and doesn't sound like it so it might have been a risky move in the sense that many would not have got the link.

Right.  The EGO EIMI is not the tetragrammaton (YHWH) but the "meaning/expression" of the tetragrammaton.  I believe the literal English rendering of the Greek EGO EIMI as "I am" happened to sound like the King James English rendering of something said by God in the Old Testament and the translators made the link. 

However, like I said earlier, "I AM" is a very uncertain rendering of the Hebrew word HAYAH in Exodus 3:14.  In addition, HO ON is found in the Septuagint and not EGO EIMI in Exodus 3:14.  I don't think any of John's readers would have gotten the link anytime soon after his writing.  I believe it is the modern Trinitarian translators that make the link to the Old Testament.   

Now whether this detracts from the Trinitarian view of god is open to discussion. It seems clear that the church was convinced of Jesus' divinity on the basis of his rising from death and his ascension. (It doesn't matter if these really happened.) So there is enough texts to support this view and to agree the Nicean and Chalcedon creeds and losing this one verse is hardly likely to change this.

I don't know if this detracts from the Trinitarian view of God so much if you "lose" this one verse.  However, if you believe that John 8:58 shows that Jesus is the one true God then you also have to transfer this belief over to John 8:24.  And John 8:24 is the only verse in the whole bible that makes it a REQUIREMENT to believe that Jesus is Yahweh FOR SALVATION.  If you "lose" this one verse (John 8:58) then at least it would not be a REQUIREMENT for salvation to believe that Jesus is actually the same being as his father. 

So, for Christians, I would say that this one verse (John 8:58) is not so important for the doctrine of the Trinity; but I would say getting this one verse right is important for the Christian doctrine of salvation (whatever that is). 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 27, 2013, 05:55:03 AM
Sorry, Any, I didn't make it quite clear. The LXX (Greek OT) translates the 'YHWH' from Hebrew to 'ego eimi', Greek, the 'I AM' of this John verse we are looking at. So if John had the LXX, or knew it, we could consider John was using the name of god at that verse. The meaning would not be different if he had used the imperfect tense in Greek but John uses the present.

So, I can see how people consider this a reference to the name of god and thus why it is thus translated. It is not so much a trinitarian bias as reflecting the fact that John was probably thinking of the name of god in Greek. I still think I would translate as we have mentioned, though, and put the reference as a foot note.


I'm away for a few days so won't be back in touch until next week now.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 27, 2013, 08:20:36 AM
Sorry, Any, I didn't make it quite clear. The LXX (Greek OT) translates the 'YHWH' from Hebrew to 'ego eimi', Greek, the 'I AM' of this John verse we are looking at. So if John had the LXX, or knew it, we could consider John was using the name of god at that verse. The meaning would not be different if he had used the imperfect tense in Greek but John uses the present.

Still confused.  I don't see the tetragrammaton ('YHWH') in Exodus 3:6. 

Link:      http://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/3-6.htm

No rush.  Have a good trip!

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: G-Roll on December 27, 2013, 09:37:01 AM
I might as well join in.

Harbinger, i have a vinyl model of a certain character on my shelf.

Use astral projection to know what it is, then post who it is.

Is it a pony!?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Patrick Henry on December 27, 2013, 01:55:44 PM
Reply to Andy S. 
I may be breaking protocol....not sure.  I will try to address your previous (long) post in sections.  I will not be able to do it all at once since time doesn't allow me right now.  I didn't want to use the website's quote feature because it seemed to clunky in this case because of the length.  So will try it this way. 
Andy S. quote:
"If Jesus is saying there is no God except Him then why does he say he has a God in John 20:17?  By Jesus saying "I and the Father are ONE" is not clearly stating that Jesus is ONE BEING with the one true God.  John 17:22 says, "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be ONE, Just as we are ONE; I in them and You in Me that they may be perfected in unity".  So with this logic I'm supposed to believe that the disciples are literally ONE BEING just like you think Jesus and his Father are ONE BEING".   

Patrick Henry (PH) answer -
As it says in Phillipians 2  (Jesus)......."emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men".  Since there is not a direct translation from Greek to English, there has to be contextual reading in order to come up with the doctrine of the Trinity.  This doctrine is a mystery for sure.  My understanding is that God is one God but three separate beings.  Jesus is one in nature with God, but came to earth as a man.  So He can claim that He is one with God in that He existed with God in the beginning during the creation event, He and God the Father are one in nature but positionally separate beings.  Because they are separate beings, Jesus could leave heaven and come in human flesh, leaving His position in heaven and "humbling" Himself.  In this way, Jesus "receives" glory from the Father because He humbled Himself like a man, and had to receive from the Father like we do.  Jesus became our example that we are to follow.  I don't really see the hang up with the "one being" statement if you see the Trinity as one in nature.  This is why I tend to draw parallels here on earth.  Because I think that Jesus does it for our understanding.  If He is one with the Father and imparts a Spirit that allows Christians to become one with each other, their nature is changed in the sense that they have common belief, want to please God, love God, love each other.  I think it harmonizes.   
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Patrick Henry on December 27, 2013, 02:51:02 PM
From Andy S.
"That's a good guess but I think you are wrong according to the bible.  The Son was called Son BEFORE "He came to earth from heaven and was forever changed".  Prov. 30:4 states, "Who has ascended into heaven and descended?  Who has gathered the wind in His fists?  Who has wrapped the waters in His garmet?  Who has established all the ends of the earth?  What is His name or His SON'S name"?  (c.f. John 17:5)."

PH -  .  Good point.  The Son who exists eternally, has probably always been the Son.  But I can't be sure if that is a reference for the reader's understanding or if it how God wants us to view the Son pre-creation event or not.  Talking about a Being who isn't bound by time creates all sorts of rabbit trails to go down.  I do think that it's noteworthy that this old testament verse hints that God has a Son prior to the incarnation.

Andy -
"For Christians, the study of the "I AM" (EGO EIMI) is crucial.  If you believe that Jesus is the "I AM" in John 8:58 then you have to believe that a person will "die in their sins" if they don't believe that Jesus is "I AM" (John 8:24).  If a Christian believes that you have to believe that Jesus is the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14 then they allow the doctrine of the Trinity (or Binity) to overlap into the doctrine of salvation.  And you want to get this right as a Christian because the GOSPEL is about salvation.  If you have a different gospel than Paul then you are "accursed" in his eyes (Gal. 1:9)".

PH -
I think that it's very important to understand that Jesus is the Son of God (Deity).  That He was sinless, that He was present in the creation with God, that they are One.  All these things are crucial to understanding salvation. 
Will God save a person who doesn't completely understand these things?  Well, let's just say that I don't think God saves only the intellectuals.  It even seems that Jesus favored those who didn't have much. 
I think God will save those who believe in Christ as their redeemer and that person can measure where they are based on their own life.   The bible talks about the "fruit" that comes from having the Spirit.  So that is a good starting point to gauge oneself.   I think about who is really saved and it's an interesting thing to talk about.  But ultimately God judges us and I think that only Christ can justify us.  We don't justify ourselves.   

I've started reading Jason Be Duhn's work.  Thanks.  Will get back to you after some study. 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 27, 2013, 10:05:02 PM
Is it a pony!?

(http://th01.deviantart.net/fs70/200H/i/2012/181/1/8/mlp_fim_buck_off__by_yo_yo_girl12-d55hfsz.jpg)

Yes...it is a model of a pony...
Not stating what one.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 27, 2013, 11:57:49 PM

As it says in Phillipians 2  (Jesus)......."emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men".

O.K., I read Phillipians 2.  So you are saying that Jesus is God and he shares in ONE nature.  v. 8 says, "...He humbled Himself by becoming OBEDIENT to the point of death."

Can God OBEY Himself?  This makes no sense to me.     

This doctrine is a mystery for sure.

You say mystery and I say contradictory.  But please keep it a mystery in your explanation of the Trinity.  No more analogies please.  None of them work.  It's like trying to come up with an analogy for a square and a circle and saying they are the same shape. 

So since you think the Trinity doctrine is a mystery do you think that one has to believe in this mysterious doctrine in order to be saved (John 8:24)? 

My understanding is that God is one God but three separate beings.  Jesus is one in nature with God, but came to earth as a man.  So He can claim that He is one with God in that He existed with God in the beginning during the creation event, He and God the Father are one in nature but positionally separate beings.   


I am confused.  Now I don't even know if you are a true Trinitarian Christian.  The Trinity is defined as three PERSONS that make up ONE BEING.  If you think that God is three separate "beings" then you must think there are three separate Gods by the definition of "being".  Wikipedia defines the Trinity as:

"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons or hypostases:[1] the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[2] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is."

"In their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire".

Link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity


I don't really see the hang up with the "one being" statement if you see the Trinity as one in nature.  This is why I tend to draw parallels here on earth.  Because I think that Jesus does it for our understanding.  If He is one with the Father and imparts a Spirit that allows Christians to become one with each other, their nature is changed in the sense that they have common belief, want to please God, love God, love each other.  I think it harmonizes.

I don't see how you don't see the hang up with the "one being" statement.  Well, maybe it's because I don't understand your stance on the Trinity. 

You say that the members of the Trinity are three "SEPARATE BEINGS".  Do you agree with the definition of the Trinity that the three members are consubstantial (ONE BEING)?

The nature of a Christian is changed in the sense that they have common belief???  Just google "How many Christian denominations are there".  The statement, "Christians have common belief" is an oxymoron.  The only thing common about the belief of different Christian doctrines is disagreement amongst Christians.

So if their is common belief amongst Christians who are indwelt with the same Spirit, why are there non-trinitarian Christians and Trinitarian Christians.  Doesn't the Spirit guide believers into all truth?



"I and the Father are ONE"(John 10:30) - PH's interpretation is that Jesus is the one true God because Jesus said He is ONE with the Father.

"...that they may be ONE just as we are ONE" (John 17:22) - PH's interpretation is that a Spirit is imparted that allows Christians to become ONE with each other, their nature is changed in the sense that they have common belief.

How is this harmonizing these two verses???  A harmonization would be: "John 17:22 speaks of the Spirit making Christians ONE with each other in the sense that they have common belief so, in turn, that means John 10:30 speaks of Jesus having the Spirit that makes Him one with the Father in the sense that he has common belief with the Father."

THAT'S HARMONIZATION!

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 28, 2013, 01:56:08 PM

PH -  .  Good point.  The Son who exists eternally, has probably always been the Son.  But I can't be sure if that is a reference for the reader's understanding or if it how God wants us to view the Son pre-creation event or not.  Talking about a Being who isn't bound by time creates all sorts of rabbit trails to go down.  I do think that it's noteworthy that this old testament verse hints that God has a Son prior to the incarnation.

Do you see the contradiction now.  You say, "The Son who exists eternally, has probably always been the Son."  If the second person of the Trinity was called "Son" before the incarnation then one would think that this entity is a DESCENDENT of someone since that is what the definition of "Son" means.  According to the definition of son, a son cannot exist eternally and must have a beginning (unless your name is Yahweh and want to confuse the human race). 

According to one's interpretation of John 8:24, Yahweh might possibly make believing in this confusion a requirement for salvation.  Why would God make believing in a contradiction a requirement for salvation?     

PH -
I think that it's very important to understand that Jesus is the Son of God (Deity).  That He was sinless, that He was present in the creation with God, that they are One.  All these things are crucial to understanding salvation.


WHY?  It seems to me that Zaccheus (Luke ch. 19) didn't have this understanding.  I guess you could say that Zaccheus thought Jesus was "Deity" and one being with Yahweh because Zaccheus called Jesus Lord but Acts 2:36 said that Jesus was MADE Lord.  In addition, this Greek word for Lord can mean "Master" or "Sir". 

Link:  http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/2962.htm

I don't think Zaccheus had any understanding that Jesus was sinless, present in the creation with God, was actually God incarnate and one in nature with the one true God.  All he did was repent of being a fraud and materialistic and Jesus said, "Today salvation has come to this house".  I don't think Zaccheus had to believe anything about who Jesus is/was for Jesus to say Zaccheus is saved.

I think God will save those who believe in Christ as their redeemer and that person can measure where they are based on their own life.   The bible talks about the "fruit" that comes from having the Spirit.  So that is a good starting point to gauge oneself.   I think about who is really saved and it's an interesting thing to talk about.  But ultimately God judges us and I think that only Christ can justify us.  We don't justify ourselves.   

This makes no sense to me.  If "fruit" only comes from having the Spirit then why are many non-believer's loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlling (Gal. 4:22)?  So is an atheist who practices all these things in his/her life saved?  You would say NO.  So this is NOT a "good gauge".   

Additionally, all this "fruit" is relative.  How "good" does one have to be?  How much self-control does one have to have?  Will this Spirit allow the Christian to even tell a white lie?  How would one know how to "guage" oneself?  Is the bible clear on all of this?  If the "fruit" that comes from this Spirit is ABSOLUTE and Christian's somehow have their nature changed in the sense that they have common belief, then why don't all Christians practice all the "fruits" if they are indwelt with this Spirit and their nature is changed.   

If Paul was writing "truth" then all atheists who don't have this Spirit would be immoral, impure, sorcerers, full of strife, jealous, angry, factious, envious, drunkards, etc. (Gal. 4:19).  This "gauge" is not absolute for all believers unless we would see all Christians practicing all the "fruit" in Gal. 4:22-23.  The "gauge" cannot be "good" because the "gauge" is too relative.

By the way you said, "I think" three times in this last paragraph alone.  I am very aware of these words as they imply to a skeptic like myself that the doctrine of salvation is unclear in the bible.  The words, "The bible says....." would appear as a much better defense for the hope that is in you.   
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 29, 2013, 06:13:10 PM

PH -  .  Good point.  The Son who exists eternally, has probably always been the Son.  But I can't be sure if that is a reference for the reader's understanding or if it how God wants us to view the Son pre-creation event or not.  Talking about a Being who isn't bound by time creates all sorts of rabbit trails to go down.  I do think that it's noteworthy that this old testament verse hints that God has a Son prior to the incarnation.

Do you see the contradiction now.  You say, "The Son who exists eternally, has probably always been the Son."  If the second person of the Trinity was called "Son" before the incarnation then one would think that this entity is a DESCENDENT of someone since that is what the definition of "Son" means.  According to the definition of son, a son cannot exist eternally and must have a beginning (unless your name is Yahweh and want to confuse the human race). 

According to one's interpretation of John 8:24, Yahweh might possibly make believing in this confusion a requirement for salvation.  Why would God make believing in a contradiction a requirement for salvation?     

PH -
I think that it's very important to understand that Jesus is the Son of God (Deity).  That He was sinless, that He was present in the creation with God, that they are One.  All these things are crucial to understanding salvation.


WHY?  It seems to me that Zaccheus (Luke ch. 19) didn't have this understanding.  I guess you could say that Zaccheus thought Jesus was "Deity" and one being with Yahweh because Zaccheus called Jesus Lord but Acts 2:36 said that Jesus was MADE Lord.  In addition, this Greek word for Lord can mean "Master" or "Sir". 

Link:  http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/2962.htm

I don't think Zaccheus had any understanding that Jesus was sinless, present in the creation with God, was actually God incarnate and one in nature with the one true God.  All he did was repent of being a fraud and materialistic and Jesus said, "Today salvation has come to this house".  I don't think Zaccheus had to believe anything about who Jesus is/was for Jesus to say Zaccheus is saved.

I think God will save those who believe in Christ as their redeemer and that person can measure where they are based on their own life.   The bible talks about the "fruit" that comes from having the Spirit.  So that is a good starting point to gauge oneself.   I think about who is really saved and it's an interesting thing to talk about.  But ultimately God judges us and I think that only Christ can justify us.  We don't justify ourselves.   

This makes no sense to me.  If "fruit" only comes from having the Spirit then why are many non-believer's loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlling (Gal. 4:22)?  So is an atheist who practices all these things in his/her life saved?  You would say NO.  So this is NOT a "good gauge".   

Additionally, all this "fruit" is relative.  How "good" does one have to be?  How much self-control does one have to have?  Will this Spirit allow the Christian to even tell a white lie?  How would one know how to "guage" oneself?  Is the bible clear on all of this?  If the "fruit" that comes from this Spirit is ABSOLUTE and Christian's somehow have their nature changed in the sense that they have common belief, then why don't all Christians practice all the "fruits" if they are indwelt with this Spirit and their nature is changed.   

If Paul was writing "truth" then all atheists who don't have this Spirit would be immoral, impure, sorcerers, full of strife, jealous, angry, factious, envious, drunkards, etc. (Gal. 4:19).  This "gauge" is not absolute for all believers unless we would see all Christians practicing all the "fruit" in Gal. 4:22-23.  The "gauge" cannot be "good" because the "gauge" is too relative.

By the way you said, "I think" three times in this last paragraph alone.  I am very aware of these words as they imply to a skeptic like myself that the doctrine of salvation is unclear in the bible.  The words, "The bible says....." would appear as a much better defense for the hope that is in you.   

I only want to add two things first I don't disagree with "I think" however the one time I did present salvation as a matter of fact it was reported as preaching and the mod changed it to say "I think" I believe the mod changed it to reflect what they called a personal testimony. As Christians, I would imagine any theist, we are against the rule to make absolute statements. We are almost forced to walk a fine line. We must be careful to say I think man is fallen into sin rather than the absolute Man IS fallen into sin.

I disagree with a changed nature is a common belief. Unless that common belief is simply Jesus came in the flesh and is the son of God. You must repent to be saved. I think these may be the only things Christians agree on regardless of denomination. A changed nature refers to something more personal. This is new nature:

2 Corinthians 5:17
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

 For my own personal evidence there are many but I'll use one. In my old nature I cussed like crazy. When I was saved and given a new nature that was removed from me. My new nature won't cuss. Not because I decided not to it just happened. As i said many more things came with this new nature. This is only one.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 30, 2013, 12:19:13 AM
I only want to add two things first I don't disagree with "I think" however the one time I did present salvation as a matter of fact it was reported as preaching and the mod changed it to say "I think" I believe the mod changed it to reflect what they called a personal testimony.

Does this "new nature" of yours allow you to lie?  You are referring here to post #43 on this thread.  Do you see the words "I think"?  DON'T LIE!  It's amazing that in this "new nature" of yours you can lie but you can't cuss.   

As Christians, I would imagine any theist, we are against the rule to make absolute statements. We are almost forced to walk a fine line.

I suggested to Patrick Henry instead of using the words "I think"; the words, "The bible says....." would appear as a much better defense.  If you want to make an "absolute statement" about salvation then start a sentence with, "The bible says...., and then give scripture reference.

Harbinger77, I actually thought it was unfair that the moderator adjusted your post #43.  I don't like that rule but rules are rules I guess.  Instead of saying, "All YOU have to do is accept the free gift", You might want to say, "The bible says all a person has to do is accept the free gift" (scripture reference).  I believe this would allow you to "make absolute statements" without being "forced to walk a fine line". 

 
We must be careful to say I think man is fallen into sin rather than the absolute Man IS fallen into sin.

Try:  THE BIBLE SAYS man is fallen into sin (scripture reference).

I disagree with a changed nature is a common belief. Unless that common belief is simply Jesus came in the flesh and is the son of God. You must repent to be saved. I think these may be the only things Christians agree on regardless of denomination.

False!  Christian Universalism would not say that one has to repent to be saved and they are considered a Christian denomination.
 
I don't think you follow rules very well.  Notice how the word "you" is crossed out of your post #43.  You broke the rule again by saying, "YOU must repent to be saved".  Once again, use the words "The bible says..." and then give scripture reference unless, that is, something was revealed to you directly from God like your ridiculous contradictory analogy of the trinity in post #84.

Since you believe that one must repent to be saved then you better repent of being a liar unless you are going to hell (if you believe in the doctrine of hell).

By the way, you also lied about getting back to people in post #106.  What you are doing is dodging questions.  I guess this "new nature" of yours likes to dodge questions.  It really looks bad when you say you are pressed for time when asked to respond to some of your ridiculous claims regarding astral travel, but then all of a sudden you have time to post this. 

A side note:  You have still not answered my question in the thread "In the beginning was the word..." (post #67).  Why do you dodge questions?  Anfauglir puts it best in his thread, "Why it it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?"

Link:  http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25200.0.html


For my own personal evidence there are many but I'll use one. In my old nature I cussed like crazy. When I was saved and given a new nature that was removed from me. My new nature won't cuss. Not because I decided not to it just happened. As i said many more things came with this new nature. This is only one.

You are lying again!!!  You say, "My new nature won't cuss".  If I held a loaded gun up to somebody's head that you love and said, "I am going to pull the trigger if you don't say f#%k"; you would have no problem saying the "F" word.  You can't say with absolute certainty that your "new nature" won't cuss.

     
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 30, 2013, 08:01:27 AM
Just a thought. Up to the Reformation, these two creeds were the definition of what it was to be a Christian so far as belief is concerned. now I know that it is popular to argue with these statements of faith and claim they are wrong or whatever. Yet the Reformation was not about the creeds or the doctrines of the church but really about church government. Luther stuck with these creeds for instance.

So Patrick and Harbinger, do you accept the following creeds?

Nicene Creed (http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm)


Chalcedon Creed (http://www.theopedia.com/Chalcedonian_Creed)

If not, how is it that you think that you know better than nthose who worked for serval centuries to come up with this doctrine?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 30, 2013, 09:40:07 PM
I only want to add two things first I don't disagree with "I think" however the one time I did present salvation as a matter of fact it was reported as preaching and the mod changed it to say "I think" I believe the mod changed it to reflect what they called a personal testimony.

Does this "new nature" of yours allow you to lie?  You are referring here to post #43 on this thread.  Do you see the words "I think"?  DON'T LIE!  It's amazing that in this "new nature" of yours you can lie but you can't cuss.   

As Christians, I would imagine any theist, we are against the rule to make absolute statements. We are almost forced to walk a fine line.

I suggested to Patrick Henry instead of using the words "I think"; the words, "The bible says....." would appear as a much better defense.  If you want to make an "absolute statement" about salvation then start a sentence with, "The bible says...., and then give scripture reference.

Harbinger77, I actually thought it was unfair that the moderator adjusted your post #43.  I don't like that rule but rules are rules I guess.  Instead of saying, "All YOU have to do is accept the free gift", You might want to say, "The bible says all a person has to do is accept the free gift" (scripture reference).  I believe this would allow you to "make absolute statements" without being "forced to walk a fine line". 

 
We must be careful to say I think man is fallen into sin rather than the absolute Man IS fallen into sin.

Try:  THE BIBLE SAYS man is fallen into sin (scripture reference).

I disagree with a changed nature is a common belief. Unless that common belief is simply Jesus came in the flesh and is the son of God. You must repent to be saved. I think these may be the only things Christians agree on regardless of denomination.

False!  Christian Universalism would not say that one has to repent to be saved and they are considered a Christian denomination.
 
I don't think you follow rules very well.  Notice how the word "you" is crossed out of your post #43.  You broke the rule again by saying, "YOU must repent to be saved".  Once again, use the words "The bible says..." and then give scripture reference unless, that is, something was revealed to you directly from God like your ridiculous contradictory analogy of the trinity in post #84.

Since you believe that one must repent to be saved then you better repent of being a liar unless you are going to hell (if you believe in the doctrine of hell).

By the way, you also lied about getting back to people in post #106.  What you are doing is dodging questions.  I guess this "new nature" of yours likes to dodge questions.  It really looks bad when you say you are pressed for time when asked to respond to some of your ridiculous claims regarding astral travel, but then all of a sudden you have time to post this. 

A side note:  You have still not answered my question in the thread "In the beginning was the word..." (post #67).  Why do you dodge questions?  Anfauglir puts it best in his thread, "Why it it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?"

Link:  http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25200.0.html


For my own personal evidence there are many but I'll use one. In my old nature I cussed like crazy. When I was saved and given a new nature that was removed from me. My new nature won't cuss. Not because I decided not to it just happened. As i said many more things came with this new nature. This is only one.

You are lying again!!!  You say, "My new nature won't cuss".  If I held a loaded gun up to somebody's head that you love and said, "I am going to pull the trigger if you don't say f#%k"; you would have no problem saying the "F" word.  You can't say with absolute certainty that your "new nature" won't cuss.

   

The replies that keep my post in its original context are 47, 46, 44, However the post I reference is 43. That's the one I wrote (in black) and was later changed by the mod (in green). 47 has my quote in it's original. It does NOT say "I think" in either 43 or 47 I'm not sure how post 43 makes what I've said a lie.

YOU bear false witness, sir.
Exodus 20:16
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

 exception to everything I guess... I did forget  Universalism. It's wrong about so much though. I'm not even sure they fall into the Christian category as they reject so much basic doctrine and make up their own seeker sensitive garbage. I suppose that could be debated... That could be a whole separate thread even...

I suggest you make a new name, pose as a theist and try to keep up with at least 4 threads while 10 people verbally gang rape you at a break neck pace on each one. I suggest the name change because I'm sure you see how it's piled on at times but until you see it from this side you can't understand the frustration it causes.

  I'm sorry I'm human and I over look, forget, miss or for whatever reason don't get to answer a question. I promise it's not malicious on my part. While I do appreciate the reminder, saying i lied without knowing the facts well I say again...

YOU bear false witness, sir!
Exodus 20:16
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

If you didn't notice, at the threat of another verbal rape, I reject your "Bible says" advise. Sound advice I'm sure. However, I choose to state it as an absolute... because less than that would be a disservice to the absolute truth that is God's word!

Romans5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon ALL men, for that ALL have sinned:

And for the loaded gun question. The reaction you hope for is rooted in fear.
As an infantry soldier I am not afraid to die. As a Christian physical death is almost a favor. I don't fear your loaded gun... I'm much more likely to get myself shot taking the gun away. I wouldn't let some gun totin' punk force me to do or say anything! My wife would agree death can be a favor too.... sorry. Aside from that I said won't not can't.

For the record and from experience the trigger that takes a life is a really hard one to pull.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 30, 2013, 11:09:49 PM
Just a thought. Up to the Reformation, these two creeds were the definition of what it was to be a Christian so far as belief is concerned. now I know that it is popular to argue with these statements of faith and claim they are wrong or whatever. Yet the Reformation was not about the creeds or the doctrines of the church but really about church government. Luther stuck with these creeds for instance.

So Patrick and Harbinger, do you accept the following creeds?

Nicene Creed (http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm)


Chalcedon Creed (http://www.theopedia.com/Chalcedonian_Creed)

If not, how is it that you think that you know better than nthose who worked for serval centuries to come up with this doctrine?

I can't answer this for Patrick Henry of course but I think you answered your own question with "up until the reformation"

I am a reformed Christian.
Look up reformed theology to better understand what I believe.
http://www.reformedreader.org/t.u.l.i.p.htm

Or the synod of dort.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Dort

I would also add these are both incomplete and if you must have a confession or creed, I would direct you to the Belgic confession That I do give my endorsement to.
https://www.rca.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=362

The history of which can be found here:
https://www.rca.org/belgic
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 30, 2013, 11:53:58 PM
Protip: do not use bible verses, they have as little use here as a quote from Harry Potter.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on December 31, 2013, 12:00:49 AM
I only want to add two things first I don't disagree with "I think" however the one time I did present salvation as a matter of fact it was reported as preaching and the mod changed it to say "I think" I believe the mod changed it to reflect what they called a personal testimony.

Does this "new nature" of yours allow you to lie?  You are referring here to post #43 on this thread.  Do you see the words "I think"?  DON'T LIE!  It's amazing that in this "new nature" of yours you can lie but you can't cuss.   

ahhhh... I only had to read it about 5 times.. now I see the disconnect. I said "I think." as in the mod changed the NATURE of my post from matter-of-fact to "I think." I never intended to convey that the actual words "I think" were added to my post. That's why I used the quotes.

 That's the way you read it though, right?
If I was unclear I apologize. I'm sorry.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 31, 2013, 12:07:35 AM
The 10 commandments states you are not allowed to lie, so have you lied?

I find many theists break that one (9, wasn't it?...cant remember...)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Patrick Henry on December 31, 2013, 03:20:17 AM

O.K., I read Phillipians 2.  So you are saying that Jesus is God and he shares in ONE nature.  v. 8 says, "...He humbled Himself by becoming OBEDIENT to the point of death."

Can God OBEY Himself?  This makes no sense to me.     

So since you think the Trinity doctrine is a mystery do you think that one has to believe in this mysterious doctrine in order to be saved (John 8:24)? 

I am confused.  Now I don't even know if you are a true Trinitarian Christian.  The Trinity is defined as three PERSONS that make up ONE BEING.  If you think that God is three separate "beings" then you must think there are three separate Gods by the definition of "being".  Wikipedia defines the Trinity as:

"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons or hypostases:[1] the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[2] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is."

"In their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire".

Link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

I don't see how you don't see the hang up with the "one being" statement.  Well, maybe it's because I don't understand your stance on the Trinity. 

You say that the members of the Trinity are three "SEPARATE BEINGS".  Do you agree with the definition of the Trinity that the three members are consubstantial (ONE BEING)?

The nature of a Christian is changed in the sense that they have common belief???  Just google "How many Christian denominations are there".  The statement, "Christians have common belief" is an oxymoron.  The only thing common about the belief of different Christian doctrines is disagreement amongst Christians.

So if their is common belief amongst Christians who are indwelt with the same Spirit, why are there non-trinitarian Christians and Trinitarian Christians.  Doesn't the Spirit guide believers into all truth?



"I and the Father are ONE"(John 10:30) - PH's interpretation is that Jesus is the one true God because Jesus said He is ONE with the Father.

"...that they may be ONE just as we are ONE" (John 17:22) - PH's interpretation is that a Spirit is imparted that allows Christians to become ONE with each other, their nature is changed in the sense that they have common belief.

How is this harmonizing these two verses???  A harmonization would be: "John 17:22 speaks of the Spirit making Christians ONE with each other in the sense that they have common belief so, in turn, that means John 10:30 speaks of Jesus having the Spirit that makes Him one with the Father in the sense that he has common belief with the Father."


If I answer you on your terms, then yes, God can obey Himself.  I wouldn't really put it that way though.   Jesus took on the flesh like a man and "humbled" Himself to be like us.  So He modeled a reliance and humility towards God as we are supposed to.   

Salvation based on belief in the Trinity:  It seems the thief on the cross was saved, I doubt that he fully understood the Trinity.  Maybe Zacchaeus didn't understand the Trinity completely either.   While the Trinity is important to understand, ultimately it is a changed heart that leads a man to repentance and belief in Christ.  That changed heart and ultimate salvation is up to God and is between God and the person.   

Persons or Beings:   It's funny because if you Wikipedia "person" the first line states "A person is a being...."  But then goes on to say that long ago terms such as these needed further definition for the puposes of philosophical debate.
Soooo......ya, I didn't really look it up before I typed.  But I think the idea of one nature but three persons is Trinitarian and is what I believe and was trying to say even while substituting the word "person" for "being".   Believing Jesus is the eternal Son, that the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of man to bring him to salvation, and in the Father is all plenty of understanding for most people.  Because it's what the bible says.

But this is something that I'm interested to know about you.  When you were a Christian, did you believe that it was absolutely necessary to have just the right view of the Trinity?  That salvation depended upon intellect and knowlege? 

Here's another question:  Where does a non-trinitarian gospel lead a person?  Over a long period of time, where does it lead a church? 

Regarding the unity of the church and common belief:  The short answer is that there are essentials of the faith that unite people.   Salvation by grace through faith in Christ as the final attonement for our sin, is the one thing that unites people.  There are a lot of false gospels out there and aberrations of the faith.  Some sound good but when finally flushed out, may not come to the same conclusion. That salvation through Christ's finished work on the cross, was enough. 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 31, 2013, 06:47:05 AM

Regarding the unity of the church and common belief:  The short answer is that there are essentials of the faith that unite people.   Salvation by grace through faith in Christ as the final attonement for our sin, is the one thing that unites people.  There are a lot of false gospels out there and aberrations of the faith.  Some sound good but when finally flushed out, may not come to the same conclusion. That salvation through Christ's finished work on the cross, was enough.

You come to the crux of theology at this point precisely. It is as essential as anything to know just who Jesus was to determine if his sacrifice was sufficient. The fact is that whilst a good man might die for a cause his death could not be enough to cover all the sins of all the people - ever. Indeed, even if Jesus as a super-man but still part of creation it would still not do. The only way the the sacrifice pays for all the sins is if Jesus is god yet that's only part of the problem.

The other part concerns Jesus' life and example. Now, if Jesus was just god, then not doing bad things during his earthly life would not be anything to mention - after all if god can't manage this he isn't god. Now a lot of fuss is made of Jesus living a sinless life - a fuss that is based on theology since the bible is not of much help. (I wonder if he cussed the first time he hit his finger with the hammer...) Still, to be the example for everyone, he needed to be fully human.

So now we have these two natures that have to be incorporated into the on Jesus and that was part of Nicea but most importantly Chalcedon. Frankly, one can just believe what the minister / priest / pastor delete as applicable says and not get involved in the theology and most people do. However, engag8ing in the discussion does help one to understand the problem and the facts rather better and ought to help belief too.

So, that's what "salvation through Christ's finished work on the cross," is about.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: shnozzola on December 31, 2013, 07:10:41 AM
Here's another question:  Where does a non-trinitarian gospel lead a person?  Over a long period of time, where does it lead a church?

Patrick Henry,
     The Westboro Baptists, as Primitive Baptists with Calvinist Principles, believe in the Holy Trinity.


Quote
From Wiki:
The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an American unaffiliated Baptist church known for its extreme ideologies, especially those against gay people.[2][3] The church is widely described as a hate group[4] and is monitored as such by the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center.
The church describes itself as following Primitive Baptist and Calvinist principles.[10]

My point always in these debates is not to say you are incorrect, but to ask you, when it is obvious that you could not possibly know better than another, wouldn't common sense dictate that you realize you can not be sure?   


Here is another interesting fact about the WBC,
         They believe that all church music should be a cappella because there is no New Testament command to play instruments, but only to sing.

Does that make you wonder about the picking and choosing of Christian theology?  And therefore question your own beliefs? 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Patrick Henry on December 31, 2013, 10:58:00 AM
Here's another question:  Where does a non-trinitarian gospel lead a person?  Over a long period of time, where does it lead a church?

Patrick Henry,
     The Westboro Baptists, as Primitive Baptists with Calvinist Principles, believe in the Holy Trinity.


My point always in these debates is not to say you are incorrect, but to ask you, when it is obvious that you could not possibly know better than another, wouldn't common sense dictate that you realize you can not be sure?   


Here is another interesting fact about the WBC,
         They believe that all church music should be a cappella because there is no New Testament command to play instruments, but only to sing.

Does that make you wonder about the picking and choosing of Christian theology?  And therefore question your own beliefs?

This proves the point that two people can have the same knowlege of the bible but one can be saved and the other not saved.  Evidence of salvation is "fruit of the Spirit".  Galatians 5:22-23
 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."
I don't see that in folks who go to funerals with hateful picket signs.  They have knowlege but doesn't appear to me that their heart has been changed by the gospel.  God is their Judge, not me though. 
I try not to "pick and choose" but be guided by the bible and the Spirit. 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 31, 2013, 11:03:45 AM
I try not to "pick and choose" but be guided by the bible and the Spirit. 

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html

Totally with you pal!
Because male superiority, am i right?

(disclaimer: Women are equal of man, this post was satirical, and is intended to show issues with the quote)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: shnozzola on December 31, 2013, 11:24:40 AM
I try not to "pick and choose" but be guided by the bible and the Spirit.

Could you be wrong?

edit:  wait, I'll answer that.  Right or wrong doesn't matter, as long as you are saved.

Me:  how about a 1 year old that dies without knowing about Christianity?

wait - sorry -you answered below - it would be possible for the child to be saved, right?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Patrick Henry on December 31, 2013, 11:27:22 AM

You come to the crux of theology at this point precisely. It is as essential as anything to know just who Jesus was to determine if his sacrifice was sufficient. The fact is that whilst a good man might die for a cause his death could not be enough to cover all the sins of all the people - ever. Indeed, even if Jesus as a super-man but still part of creation it would still not do. The only way the the sacrifice pays for all the sins is if Jesus is god yet that's only part of the problem.

The other part concerns Jesus' life and example. Now, if Jesus was just god, then not doing bad things during his earthly life would not be anything to mention - after all if god can't manage this he isn't god. Now a lot of fuss is made of Jesus living a sinless life - a fuss that is based on theology since the bible is not of much help. (I wonder if he cussed the first time he hit his finger with the hammer...) Still, to be the example for everyone, he needed to be fully human.

So now we have these two natures that have to be incorporated into the on Jesus and that was part of Nicea but most importantly Chalcedon. Frankly, one can just believe what the minister / priest / pastor delete as applicable says and not get involved in the theology and most people do. However, engag8ing in the discussion does help one to understand the problem and the facts rather better and ought to help belief too.

So, that's what "salvation through Christ's finished work on the cross," is about.

I agree that it is essential to know who Jesus is.  But possibly God saves some who have not had the chance to know everything based on when they finally believed in their life.  Like on their death bed (thief on the cross).  Matt 20 is just one example where Jesus teaches that salvation is really up to God.  But is there some kind of progressive accountability where as a person who goes through life needs to accept more based on the knowlege he's been given?  I think that is (possibly) true to the extent that the acceptance of the knowlege of God is done with a heart towards God and not prideful intentions.  No one comes to God without humility.  But is it the same for everyone?  There are a lot of variables and nuances to people and life itself.  It seems that everyone on this board continues to try and focus on exactly what a person needs to do or believe to be saved.  Which is fine, except that it has a "works righteousness" feel to it.  The gospel doesn't teach that.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: shnozzola on December 31, 2013, 11:39:19 AM
It seems that everyone on this board continues to try and focus on exactly what a person needs to do or believe to be saved. 

Not quite, I believe the whole saved business is hogwash (only my opinion, no proof you know).  I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday, Patrick.  I want to know what YOU think a person needs to do to be saved.  When the next theist arrives, we will get his or her rules for being saved, for the never ending, never agreeing book we are writing.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on December 31, 2013, 11:46:44 AM

You come to the crux of theology at this point precisely. It is as essential as anything to know just who Jesus was to determine if his sacrifice was sufficient. The fact is that whilst a good man might die for a cause his death could not be enough to cover all the sins of all the people - ever. Indeed, even if Jesus as a super-man but still part of creation it would still not do. The only way the the sacrifice pays for all the sins is if Jesus is god yet that's only part of the problem.

The other part concerns Jesus' life and example. Now, if Jesus was just god, then not doing bad things during his earthly life would not be anything to mention - after all if god can't manage this he isn't god. Now a lot of fuss is made of Jesus living a sinless life - a fuss that is based on theology since the bible is not of much help. (I wonder if he cussed the first time he hit his finger with the hammer...) Still, to be the example for everyone, he needed to be fully human.

So now we have these two natures that have to be incorporated into the on Jesus and that was part of Nicea but most importantly Chalcedon. Frankly, one can just believe what the minister / priest / pastor delete as applicable says and not get involved in the theology and most people do. However, engag8ing in the discussion does help one to understand the problem and the facts rather better and ought to help belief too.

So, that's what "salvation through Christ's finished work on the cross," is about.

I agree that it is essential to know who Jesus is.  But possibly God saves some who have not had the chance to know everything based on when they finally believed in their life.  Like on their death bed (thief on the cross).  Matt 20 is just one example where Jesus teaches that salvation is really up to God.  But is there some kind of progressive accountability where as a person who goes through life needs to accept more based on the knowlege he's been given?  I think that is (possibly) true to the extent that the acceptance of the knowlege of God is done with a heart towards God and not prideful intentions.  No one comes to God without humility.  But is it the same for everyone?  There are a lot of variables and nuances to people and life itself.  It seems that everyone on this board continues to try and focus on exactly what a person needs to do or believe to be saved.  Which is fine, except that it has a "works righteousness" feel to it.  The gospel doesn't teach that.

Very good, Patrick, except you are trying to dodge the point. I'm sure that all sorts of people have thought themselves 'saed' but have not bothered to understand any theology but that hardly makes the theology not worth doing. After all, the simple belief that belief in Jesus 'saves's a person is far from simple as it makes lots assumptions - assumptions which really need to be examined. Shall we try?

Firstly, I know that lots of people join churches and believe without the theology to back it up yet do they really? Why would a person like you, for example, not go to a Roman Catholic or an Anglican church? I'm assuming that if you don'#t go to such a church you will probably have some objection to the theology - whether its the confessional, where the sinner ought to speak direct to god, or the communion, where the bread and wine 'become' the body and blood of Jesus. In the Catholic church you will also need good works on top of beliefs to be saved whereas many no episcopalian churches say faith alone is all that is needed.

Anyway, that belief in Jesus 'saves' is all about who people think Jesus is. Its all about a concept of the Trinity because it is not really a biblical doctrine and because churches  all have a different view of the topic. The only thing they all have in common is that the clergy don't like to preach on the trinity as its too hard for them! Since we are discussing and neither of us (I hope) are on our deathbeds, I think it would be helpful to see your view on this.

Then there is the 'saves'. 'Saves' from what? Well, apparently Original Sin (OS). You know, Adam and Eve and the fruit and the wily snake. Well, it turns out that, using the same Genesis text, Jews don't find OS at all. They see it as something the couple did that doesn't affect us today. Yoyu have Paul to thank for introducing the world to the need to be 'saved'. Anyone wodering about being 'saved' really ought to come to terms with the concept and decide if it makes sense.

The problem is, though, that the money coming in on the plate would fall, as would the numbers on the pews, if the congregations had to start and get their heads around this stuff because it takes some interesting philosophy to make it all work. Aristotle and his concept of 'substance' in particular. Yet if people are being brought into the churches without the understanding of the basis of faith (and Aristotle's dodgy philosophy) is it being honest to the people?

So, anyway, have a look and Nicea and try some theology, Patrick - it might chnage your life.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on December 31, 2013, 12:03:38 PM


The replies that keep my post in its original context are 47, 46, 44, However the post I reference is 43. That's the one I wrote (in black) and was later changed by the mod (in green). 47 has my quote in it's original. It does NOT say "I think" in either 43 or 47 I'm not sure how post 43 makes what I've said a lie.

YOU bear false witness, sir.
Exodus 20:16
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.


Referring to post #43, in post #119 you said, "The one time I did present salvation as a matter of fact it was reported as preaching and the mod changed it to say "I think".

Then in post #122 you say, "It does NOT say 'I think' in either 43 or 47 I'm not sure how post 43 makes what I've said a lie".

You are right!  Post #43 does NOT say "I think".  So why would you say the moderator changed your post to say "I think"???

I "THINK" it is because you are a liar.  Lets move on Harbinger77.  Who cares if you are a liar.  Even Jesus lied (John 7:8-10).  Jesus said, "I do NOT go up to THIS feast" and then he went up to THAT feast.  He lied to his brothers. 


Exception to everything I guess... I did forget  Universalism.

Wrong again!  Christian Universalism is not the only exception to the fact that one has to repent to be saved.  Another is hyper-Calvinism.  Article 26 states a confession that the natural man should not be given exhortation or duties to "spiritually and savingly" repent and believe.  This article is controversial but some Christians believe in complete "election" and consider the "free gift" duty/faith free.

Link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-Calvinism

I suggest you make a new name, pose as a theist and try to keep up with at least 4 threads while 10 people verbally gang rape you at a break neck pace on each one.


NOW YOU WANT ME TO LIE AND POSE AS A THEIST??? 

No thanks.  I don't like gangs; I don't like rape; and gang rapes don't sound too appealing to me.

My advice would be to only get involved in 1 thread and not 4 if you cannot "keep up". 

I suggest the name change because I'm sure you see how it's piled on at times but until you see it from this side you can't understand the frustration it causes.

Why do you have frustration?  Jesus says, "My yoke is easy and My burden is light" (Matt. 11:30).  I would think He would supernaturally give you all the time and direct answers so you can be involved in 4 threads while at the same time being "verbally gang raped". 

Now I'm thinking you aren't even a true Christian since you are not "peaceful" and you don't have the "self-control" to only get involved in one thread.  You don't have these fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 4:22-23).  Since you don't have the "self-control" to only get involved in one thread it seems like you are dodging questions since you can't keep up.  This does not look good for someone who is supposed to be defending his faith.   


And for the loaded gun question. The reaction you hope for is rooted in fear.
As an infantry soldier I am not afraid to die. As a Christian physical death is almost a favor. I don't fear your loaded gun... I'm much more likely to get myself shot taking the gun away. I wouldn't let some gun totin' punk force me to do or say anything! My wife would agree death can be a favor too.... sorry. Aside from that I said won't not can't.


You missed the whole point to the whole analogy.  By saying, "My new nature won't cuss" you are implying that under any circumstance your new nature will not cuss.  I am calling BS on this and I "think" you are a liar.  I don't buy your story that you wouldn't say "F#*K" to save the life of a loved one.  Especially since you say, "As a Christian physical death is ALMOST a favor". 

As a personal note, my wife would think I was a jerk if a "gun totin' punk" put a gun to her head and my reaction was, "You can't force me to do or say anything to save her life".  I would be doing my wife a disservice if I didn't do what the "punk" asked in order to save her life.  I guess that's because I am not delusional enough to believe that there is an afterlife.  Her life is precious to me! 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: shnozzola on December 31, 2013, 12:10:05 PM
What's interesting about these exchanges is how many  people may stumble into WWGHA, read a thread and say to themselves, "My God, I have never seen the power of Satan displayed so strongly -  the people on this website are trying to lead us astray by asking us to think differently.

Stay strong, soldiers of the Lord, display you crucifix against these demons, and fight against these thoughts that try to make us think we are all equal.

sheesh, satan is made up too, didntchaknow?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Patrick Henry on December 31, 2013, 02:26:09 PM
It seems that everyone on this board continues to try and focus on exactly what a person needs to do or believe to be saved. 

Not quite, I believe the whole saved business is hogwash (only my opinion, no proof you know).  I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday, Patrick.  I want to know what YOU think a person needs to do to be saved.  When the next theist arrives, we will get his or her rules for being saved, for the never ending, never agreeing book we are writing.

I'm glad to read that you didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.  Did you decide to tell me that because you want me to know that you're smart, or because you think I'm trying to fool you?  If it's the former, don't worry I'm sure you're plenty smart enough. 
If it's the latter I can assure you that I believe what I'm saying and am not trying to fool anyone.
In order to be saved a person must be born again (John 3), meaning a changed person with a repentant heart fully trusting in Christ for their salvation (2 Cor 5:17).  He or she must understand that our salvation rests on the merit of Christ alone, which is appropriated to us when we embrace Him by genuine faith (Romans 4:1-5). If we understand that, the remaining question is, "Do I have the genuine faith necessary for salvation?"
Is a person willing to look at the "fruit" in their life?  We must examine ourselves to see whether the fruit of regeneration is apparent in our lives.  Also, do we have a real affection for the biblical Christ?  There is a lot of back and forth about who is saved and if what they believe matters in their salvation.  I think it does matter.  You have to know who you believe in.   The last part is the stumbling block for many.   We don't save ourselves.  It is the work of God alone that allows us to believe. Ephesians 2:8-10
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Graybeard on December 31, 2013, 03:02:32 PM
I suggest you make a new name, pose as a theist and try to keep up with at least 4 threads while 10 people verbally gang rape you at a break neck pace on each one. I suggest the name change because I'm sure you see how it's piled on at times but until you see it from this side you can't understand the frustration it causes.
Here is a good place to confirm Harbinger's experience. There are a few of us who have played "God's Advocate" in slack times (when there were no Christians to throw to the lions) and can testify that a one-man stand against WWGHA is no simple task.

Harbinger,
I have every sympathy with you.

GB Mod

Carry on ...
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on December 31, 2013, 03:07:49 PM
I suggest you make a new name, pose as a theist and try to keep up with at least 4 threads while 10 people verbally gang rape you at a break neck pace on each one. I suggest the name change because I'm sure you see how it's piled on at times but until you see it from this side you can't understand the frustration it causes.
Here is a good place to confirm Harbinger's experience. There are a few of us who have played "God's Advocate" in slack times (when there were no Christians to throw to the lions) and can testify that a one-man stand against WWGHA is no simple task.

Harbinger,
I have every sympathy with you.

GB Mod

Carry on ...


Unless you're Nam.

:P

j/k.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 01, 2014, 01:31:32 AM


The replies that keep my post in its original context are 47, 46, 44, However the post I reference is 43. That's the one I wrote (in black) and was later changed by the mod (in green). 47 has my quote in it's original. It does NOT say "I think" in either 43 or 47 I'm not sure how post 43 makes what I've said a lie.

YOU bear false witness, sir.
Exodus 20:16
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.


Referring to post #43, in post #119 you said, "The one time I did present salvation as a matter of fact it was reported as preaching and the mod changed it to say "I think".

Then in post #122 you say, "It does NOT say 'I think' in either 43 or 47 I'm not sure how post 43 makes what I've said a lie".

You are right!  Post #43 does NOT say "I think".  So why would you say the moderator changed your post to say "I think"???

I "THINK" it is because you are a liar.  Lets move on Harbinger77.  Who cares if you are a liar.  Even Jesus lied (John 7:8-10).  Jesus said, "I do NOT go up to THIS feast" and then he went up to THAT feast.  He lied to his brothers. 


Exception to everything I guess... I did forget  Universalism.

Wrong again!  Christian Universalism is not the only exception to the fact that one has to repent to be saved.  Another is hyper-Calvinism.  Article 26 states a confession that the natural man should not be given exhortation or duties to "spiritually and savingly" repent and believe.  This article is controversial but some Christians believe in complete "election" and consider the "free gift" duty/faith free.

Link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-Calvinism

I suggest you make a new name, pose as a theist and try to keep up with at least 4 threads while 10 people verbally gang rape you at a break neck pace on each one.


NOW YOU WANT ME TO LIE AND POSE AS A THEIST??? 

No thanks.  I don't like gangs; I don't like rape; and gang rapes don't sound too appealing to me.

My advice would be to only get involved in 1 thread and not 4 if you cannot "keep up". 

I suggest the name change because I'm sure you see how it's piled on at times but until you see it from this side you can't understand the frustration it causes.

Why do you have frustration?  Jesus says, "My yoke is easy and My burden is light" (Matt. 11:30).  I would think He would supernaturally give you all the time and direct answers so you can be involved in 4 threads while at the same time being "verbally gang raped". 

Now I'm thinking you aren't even a true Christian since you are not "peaceful" and you don't have the "self-control" to only get involved in one thread.  You don't have these fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 4:22-23).  Since you don't have the "self-control" to only get involved in one thread it seems like you are dodging questions since you can't keep up.  This does not look good for someone who is supposed to be defending his faith.   


And for the loaded gun question. The reaction you hope for is rooted in fear.
As an infantry soldier I am not afraid to die. As a Christian physical death is almost a favor. I don't fear your loaded gun... I'm much more likely to get myself shot taking the gun away. I wouldn't let some gun totin' punk force me to do or say anything! My wife would agree death can be a favor too.... sorry. Aside from that I said won't not can't.


You missed the whole point to the whole analogy.  By saying, "My new nature won't cuss" you are implying that under any circumstance your new nature will not cuss.  I am calling BS on this and I "think" you are a liar.  I don't buy your story that you wouldn't say "F#*K" to save the life of a loved one.  Especially since you say, "As a Christian physical death is ALMOST a favor". 

As a personal note, my wife would think I was a jerk if a "gun totin' punk" put a gun to her head and my reaction was, "You can't force me to do or say anything to save her life".  I would be doing my wife a disservice if I didn't do what the "punk" asked in order to save her life.  I guess that's because I am not delusional enough to believe that there is an afterlife.  Her life is precious to me!

you missed post #125... go back and read it. thank you.

You have an odd need to misrepresent what I said. I didn't say universalism is the ONLY denomination that denies repentance.

 I am a calvanist and you clearly don't understand calvanism let alone hyper calvanism. Study it a bit more and then get back to me with rather repentance is truly necessary. Maybe while your at it... who makes repentance possible, you or God? By the way calvanism is a theology not a denomination.

I didn't think you have trouble with telling a lie or being deceptive. The evidence would suggest as much anyway. Sometimes it just helps to see how the other half lives that's all.

The yoke of jesus IS light. I'm still flesh though. and until glory comes it's rather frustrating that everyone has a comment and each thinks his/hers  is deserving of reply. Some simply are not.
Honestly most of the time I laugh and praise God.  because I see the hatred for Christians here. Not Satan as I've seen suggested. Just plain hate. Not everyone but some. That's another confirmation of faith for me though. So believe me I have a peace about it.

John15:119
 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own. However, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of it, the world hates you . :)

The gun thing again?
 I'm sorry you would give in to some punk. Do you have no Intestinal fortitude? I would fight to defend my wife. I guess that makes us different kinds of men though. I said almost because personally it IS a favor. I have kids though and they need me. This still doesn't effect my being ready and willing to go when called.

I know this is a hypothetical situation here but hypothetically... I'm a soldier you would never get close enough to my wife without getting yourself shot in the first place.
and before you go there... It's thou shalt not murder.. killing the man who intended my family harm would be justified.
Two round burst, no double taps!
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on January 01, 2014, 02:37:39 AM

Salvation based on belief in the Trinity:  It seems the thief on the cross was saved, I doubt that he fully understood the Trinity.  Maybe Zacchaeus didn't understand the Trinity completely either.   While the Trinity is important to understand, ultimately it is a changed heart that leads a man to repentance and belief in Christ.

This is a first for me.  I have heard a lot of pastors say it is important to BELIEVE in the Trinity but I have never heard anyone say it is important to UNDERSTAND the Trinity.  The reason why you are the first person I have heard mention this is because NOBODY can UNDERSTAND the Trinity.  If you, or anyone else, can fully understand the Trinity then you need to write a book.  Trust me, if you can logically fill all the holes apparent in the doctrine then you need to write a book and let everyone know that you solved the mystery to the doctrine of the Trinity.

You are conflating the two claims of Understanding and Believing.  The two words mean two different things.  For instance, you BELIEVE that Samson's hair gave him strength but you don't UNDERSTAND how his hair makes him strong. 

Like I said before, nobody can understand the Trinity because it's like saying someone can understand how a square and a circle can be the same shape.  It is impossible and incomprehensible to understand.  For example:

You say that Jesus is one nature with the Father and is fully the one true God.  You say He claimed it through the "I am" statement in John 8:58.  So the bible says that God "knows all things".  But then speaking of the timing of his second coming, Jesus says, "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone". So if Jesus is "one being" with God and He knows all things then why does Jesus claim ignorance as to the timing of his second coming?

I'm not a prophet but I am going to predict that the answer you will give me will sound a lot like you are trying to round the corners of a square to make it a circle so they can be the same shape.  Nothing you say will make sense to me because this is a contradiction.  My guess is that you will "round the corners" and say that Jesus didn't have all the attributes in His humanity.  If this is the case, then He wasn't fully God.  Saying that Jesus is fully man and fully God is a CONTRADICTION.  This is one example out of many why the doctrine of the Trinity is impossible to understand.  CONTRADICTIONS DON'T MAKE SENSE TO HUMANS WHO ARE LOGICAL!

Here is a comparison for you:

TRUTH is to FALSEHOOD     like     DIVINE INSPIRATION is to CONTRADICTION

   
Believing Jesus is the eternal Son, that the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of man to bring him to salvation, and in the Father is all plenty of understanding for most people.  Because it's what the bible says.

Here's another comparison for you:

The words "Eternal Son" put together are not in the Bible     like     The word Trinity is not in the bible

And you say it's what the bible says???  Maybe it's what YOU say the bible says.  I'll challenge you on this claim that the bible teaches the Son is eternal (no beginning).  Warning: It will get "scholarly" again.  By the way, I'm still waiting for a rebuttal to BeDuhn's "scholarly" arguments concerning the "I am".

But this is something that I'm interested to know about you.  When you were a Christian, did you believe that it was absolutely necessary to have just the right view of the Trinity?  That salvation depended upon intellect and knowlege?


As a Christian I believed that Children before the age of accountability (whatever age that is) were saved without intellect and knowledge no matter what.  Individuals who were mentally disabled, etc. fell into this category for me as well.  Why did I believe this?  I don't know.  I think I was creating God in my own image because there is not too much scriptural backing to support this view I had.

Everybody else after the age of accountability (whatever age that is) was responsible for their salvation.  They were supposed to work out their salvation with fear and trembling as Paul puts it.  And yes, intellect and knowledge played a role.  People had to KNOW they were sinners and repent from their sins and have the INTELLECT to believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God and that he died on the cross as a sacrificial atonement for one's sins and rose again. 

This was pretty much as far as I went when it came to the requirement of intellect, knowledge and belief one had to have in order to be saved.  I didn't think people had to have "just the right view of the Trinity" because I didn't think the bible taught the Trinity. 

I don't think you would find the concept of the Trinity if you were stuck on an island alone and found a bible and read it for the first time.  I seriously doubt that you would pull the doctrine of the Trinity out of it.  I don't think you would say, "That was cool that God revealed himself as one being in the Old Testament but then as one being in three persons that are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial in the New Testament".  Who knows, I could be wrong.  It's just a guess on my part.  I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is taught through INDOCTRINATION.  It won't take you that long to think about this but how did you come up with the idea that Jesus was claiming to be God by saying "I am" in John 8:58?  I'm going to make another guess and say that you did not discover this on your own but THE CHURCH made this connection for you.  I don't think you would have ever made this connection on your own if you were on an island alone reading the bible from cover to cover. 

In addition, through indoctrinating people, fear is added to the process by saying that the people who do not believe in the Trinity are involved in a cult.  I saw this first hand.  I've read a lot of material concerning this issue.  Every non-trinitarian "Christian" group is considered a cult according to the majority of Christians.     

I never let the doctrine of the Trinity (or Binity) overlap into the doctrine of salvation.  As a Christian I would have said your gospel is to "inclusive" as you would have to say that one has to believe that Jesus is the "I am" of the Old Testament in order to be saved.  Because you believe that Jesus claims to be God by saying "I am" in John 8:58 you would have to say that one will "die in their sins" if they don't believe that Jesus is the "I am" (John 8:24).  Am I wrong?  I don't want to misrepresent your gospel. 

If you agree, then I would have said that you are adding to the gospel of salvation by making this belief a requirement and are accursed in Paul's eyes (Gal. 1:9).

Here's another question:  Where does a non-trinitarian gospel lead a person?


My answer to where a non-trinitarian gospel leads a person will be threefold (or a trinity):

1. Personally, a non-trinitarian gospel led me to pastoring my own home fellowship for about 6 months.  I was OSTRACIZED from my church.  The closest church that shared my non-trinitarian gospel was 50 miles away and I could not make the drive every week.

2. Eternally I will mention five options:

1.  Your gospel is right and the non-trinitarians will go to hell

2.  The non-trinitarian gospel is right and you will go to hell

3.  Trinitarian's and non-trinitarians will go to hell

4.  Trinitarian's and non-trinitarians go to heaven

5.  Nobody goes to heaven or hell because God doesn't exist.

     My guess is #5!


3.Historically, a non-trinitarian gospel has led people to EXCOMMUNICATION from the church.

One example:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius

A non-trinitarian gospel has led people to PUNISHMENT AND IMPRISONMENT.

example:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_Act_1697

A non-trinitarian gospel has led people to DEATH.

One example:   http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm

This last example I found interesting.  Michael Servetus was a participator of the protestant reformation. He was a non-trinitarian that John Calvin was instrumental in putting to death. By order of the Protestant Geneva Governing Council, which John Calvin has association with, Michael Servetus was convicted of being against infant baptism and denying the trinity. John Calvin said, "I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed on him, but I desire that the severity of the punishment be mitigated". Servetus was burned at the stake with what was believed to be the last copy of his book chained to his leg. Historians record that his last words were, "Jesus, son of the eternal God have mercy on me". Notice Servetus didn't say "Jesus, the eternal God have mercy on me".

If the Christian God exists, all this is mind boggling to me.  I'm sure you think that God is all-knowing as 1 John 3:20 suggests. So God would have known when he "inspired" his word back in the first century that there was not enough information in the bible for human brains to figure out concerning his nature. Also, since god is all knowing then he must have known all the disagreement, excommunications and killings that would result from this unclear and confusing doctrine.

Don't you think God could have clearly explained the doctrine of the trinity better in his revealed word?  Don't you think the nature of the Godhead could have been expressed more clearly in the bible to avoid disagreements, excommunications, and killings?  In fact, a MAN who tampered with the bible spelled the doctrine of the trinity out more clearly than God did. In the King James Version we find 1 John 5:7 say, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one". This is the clearest expression of the trinitarian concept in the bible. However, this verse is not found in ANY of the earliest Greek manuscripts. You can't find this verse in any of the new testament manuscripts before the sixteenth century. This tells me that a MAN who tampered with the bible could express the trinity clearer than God.

If the omniscient Christian God exists, my only conclusion as an outsider is that God didn't want to communicate the doctrine of the trinity clearly in his revealed word because he likes to see his children disagree, excommunicate, and kill one another over an unclear, confusing and contradictory doctrine found in his revealed word.


Regarding the unity of the church and common belief:  The short answer is that there are essentials of the faith that unite people.   Salvation by grace through faith in Christ as the final attonement for our sin, is the one thing that unites people.


I find it fascinating that you used the word "essentials".  You know, I looked up the word "essentials" through blue letter bible (NASB).  The word "essentials" only appears in the bible once and it's in Acts 15:28 (NASB):

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials":

You want to know what the "essentials" are?  Verse 29: "that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication". 

Let me ask you this PH.  Does your "unity" with your fellow Christians involve saaaay, abstaining from blood?  If you ask me, the JW's who are considered heretics follow the bible more closely as to obeying the "essintials" of the New Testament Church than you do.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Can you BIBLICALLY explain to me why the "unity" with your fellow Christians should not involve abstaining from blood and from things strangled?

Man says, "salvation by grace through faith in Christ as the final atonement for our sin, is the one thing that unites people".  The alleged word of God suggests something different.     
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on January 03, 2014, 12:22:11 AM

You have an odd need to misrepresent what I said. I didn't say universalism is the ONLY denomination that denies repentance.

I don't see the misrepresentation.  I never quoted you to say, "universalism is the only denomination that denies repentance".  You said, "Exception to everything I guess... I did forget  Universalism".  By saying, "exception to EVERYTHING" I added that you were wrong again because of hyper-calvinism. 

My exact words were, "Wrong again!  Christian Universalism is not the only exception to the fact that one has to repent to be saved".

If it's anyone doing any misrepresenting it is you. 
 
I am a calvanist and you clearly don't understand calvanism let alone hyper calvanism. Study it a bit more and then get back to me with rather repentance is truly necessary.  Maybe while your at it... who makes repentance possible, you or God?  By the way calvanism is a theology not a denomination.


First, I would like to say that I at least know one thing more about Calvinism than you.  That is, I know how to spell Calvinism!  I would like to point out that you misspelled calvinism three times and calvinist once just in this paragraph.  If you are truly a calvinist and adhere to the "theology" of calvinism you should at least know how to properly spell the theology you adhere to if you want to be taken seriously.  The MURDERER John Calvin's last name is CALVIN not CALVAN.  Yes, I said, MURDERER (post #142).  I thought this mistake might have been a simple typo at first but I just kept noticing the misspellings and am convinced that you have no idea how to spell the "theology" that you adhere to.

Secondly, I didn't mention Calvinism at all so how would you know that I don't understand Calvinism.  I mentioned "Hyper-calvinism.  I GAVE YOU a link on hyper-calvinism and quoted you article 26 and then you said I don't understand hyper-calvinism and then you GAVE ME NOTHING.  I studied more like you said and I wish I could get back to you with the good news that this theology teaches that repentance is truly necessary but I can't.

Hyper-calvinism is (1) denying that the call of the gospel to repent and believe is universal, i.e. for all alike, and (2) denying that the unregenerate (natural) man has a duty to repent and believe in Christ for salvation". 

Link:  http://www.theopedia.com/Hyper-Calvinism

Furthermore, "hyper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility".   

Link:  http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm
 

I didn't think you have trouble with telling a lie or being deceptive. The evidence would suggest as much anyway.


Why would you assume that I would have no trouble with telling a lie or being deceptive?  Are you that delusional to think that I would have no trouble telling a lie because I am not a Christian and I cannot be moral without God.  And what evidence Harbinger?  Have you ever caught me in a lie?

The yoke of jesus IS light. I'm still flesh though. and until glory comes it's rather frustrating that everyone has a comment and each thinks his/hers  is deserving of reply. Some simply are not.


I totally agree and understand that some posts are not deserving of a reply.  At first, I didn't think this post of yours deserved a reply but then a "still small voice" (probably my conscience) told me that I should respond to at least educate you on the spelling of the "theology" you adhere to. 

However, what is wrong (in my opinion and your God's opinion) is when you say you are going to respond (post #106) when you have more time and then you don't respond.  That is a deceptive tactic.  If posts are not deserving of a reply then don't say you will respond to them later when you have more time... and then not reply back at all.  You hinder your reputation by saying you will do something and then not acting on that promise.  James 5:12 says, "But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment".

I would like to point out that I think James is a jerk for not excluding people with mental disabilities from this requirement.  Harbinger, I don't know you personally but if you, in any way, have a mental disability then please disregard my opinion.  It is O.K. to not follow through on a promise if you are mentally disabled.         

Honestly most of the time I laugh

We have something in common.  I want to thank you for the good laugh.  I found it comical that you said I clearly don't understand Calvinism but then come to find out, you don't even know how to spell Calvinism.  That's funny!   


The gun thing again?
 I'm sorry you would give in to some punk. Do you have no Intestinal fortitude? I would fight to defend my wife. I guess that makes us different kinds of men though. I said almost because personally it IS a favor. I have kids though and they need me. This still doesn't effect my being ready and willing to go when called.

I know this is a hypothetical situation here but hypothetically... I'm a soldier you would never get close enough to my wife without getting yourself shot in the first place.

Wow!  Them are fighting words. ;D  Once again, I would "give in" and say F#*K if that's all it took to save my wife.  That's the point to this hypothetical situation.  It's not about intestinal fortitude.  The hypothetical situation ASSUMED that the "punk" got through the weak defense that you provided for your wife and had the gun pointed at her head telling you to say the word F#*K to save her life.  The fact that you say, "I'm a soldier and you would never get close enough to my wife without getting yourself shot in the first place" really shows your ignorance as to what a hypothetical situation really is.

I am amused that you now say a Christian physical death IS a favor.  Let's test your "intestinal fortitude".  I told you before that I don't think you are a true Christian.  Let's test if you are a true Christian through a science experiment.  What you do is you go out and buy some deadly poison.  Then read Mark 16:17-18 where it says that one of the signs that will accompany a true believer is that he/she will not be harmed by drinking deadly poison.  Now, turn your kitchen (if you have one) into a laboratory and poor the deadly poison straight down your gullet.  Now act like a scientist and start writing down your observations.

NO....WAIT.....HARBINGER STOP!!!  I was just kidding.  Don't do it.  Your kids need you.  In addition to it being highly plausible that your God doesn't exist, this section of text in Mark is considered uninspired by many Christians because this text is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts.         

Please don't perform this science experiment.  Graybeard's right!  We do need more Christian's like you to "throw to the lions".

In addition, I like you too much.  I enjoy toying with you.  You are too valuable as a "Look what Christianity did to this guy" example.


Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on January 03, 2014, 04:02:23 PM
I like the varying different translations[1] of vary Bibles for Mark 16:18. Because with a different word, even a synonym of the "original" word can change the meaning of the line. So some say "no harm" if drinking poison and even some change the word "poison" to be something less, therefore drinking it may not harm you but in changing certain words one could interpret it to mean, "It won't injure[2] but it'll kill you!"

They attempt to place a more logical conclusion in varying versions but always, mostly, fail.

-Nam
 1. or interpretations
 2. one version I read that in
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 03, 2014, 09:54:14 PM

You have an odd need to misrepresent what I said. I didn't say universalism is the ONLY denomination that denies repentance.

I don't see the misrepresentation.  I never quoted you to say, "universalism is the only denomination that denies repentance".  You said, "Exception to everything I guess... I did forget  Universalism".  By saying, "exception to EVERYTHING" I added that you were wrong again because of hyper-calvinism. 

My exact words were, "Wrong again!  Christian Universalism is not the only exception to the fact that one has to repent to be saved".

If it's anyone doing any misrepresenting it is you. 
 
I am a calvanist and you clearly don't understand calvanism let alone hyper calvanism. Study it a bit more and then get back to me with rather repentance is truly necessary.  Maybe while your at it... who makes repentance possible, you or God?  By the way calvanism is a theology not a denomination.


First, I would like to say that I at least know one thing more about Calvinism than you.  That is, I know how to spell Calvinism!  I would like to point out that you misspelled calvinism three times and calvinist once just in this paragraph.  If you are truly a calvinist and adhere to the "theology" of calvinism you should at least know how to properly spell the theology you adhere to if you want to be taken seriously.  The MURDERER John Calvin's last name is CALVIN not CALVAN.  Yes, I said, MURDERER (post #142).  I thought this mistake might have been a simple typo at first but I just kept noticing the misspellings and am convinced that you have no idea how to spell the "theology" that you adhere to.

Secondly, I didn't mention Calvinism at all so how would you know that I don't understand Calvinism.  I mentioned "Hyper-calvinism.  I GAVE YOU a link on hyper-calvinism and quoted you article 26 and then you said I don't understand hyper-calvinism and then you GAVE ME NOTHING.  I studied more like you said and I wish I could get back to you with the good news that this theology teaches that repentance is truly necessary but I can't.

Hyper-calvinism is (1) denying that the call of the gospel to repent and believe is universal, i.e. for all alike, and (2) denying that the unregenerate (natural) man has a duty to repent and believe in Christ for salvation". 

Link:  http://www.theopedia.com/Hyper-Calvinism

Furthermore, "hyper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility".   

Link:  http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm
 

I didn't think you have trouble with telling a lie or being deceptive. The evidence would suggest as much anyway.


Why would you assume that I would have no trouble with telling a lie or being deceptive?  Are you that delusional to think that I would have no trouble telling a lie because I am not a Christian and I cannot be moral without God.  And what evidence Harbinger?  Have you ever caught me in a lie?

The yoke of jesus IS light. I'm still flesh though. and until glory comes it's rather frustrating that everyone has a comment and each thinks his/hers  is deserving of reply. Some simply are not.


I totally agree and understand that some posts are not deserving of a reply.  At first, I didn't think this post of yours deserved a reply but then a "still small voice" (probably my conscience) told me that I should respond to at least educate you on the spelling of the "theology" you adhere to. 

However, what is wrong (in my opinion and your God's opinion) is when you say you are going to respond (post #106) when you have more time and then you don't respond.  That is a deceptive tactic.  If posts are not deserving of a reply then don't say you will respond to them later when you have more time... and then not reply back at all.  You hinder your reputation by saying you will do something and then not acting on that promise.  James 5:12 says, "But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment".

I would like to point out that I think James is a jerk for not excluding people with mental disabilities from this requirement.  Harbinger, I don't know you personally but if you, in any way, have a mental disability then please disregard my opinion.  It is O.K. to not follow through on a promise if you are mentally disabled.         

Honestly most of the time I laugh

We have something in common.  I want to thank you for the good laugh.  I found it comical that you said I clearly don't understand Calvinism but then come to find out, you don't even know how to spell Calvinism.  That's funny!   


The gun thing again?
 I'm sorry you would give in to some punk. Do you have no Intestinal fortitude? I would fight to defend my wife. I guess that makes us different kinds of men though. I said almost because personally it IS a favor. I have kids though and they need me. This still doesn't effect my being ready and willing to go when called.

I know this is a hypothetical situation here but hypothetically... I'm a soldier you would never get close enough to my wife without getting yourself shot in the first place.

Wow!  Them are fighting words. ;D  Once again, I would "give in" and say F#*K if that's all it took to save my wife.  That's the point to this hypothetical situation.  It's not about intestinal fortitude.  The hypothetical situation ASSUMED that the "punk" got through the weak defense that you provided for your wife and had the gun pointed at her head telling you to say the word F#*K to save her life.  The fact that you say, "I'm a soldier and you would never get close enough to my wife without getting yourself shot in the first place" really shows your ignorance as to what a hypothetical situation really is.

I am amused that you now say a Christian physical death IS a favor.  Let's test your "intestinal fortitude".  I told you before that I don't think you are a true Christian.  Let's test if you are a true Christian through a science experiment.  What you do is you go out and buy some deadly poison.  Then read Mark 16:17-18 where it says that one of the signs that will accompany a true believer is that he/she will not be harmed by drinking deadly poison.  Now, turn your kitchen (if you have one) into a laboratory and poor the deadly poison straight down your gullet.  Now act like a scientist and start writing down your observations.

NO....WAIT.....HARBINGER STOP!!!  I was just kidding.  Don't do it.  Your kids need you.  In addition to it being highly plausible that your God doesn't exist, this section of text in Mark is considered uninspired by many Christians because this text is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts.         

Please don't perform this science experiment.  Graybeard's right!  We do need more Christian's like you to "throw to the lions".

In addition, I like you too much.  I enjoy toying with you.  You are too valuable as a "Look what Christianity did to this guy" example.

By sayin "not the ONLY exception" are you not implying that I meant ONLY exception when I said "AN exception"? Is that not the ONLY way I can be "wrong again?"

 
Does a spelling error really mean that someone can't hold any view? What if I suffer from mental handicap, ADD or Dislexiaand for example and have trouble with spelling? can I then hold no views?
How can one truly understand Hyper-calvinism  without first understanding plain ol' calvinism
One is a product of the other.
Could it be that you don't understand fully the doctrine of election? Do you even know that's what your quote refers to?

calvinism states that repentance is a gift. It's not necessary in the sense that you can't be saved until you repent. That's a whole different and much more common theology. Rather repenting is brought on by God's act of regenerating thus the man who is dead in his sin is now acutely aware of his sinful nature and then will repent. There is no what if I don't repent. When the Holy spirit regenerates a man that man WILL repent. The holy spirit won't regenerate the non-elect. Until then, much like yourself, there is no desire to repent nor can there be. repentance is necessary, you just have the order backwards that's all.

Further, Am I to assume that because you quoted from a web site you must understand what it means?
 If I quote from this web site http://www.ictp.it/ would you believe I fully understand the material?

without looking it up... what can you tell me about total depravity?

Why do you continue to misrepresent what I say and then get upset when I think you would have no trouble misrepresenting yourself for an experiment?
Are you better than me and somehow off limits to yourself? further why do you suggest what you assume would be suicide as an experiment, yet get offended when I suggest a less than lethal experiment?

Why do you insist that "I want" must mean "I will"
Is it possible that "I did it" is an answer? That on a later occasion I thought the question was answered and now see no reason to expound upon the answer?

On what standard do you measure me as a Christian?

You laugh, but you may be interested, if only for comic relief, to see that some follow your scripture reference right down to drinking poison. Guess what... death from untreated snake bite or poisoning is rare among these people.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcwBVcsWYJd8
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 03, 2014, 10:04:04 PM
I like the varying different translations[1] of vary Bibles for Mark 16:18. Because with a different word, even a synonym of the "original" word can change the meaning of the line. So some say "no harm" if drinking poison and even some change the word "poison" to be something less, therefore drinking it may not harm you but in changing certain words one could interpret it to mean, "It won't injure[2] but it'll kill you!"

They attempt to place a more logical conclusion in varying versions but always, mostly, fail.

-Nam
 1. or interpretations
 2. one version I read that in

Can you provide an example or two for comparison so that we may discuss it?
Otherwise this is an unsubstantiated claim.

I just read five of my different translations and none of them support this claim.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 03, 2014, 10:09:40 PM
You laugh, but you may be interested, if only for comic relief, to see that some follow your scripture reference right down to drinking poison. Guess what... death from untreated snake bite or poisoning is rare among these people.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcwBVcsWYJd8

30,000+ get bitten by poisonous snakes every year in the US, and at most, 10 or 12 die. There was a kid fascinated by cottonmouths that I lived near in Illinois, and he'd been bitten three times but never told his mom or had the bites treated because he was afraid she wouldn't let him play with snakes any more. She found out when he was 16 and got interviewed by a newspaper reporter. That's when he confessed. He showed the reporter the places he'd been bitten to confirm his story.

25% of poison snake bites are "dry", which means the snakes don't get any poison into the victim.

So while you're impressed, I'm thinking those folks are luckier than crap that they don't live in Australia, where the snakes are frickin' wicked and you don't walk away too often.

And the drinking of poison? Who is the control. Who also drinks it but doesn't believe and dies? We science types need stuff like that or we won't blindly accept the results.

Snake handlers to die. But of course that means they didn't believe. So no biggie.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 03, 2014, 10:14:09 PM
By the way, Hindu's have similar habits, and they too do well.

(http://www.chrisvschris.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/cobradm0905_468x333.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: xyzzy on January 03, 2014, 11:21:39 PM
You laugh, but you may be interested, if only for comic relief, to see that some follow your scripture reference right down to drinking poison. Guess what... death from untreated snake bite or poisoning is rare among these people.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcwBVcsWYJd8

I wonder, I really do, if you are not wearing Jesus-powered rose-coloured glasses[1] when you read the same information that we do?

First, no. I don't laugh when people die and if I laugh when they do stupid things, it's not because I wish them ill.

I wonder, though, what goes through your mind when you say Guess what... death from untreated snake bite or poisoning is rare among these people?

ParkingPlaces has already mentioned how rare death is from snakebite in the US, so why are you impressed when both father and son of a snake-handling religious family died from a snakebite when that is totally the opposite to what your faith says will happen? If your faith provides protection then no-one should die from that. Not one person. If they died because they were not "True Christians", then why don't these handlers get bitten each and every time they play with snakes?

Wikipedia has an article on deaths from snake-bite. It's probably not complete, but it provides a fascinating insight none-the-less.[2]

The video you linked to references the Wolford family. Well, the younger Pastor Wolford was one of three people listed as succumbing to snake bite in 2010 - effectively, that's 1/3rd of the victims. Where was your god, other than not there?

The elder Pastor Wolford died in 1983, the only death attributed to snake poisoning in that year. 100% failure for the JC-vest of protection. In the 80's, as it turns out, 2 out of 3 of the deaths from snake bites were to people who foolishly thought their religious beliefs would protect them.

So when you say "rare", what you mean is rare as compared to death from spontaneous self-combustion?

By the way, I think the religious answer to ParkingPlace's question regarding Hindu snake charmers is that Jesus is imprinted on their hearts, but they just don't know it. See, that was easy.
 1. OK, Jesus (geek joke)
 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_snake_bites_in_the_United_States
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 03, 2014, 11:33:37 PM
By the way, I think the religious answer to ParkingPlace's question regarding Hindu snake charmers is that Jesus is imprinted on their hearts, but they just don't know it. See, that was easy.

Of course, the little kid couldn't read, so god had to imprint a very cute picture book on his young heart.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on January 04, 2014, 01:00:39 AM
By the way, I think the religious answer to ParkingPlace's question regarding Hindu snake charmers is that Jesus is imprinted on their hearts, but they just don't know it. See, that was easy.

Of course, the little kid couldn't read, so god had to imprint a very cute picture book on his young heart.

Don't you mean, "pop-up book"? ;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 04, 2014, 01:25:44 AM
So while you're impressed, I'm thinking those folks are luckier than crap that they don't live in Australia, where the snakes are frickin' wicked and you don't walk away too often.

As an Aussie, i can say that the snakes here would MURDER the crazy snake theists.

The buggers here can slither faster than you can run, virtually never dry bite, and tend to hang up with their fangs to pump more venom into you.

Then you get into Taipan snakes, the things that grow to the size of an average Python, and have the most potent snake venom in the world.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 01:47:26 PM
You laugh, but you may be interested, if only for comic relief, to see that some follow your scripture reference right down to drinking poison. Guess what... death from untreated snake bite or poisoning is rare among these people.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcwBVcsWYJd8

30,000+ get bitten by poisonous snakes every year in the US, and at most, 10 or 12 die. There was a kid fascinated by cottonmouths that I lived near in Illinois, and he'd been bitten three times but never told his mom or had the bites treated because he was afraid she wouldn't let him play with snakes any more. She found out when he was 16 and got interviewed by a newspaper reporter. That's when he confessed. He showed the reporter the places he'd been bitten to confirm his story.

25% of poison snake bites are "dry", which means the snakes don't get any poison into the victim.

So while you're impressed, I'm thinking those folks are luckier than crap that they don't live in Australia, where the snakes are frickin' wicked and you don't walk away too often.

And the drinking of poison? Who is the control. Who also drinks it but doesn't believe and dies? We science types need stuff like that or we won't blindly accept the results.

Snake handlers to die. But of course that means they didn't believe. So no biggie.

Impressed? I didn't express a view. I only presented it's out there.

I think the pastor controls the poison and of course drinks it as well.

why have you asked me to support my claims through science while you make unsubstantiated claims of your own?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 02:04:20 PM
what's amazing to me is the statistics of it. These people don't run into a snake from time. The handle them minimum 52 Times per year. not counting wednesdays or the occasional get together. they don't handle them in the sense that a zoo keeper might. They dance all crazy and sling the snake around. Rattle snakes are very aggressive I'm sure the snake gets mad or defensive enough to kill that it may run away. These people statistically should be dying right and left... but they are not...
that's the only interesting point of this to me.

and deadly snakes... The Tipan in general is #4 while a specific species of Tipan Is #1 as far as land snakes go. and is said to not be aggressive and rarely encountered in the wild.
These "crazy theists" use the eastern diamond back rattle snake of the pit viper family. #10 The deadliest snake available.

"Thus, a rattlesnake bite is always a
potentially fatal injury. Untreated rattlesnake bites, especially from larger species, are very often
fatal."
http://listverse.com/2011/03/30/top-10-most-venomous-snakes/
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Graybeard on January 04, 2014, 02:24:54 PM

You laugh, but you may be interested, if only for comic relief, to see that some follow your scripture reference right down to drinking poison. Guess what... death from untreated snake bite or poisoning is rare among these people.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcwBVcsWYJd8
From [wiki]Snake handling[/wiki]:
Quote
Some of the leaders in these churches have been bitten numerous times, as indicated by their distorted extremities. Hensley himself, the founder of modern snake handling in the Appalachian Mountains, died of a snakebite in 1955. In 1998, snake-handling evangelist John Wayne "Punkin" Brown died after being bitten by a timber rattlesnake at the Rock House Holiness Church in rural northeastern Alabama. While members of his family contend that his death was probably due to a heart attack, Brown's wife had died three years earlier after being bitten in Kentucky. Another snake handler died in 2006 at a church in Kentucky. In 2012, Pentecostal Pastor Mack Wolford died of a rattlesnake bite sustained while officiating at an outdoor service in West Virginia, as did his father in 1983.

Herpetologists have opined that the risk of fatal bites is significantly reduced by the familiarity of the snakes with humans, and by the poor health of snakes that are insufficiently fed and watered.
I am also aware from time spent in India, where venomous snakes are also handled, that the snakes are usually milked of their venom before being shown in public and handled.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Patrick Henry on January 04, 2014, 02:42:25 PM

Very good, Patrick, except you are trying to dodge the point. I'm sure that all sorts of people have thought themselves 'saed' but have not bothered to understand any theology but that hardly makes the theology not worth doing. After all, the simple belief that belief in Jesus 'saves's a person is far from simple as it makes lots assumptions - assumptions which really need to be examined. Shall we try?

Firstly, I know that lots of people join churches and believe without the theology to back it up yet do they really? Why would a person like you, for example, not go to a Roman Catholic or an Anglican church? I'm assuming that if you don'#t go to such a church you will probably have some objection to the theology - whether its the confessional, where the sinner ought to speak direct to god, or the communion, where the bread and wine 'become' the body and blood of Jesus. In the Catholic church you will also need good works on top of beliefs to be saved whereas many no episcopalian churches say faith alone is all that is needed.
First of all, I wasn't "trying" to dodge your point, but speak to it.  I believe that God calls people and they believe in their hearts.  Jesus knew the heart of the thief on the cross and he was saved.  God is Judge and Savior.  Faith is the prerequisite, as it says in Romans 4.  Now assuming that we have much more time on earth and can delve into theology, it IS important to have the right theology based on what the bible says.  I know that we are getting into what the bible really teaches and there are different interpretations.  But my point is that faith in Christ is the key and HE will decide your eternity based on the merits of what HE has done for you.  But you must believe in HIM.   My point is that there is a certain threshold to pass over.  It is Christ.  Now who is Christ?  Well if Christ isn't really God then how can someone believe that their sins are truly forgiven?  There are all sorts of implications to the person who thinks about that one.  Can a created being forgive and pay the price of eternal punishment of the sins of the world?  I don't think so, and I think the early church believed that Jesus was eternal and was able to pay that price because of who HE is, was, and always will be.  Hebrews 13:8.
From early on there were false teachings and also plenty of warning against them, as we read in many different books in the new testament.
 

Anyway, that belief in Jesus 'saves' is all about who people think Jesus is. Its all about a concept of the Trinity because it is not really a biblical doctrine and because churches  all have a different view of the topic. The only thing they all have in common is that the clergy don't like to preach on the trinity as its too hard for them! Since we are discussing and neither of us (I hope) are on our deathbeds, I think it would be helpful to see your view on this.
Well I disagree.  The concept of the Trinity is derived from the bible.  Yes it is a difficult to teach and understand, but unlike what you think, I've heard many sermons on it over the years.  So I believe that God can and does save people based on their heart and faith in Christ.  The gospel message when it's all put together in its simplest form, sends this message.  I also think that for people who accept teachings that Jesus was not eternal, that deviate from the gospel and actively believe in a different gospel or another gospel, are on thin ice.  Because eventually a different gospel will lead a person from faith in Christ to faith in themselves or a different god altogether. 2 Timothy 4:3-4.   Now, if a person is in the process of deviating, but has a basic belief in Christ as their Savior......?  I fall back on what I said earlier, that God is the Judge, not me!  Christians need to teach and admonish people regarding truth and deviation from the truth.  But ultimately God will Judge each individual soul.   Colossians 2 : 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority

A warning to not follow false doctrine combined with teaching that Christ is God.



Then there is the 'saves'. 'Saves' from what? Well, apparently Original Sin (OS). You know, Adam and Eve and the fruit and the wily snake. Well, it turns out that, using the same Genesis text, Jews don't find OS at all. They see it as something the couple did that doesn't affect us today. Yoyu have Paul to thank for introducing the world to the need to be 'saved'. Anyone wodering about being 'saved' really ought to come to terms with the concept and decide if it makes sense.

The problem is, though, that the money coming in on the plate would fall, as would the numbers on the pews, if the congregations had to start and get their heads around this stuff because it takes some interesting philosophy to make it all work. Aristotle and his concept of 'substance' in particular. Yet if people are being brought into the churches without the understanding of the basis of faith (and Aristotle's dodgy philosophy) is it being honest to the people?

So, anyway, have a look and Nicea and try some theology, Patrick - it might chnage your life.

I like theology and have regarded its importance for a long time.  But it also doesn't save a person by itself.  Good theology is good, but God saves people. 
I know the Nicene creed and Apostle's creed. The gospel message has changed my life and I personally know people who didn't need everything in theology to simply come to belief in Christ.  I thought that I needed more to come to faith in Christ, and theology has helped, but I've come full circle and realize that the simple teaching from Jesus in Matthew 18 is what I needed to do.  Come to faith in Christ like a child.  Putting away my puffed up human pride and regarding our intellect as the highest thing.  He didn't mean to check your brain in at the door, but He meant that we must TRUST in HIM.  That is what this Christian thing is all about.  If Jesus really is God then how can we fully grasp HIM?  How can we come to HIM in any other way but by faith and checking our pride in at the door?  Matthew 18 says we can't. 
Now that is good theology. 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 04, 2014, 03:11:13 PM
Graybeard....
 I may have you all wrong. This is the second time I'm aware of you have supported me... Thank you.

or are you refuting me? I'm confused now....
As evidenced by your own wikilink. These are not milked snakes.

"Some of the leaders in these churches have been bitten numerous times, as indicated by their distorted extremities. Hensley himself, the founder of modern snake handling in the Appalachian Mountains, died of a snakebite in 1955."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_handling
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 04, 2014, 10:30:04 PM
and deadly snakes... The Tipan in general is #4 while a specific species of Tipan Is #1 as far as land snakes go. and is said to not be aggressive and rarely encountered in the wild.
These "crazy theists" use the eastern diamond back rattle snake of the pit viper family. #10 The deadliest snake available.

Venom toxicity is pointless when Aussie snakes get huge and are as aggressive as a rabid dog.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Patrick Henry on January 05, 2014, 04:17:29 AM

Salvation based on belief in the Trinity:  It seems the thief on the cross was saved, I doubt that he fully understood the Trinity.  Maybe Zacchaeus didn't understand the Trinity completely either.   While the Trinity is important to understand, ultimately it is a changed heart that leads a man to repentance and belief in Christ.

This is a first for me.  I have heard a lot of pastors say it is important to BELIEVE in the Trinity but I have never heard anyone say it is important to UNDERSTAND the Trinity.  The reason why you are the first person I have heard mention this is because NOBODY can UNDERSTAND the Trinity.  If you, or anyone else, can fully understand the Trinity then you need to write a book.  Trust me, if you can logically fill all the holes apparent in the doctrine then you need to write a book and let everyone know that you solved the mystery to the doctrine of the Trinity.
I don't think we can gain a full understanding of the Trinity.  I meant "understand" in the sense that someone would be aware of the concept.  I'm not sure the thief on the cross would have even been aware of the concept of the Trinity.  Since it became more fully revealed in the new testaments.  I could have used the word "believe" in this case.  I hope you get my point.

You say that Jesus is one nature with the Father and is fully the one true God.  You say He claimed it through the "I am" statement in John 8:58.  So the bible says that God "knows all things".  But then speaking of the timing of his second coming, Jesus says, "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone". So if Jesus is "one being" with God and He knows all things then why does Jesus claim ignorance as to the timing of his second coming?

I'm not a prophet but I am going to predict that the answer you will give me will sound a lot like you are trying to round the corners of a square to make it a circle so they can be the same shape.  Nothing you say will make sense to me because this is a contradiction.  My guess is that you will "round the corners" and say that Jesus didn't have all the attributes in His humanity.  If this is the case, then He wasn't fully God.  Saying that Jesus is fully man and fully God is a CONTRADICTION.  This is one example out of many why the doctrine of the Trinity is impossible to understand.  CONTRADICTIONS DON'T MAKE SENSE TO HUMANS WHO ARE LOGICAL!
Sounds like the age old question "can God make a rock that is too big for Himself to lift?"
I don't know the answer.  It's not only a contradiction to a logical human being.  It's a contradiction to all human beings. 
There are things about God that are really impossible to understand.  But in many places in the bible, it doesn't shy away from this fact.  Ecclesiastes, Job, Isaiah, all attest to this.  Yet there is still belief in God. 
[/quote]

   
Believing Jesus is the eternal Son, that the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of man to bring him to salvation, and in the Father is all plenty of understanding for most people.  Because it's what the bible says.
Here's another comparison for you:

The words "Eternal Son" put together are not in the Bible     like     The word Trinity is not in the bible

And you say it's what the bible says???  Maybe it's what YOU say the bible says.  I'll challenge you on this claim that the bible teaches the Son is eternal (no beginning).  Warning: It will get "scholarly" again.  By the way, I'm still waiting for a rebuttal to BeDuhn's "scholarly" arguments concerning the "I am".
Well the bible seems to say it by implication in several verses.  By eternal I mean to say that from my perspective Jesus is eternal.  What happened before the creation of our universe is something that I look forward to learning about when it's revealed. 
I have been working on BeDuhn's take on John 1:1 and have read some about him as well. 
Here is a debate that I've been reading.  Maybe you would like to read it too. 
http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/JB-RH.Jn1_1.Index.htm
[/quote] 

But this is something that I'm interested to know about you.  When you were a Christian, did you believe that it was absolutely necessary to have just the right view of the Trinity?  That salvation depended upon intellect and knowlege?


As a Christian I believed that Children before the age of accountability (whatever age that is) were saved without intellect and knowledge no matter what.  Individuals who were mentally disabled, etc. fell into this category for me as well.  Why did I believe this?  I don't know.  I think I was creating God in my own image because there is not too much scriptural backing to support this view I had.

Everybody else after the age of accountability (whatever age that is) was responsible for their salvation.  They were supposed to work out their salvation with fear and trembling as Paul puts it.  And yes, intellect and knowledge played a role.  People had to KNOW they were sinners and repent from their sins and have the INTELLECT to believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God and that he died on the cross as a sacrificial atonement for one's sins and rose again. 

This was pretty much as far as I went when it came to the requirement of intellect, knowledge and belief one had to have in order to be saved.  I didn't think people had to have "just the right view of the Trinity" because I didn't think the bible taught the Trinity. 

I don't think you would find the concept of the Trinity if you were stuck on an island alone and found a bible and read it for the first time.  I seriously doubt that you would pull the doctrine of the Trinity out of it.  I don't think you would say, "That was cool that God revealed himself as one being in the Old Testament but then as one being in three persons that are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial in the New Testament".  Who knows, I could be wrong.  It's just a guess on my part.  I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is taught through INDOCTRINATION.  It won't take you that long to think about this but how did you come up with the idea that Jesus was claiming to be God by saying "I am" in John 8:58?  I'm going to make another guess and say that you did not discover this on your own but THE CHURCH made this connection for you.  I don't think you would have ever made this connection on your own if you were on an island alone reading the bible from cover to cover. 
I don't remember the time the connection was made, but it may have been made for me.  I accepted it because it made sense though. That the Jewish leaders were going to stone Him for saying it, makes it even more evident.
[/quote]


In addition, through indoctrinating people, fear is added to the process by saying that the people who do not believe in the Trinity are involved in a cult.  I saw this first hand.  I've read a lot of material concerning this issue.  Every non-trinitarian "Christian" group is considered a cult according to the majority of Christians.     

I never let the doctrine of the Trinity (or Binity) overlap into the doctrine of salvation.  As a Christian I would have said your gospel is to "inclusive" as you would have to say that one has to believe that Jesus is the "I am" of the Old Testament in order to be saved.  Because you believe that Jesus claims to be God by saying "I am" in John 8:58 you would have to say that one will "die in their sins" if they don't believe that Jesus is the "I am" (John 8:24).  Am I wrong?  I don't want to misrepresent your gospel. 
I don't emphasize that it's an absolute pre-requisite for salvation.  I hope that I've conveyed that clearly enough.  But I understand what you are talking about.  I know that many do emphasize it.
[/quote]


If you agree, then I would have said that you are adding to the gospel of salvation by making this belief a requirement and are accursed in Paul's eyes (Gal. 1:9).

Here's another question:  Where does a non-trinitarian gospel lead a person?


My answer to where a non-trinitarian gospel leads a person will be threefold (or a trinity):

1. Personally, a non-trinitarian gospel led me to pastoring my own home fellowship for about 6 months.  I was OSTRACIZED from my church.  The closest church that shared my non-trinitarian gospel was 50 miles away and I could not make the drive every week.

2. Eternally I will mention five options:

1.  Your gospel is right and the non-trinitarians will go to hell

2.  The non-trinitarian gospel is right and you will go to hell

3.  Trinitarian's and non-trinitarians will go to hell

4.  Trinitarian's and non-trinitarians go to heaven

5.  Nobody goes to heaven or hell because God doesn't exist.

     My guess is #5!


3.Historically, a non-trinitarian gospel has led people to EXCOMMUNICATION from the church.

One example:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius

A non-trinitarian gospel has led people to PUNISHMENT AND IMPRISONMENT.

example:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_Act_1697

A non-trinitarian gospel has led people to DEATH.

One example:   http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm

This last example I found interesting.  Michael Servetus was a participator of the protestant reformation. He was a non-trinitarian that John Calvin was instrumental in putting to death. By order of the Protestant Geneva Governing Council, which John Calvin has association with, Michael Servetus was convicted of being against infant baptism and denying the trinity. John Calvin said, "I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed on him, but I desire that the severity of the punishment be mitigated". Servetus was burned at the stake with what was believed to be the last copy of his book chained to his leg. Historians record that his last words were, "Jesus, son of the eternal God have mercy on me". Notice Servetus didn't say "Jesus, the eternal God have mercy on me".
Very interesting about John Calvin.  I didn't know that.
[/quote]

If the Christian God exists, all this is mind boggling to me.  I'm sure you think that God is all-knowing as 1 John 3:20 suggests. So God would have known when he "inspired" his word back in the first century that there was not enough information in the bible for human brains to figure out concerning his nature. Also, since god is all knowing then he must have known all the disagreement, excommunications and killings that would result from this unclear and confusing doctrine.

Don't you think God could have clearly explained the doctrine of the trinity better in his revealed word?  Don't you think the nature of the Godhead could have been expressed more clearly in the bible to avoid disagreements, excommunications, and killings?  In fact, a MAN who tampered with the bible spelled the doctrine of the trinity out more clearly than God did. In the King James Version we find 1 John 5:7 say, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one". This is the clearest expression of the trinitarian concept in the bible. However, this verse is not found in ANY of the earliest Greek manuscripts. You can't find this verse in any of the new testament manuscripts before the sixteenth century. This tells me that a MAN who tampered with the bible could express the trinity clearer than God.

If the omniscient Christian God exists, my only conclusion as an outsider is that God didn't want to communicate the doctrine of the trinity clearly in his revealed word because he likes to see his children disagree, excommunicate, and kill one another over an unclear, confusing and contradictory doctrine found in his revealed word.
I understand your point, but I disagree with your conclusion that God likes to see His children.......kill one another......over contradictory doctrine.   This sounds no different than the arguments that God must not be real or He wouldn't allow evil and human suffering. 
Surely you knew that wars have been fought over doctrinal differences and power struggles over the centuries.  What Calvin was a part of probably seemed justified to him.  I don't understand how, but living in that time of religious authority, I can imagine it.  It's no excuse though, he should have been convicted by God but really a Christian is capable of committing sin against another person as we both know.
I don't fault God for that.  You may disagree, but the scriptures are clear enough, that believers should know better than to kill over such things.   At least from the new testament.  I don't get that, and I don't think it's in there. 
I would think that option # 4 is a possibility for you.  If God doesn't reveal all things to us directly, but through a combination of the bible and the Holy Spirit, and we know that is taught, wouldn't it make sense that human beings, even Christians, will evolve in their faith and understanding of Him?  Including how to treat each other?  We are all truly sinners, and in need of God's grace and grace to give each other.  I read that as a message throughout the new testament.  That we are to love others and follow God's word.  But love is the context in which we do things.  I really think that Christians still miss this.    But I don't blame the bible.  I get that from Jesus and the new testament.
[/quote]


Regarding the unity of the church and common belief:  The short answer is that there are essentials of the faith that unite people.   Salvation by grace through faith in Christ as the final attonement for our sin, is the one thing that unites people.



I find it fascinating that you used the word "essentials".  You know, I looked up the word "essentials" through blue letter bible (NASB).  The word "essentials" only appears in the bible once and it's in Acts 15:28 (NASB):

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials":

You want to know what the "essentials" are?  Verse 29: "that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication". 

Let me ask you this PH.  Does your "unity" with your fellow Christians involve saaaay, abstaining from blood?  If you ask me, the JW's who are considered heretics follow the bible more closely as to obeying the "essintials" of the New Testament Church than you do.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Can you BIBLICALLY explain to me why the "unity" with your fellow Christians should not involve abstaining from blood and from things strangled?

Man says, "salvation by grace through faith in Christ as the final atonement for our sin, is the one thing that unites people".  The alleged word of God suggests something different.     

Here is something else for you to read regarding Acts 15:29
https://bible.org/seriespage/great-debates-acts-151-41
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 05, 2014, 05:07:37 AM
This sounds no different than the arguments that God must not be real or He wouldn't allow evil and human suffering. 

Please explain how an ALL loving being with the power to do anything could allow such things.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Graybeard on January 05, 2014, 07:46:30 AM
Here is something else for you to read regarding Acts 15:29
https://bible.org/seriespage/great-debates-acts-151-41
Ac:15:29: That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

This is a strange verse: We can see why Paul would say that anything to do with idols should be avoided[1]. We can see the reasoning behind fornication[2]. "Things strangled" would imply "Not kosher" and "blood" was a question of hygiene: blood was used to make various dishes but only fresh blood should be used and it should be well-cooked, otherwise the chances of food poisoning was very high.

However, the interesting words are, "ye shall do well". Surely, this has nothing to do with going to heaven, or "doing good"? Rather it is the equivalent of "You would do well not to go out without an umbrella." It is a personal opinion.

And yet there is the "dirty hands verse":
M't:15:11: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. (Attrib. Jesus)
and
Ac:10:9 -23.

So, who do we believe? Paul, or God and Jesus?




 1. It is also interesting in that it shows that other gods were around at the time
 2. God had always frowned on it but sometimes turned a blind eye to it
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 05, 2014, 11:50:09 AM

So, who do we believe? Paul, or God and Jesus?

Simple for Christians - both of course. Blend them together for better effect!
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 05, 2014, 12:00:56 PM
Simple for Christians - both of course. Blend them together for better effect!

Will it blend? THAT is the question.

(http://joker.si/images/clank/33017_510.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 05, 2014, 12:04:39 PM
Bother - I should have linked it to the video shouldn't I?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 05, 2014, 12:15:43 PM
Bother - I should have linked it to the video shouldn't I?

Ehh, not really, I just post stupid things...
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Patrick Henry on January 05, 2014, 08:36:21 PM
Here is something else for you to read regarding Acts 15:29
https://bible.org/seriespage/great-debates-acts-151-41
Ac:15:29: That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

This is a strange verse: We can see why Paul would say that anything to do with idols should be avoided[1]. We can see the reasoning behind fornication[2]. "Things strangled" would imply "Not kosher" and "blood" was a question of hygiene: blood was used to make various dishes but only fresh blood should be used and it should be well-cooked, otherwise the chances of food poisoning was very high.

However, the interesting words are, "ye shall do well". Surely, this has nothing to do with going to heaven, or "doing good"? Rather it is the equivalent of "You would do well not to go out without an umbrella." It is a personal opinion.

And yet there is the "dirty hands verse":
M't:15:11: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. (Attrib. Jesus)
and
Ac:10:9 -23.

So, who do we believe? Paul, or God and Jesus?
 1. It is also interesting in that it shows that other gods were around at the time
 2. God had always frowned on it but sometimes turned a blind eye to it
Matt 15 -  Like most seeming contradictions, it is a matter of reading the context.  Jesus is making the point that the Pharisees were focused on the law, and their hearts were not converted.  So that sets up His point that what proceeds out of the mouth is an indication of what is in the heart. 
"This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."

Acts 15 -   Fornication is obvious, eating things sacrificed to idols and eating blood, probably had more spiritual implications than even the physical.  Although, as you stated there is the physical aspect as well. 

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on January 05, 2014, 11:38:47 PM

By sayin "not the ONLY exception" are you not implying that I meant ONLY exception when I said "AN exception"? Is that not the ONLY way I can be "wrong again?"

Harbinger, I have no idea what you are saying here.  I looked over your previous posts and I don't see where you said "AN exception".  I don't even know if that would matter.  I really have no idea what you are saying here.  I read this ten times and I can't understand what you are saying.  I bet this is how a trinitarian feels when they read 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 ten times trying to understand how Jesus and his Father are "one being".

1Cr 15:24-28

Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
   
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
   
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
   
For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
   
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.


Does a spelling error really mean that someone can't hold any view? What if I suffer from mental handicap, ADD or Dislexiaand for example and have trouble with spelling? can I then hold no views?

The sentence should say, "What if I suffer from A "mental handicap.....". 

Harbinger, if you suffer from a mental handicap then I would say that you can hold views but don't expect those views to be seen as credible.


How can one truly understand Hyper-calvinism  without first understanding plain ol' calvinism
One is a product of the other.

I understand hyper-calvinism and calvinism.  My first understanding of both of these theologies is that they are somewhat biblical but extremely HORRIFIC!

For example:

Biblical truth: All things were created by Jesus and for Jesus  (Col. 1:16)

Biblical truth: God knows all things - is omniscient (1 Jo. 3:20)

Biblical truth:  Hell is eternal punishment (Matt. 25:46)

CLAIM:  Your God knows that he is going to create individuals for eternal punishment.  I call this God a jerk....Why not kill the individuals as infants who are going to reject the gospel so they don't have to experience eternal hell???  Is it because He likes to show-off His wrath???  You call this God a God worthy of worship because.......????   



However, I don't think you understand hyper-calvinism.  Here is your challenge: 

I gave you three links explaining why hyper-calvinism is a theology that teaches that repentance is NOT necessary for salvation.

Give me a link that says, "Hyper-calvinism is a Christian theology that teaches that repentance is necessary for salvation".

I will seriously change my view on hyper-calvinism if you can send me a link that specifically says that hyper-calvinism is a theology that says a person has a responsibility to repent and repentance is definitely necessary for salvation. 


Could it be that you don't understand fully the doctrine of election? Do you even know that's what your quote refers to?

I'm confused???  What quote???   What is my quote referring to???   

CAN YOU PLEASE QUIT WASTING TIME!  PLEASE LEARN HOW TO "QUOTE".     


calvinism states that repentance is a gift. It's not necessary in the sense that you can't be saved until you repent. That's a whole different and much more common theology. Rather repenting is brought on by God's act of regenerating thus the man who is dead in his sin is now acutely aware of his sinful nature and then will repent. There is no what if I don't repent. When the Holy spirit regenerates a man that man WILL repent. The holy spirit won't regenerate the non-elect. Until then, much like yourself, there is no desire to repent nor can there be. repentance is necessary, you just have the order backwards that's all.

Weren't you just whining about being hated on this forum (Post #141).  Look at your hypocrisy.  You say that I have "no desire to repent nor can there be".  Are you saying that I can't repent???  Do you believe in eternal hell???  Do you see that you are the hater???  Telling me that I can't repent and are going to spend eternal life in hell is not very "loving"!

By the way, my only mention of "Calvinism" was that you had no idea how to spell "Calvinism".  I am talking about "hyper-calvinism".




without looking it up... what can you tell me about total depravity?

That's easy.  I can tell you that total depravity is a ridiculous doctrine that is taught in the bible.  I am astonished that you, or anybody else, can believe in the doctrine of original sin. I actually think it is a disgusting and ridiculous doctrine and cannot believe you think sin is carried all the way to you from Adam.  In my opinion, if you teach this doctrine to your kids it is a mild form of child abuse.  I was taught this doctrine throughout my childhood and I lived in guilt throughout my entire childhood even into my college years. 

By the way, I just want to let you know that many people are enslaved by "sin" and find many outreach programs that are helpful and non-religious.  You can even learn how to quit a bad habit on the internet.  The fact that people are finding a way to quit a bad habit without the help of your God makes your God really really really really small - or non-existent. 



Why do you insist that "I want" must mean "I will"
Is it possible that "I did it" is an answer? That on a later occasion I thought the question was answered and now see no reason to expound upon the answer?

I have no idea what you are referring to here.  I think you are talking to yourself.  You really need to learn how to quote on this forum.  There is a tutorial on the home page.  If you would have put my quote that's specific to your above sentences then I might have an idea what you are talking about here.   



On what standard do you measure me as a Christian?

I already told you.  On the standard of this revealed word of your God that you call the Bible. 

Don't worry, I'm going to hell too.  I look forward to meeting you along with all the other Christians who thought they had the right gospel. 

Thanks again Harbinger!  Once again, you are really exposing yourself and are truly a valuable asset to this forum as a "Look what Christianity has done to this guy" example.  Keep up the good work. 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on January 07, 2014, 01:00:23 AM

Sounds like the age old question "can God make a rock that is too big for Himself to lift?"
I don't know the answer.  It's not only a contradiction to a logical human being.  It's a contradiction to all human beings. 
There are things about God that are really impossible to understand.  But in many places in the bible, it doesn't shy away from this fact.  Ecclesiastes, Job, Isaiah, all attest to this.  Yet there is still belief in God. 

I'm confused.  Why would you mention Ecclesiastes, Job, and Isaiah.  You are getting off topic.  All these writers believed in God but not a trinitarian God.  What is contradictory about the nature of God that is written in these books?

I'm glad you at least admitted to the fact that Jesus being ignorant of the timing of his second coming is a contradiction to the belief that Jesus is "one being" with the Father.  I have a question for you.  Do you think it's fair for God to require humans to believe in a contradiction in order to be saved?  If I have to believe that Jesus is the one true God ("I am") to avoid dying in my sins (John 8:24) then, with all due respect, your God is a monster for requiring me to believe in a contradiction for salvation. 


Well the bible seems to say it by implication in several verses.  By eternal I mean to say that from my perspective Jesus is eternal.  What happened before the creation of our universe is something that I look forward to learning about when it's revealed. 
I have been working on BeDuhn's take on John 1:1 and have read some about him as well. 
Here is a debate that I've been reading.  Maybe you would like to read it too. 
http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/JB-RH.Jn1_1.Index.htm

Thanks for the link.  I'll read the whole thing when I have more time. 

The bible implies that Jesus is eternal???  Are you surprised that I can find verses that imply that Jesus was created.  I'm not.  THE SCRIPTURES ARE NOT CLEAR!  I can think of two verses off the top of my head: 

Col. 1:15 - "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature"

Rev. 3:14 - "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God"

In addition, I am also not surprised that another verse that claims Jesus is God (John 1:1) is under investigation.  I would think the all-powerful God could write/inspire unambiguously about his true nature.  The reason why there is so much debate over the doctrine of the Trinity is because you have different authors with different theologies writing about what they think Jesus' nature truly is.  And they write so ambiguously that different interpretations are bound to happen. 

How hard is it for your all-powerful God to inspire a text to say, "the Godhead is one being that consists of three persons - the father, son and holy spirit and all three persons are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial".  There wouldn't be too much confusion if we found a verse in the bible that said that right?  There would be confusion as to understanding this but at least there wouldn't be any disagreement as to the definition/formula of the Godhead.

To avoid all the confusion, I'm going to make a guess and say that you would much rather have this specific formula/definition of the Godhead revealed in your bible then saaaaay a contradictory genealogy of Jesus.  Do you know why this formula had to be created centuries after the life of Jesus?  Because your God was not specific enough in his word concerning the true nature of Jesus.  The debate over the trinity has lasted for century, after century, after century all because the holy spirit is a horrible communicator and couldn't specifically and clearly reveal the nature of Jesus.  Some say Jesus is the one true God and they will rattle off many verses; and some say Jesus is not the one true God and they have their verses for support.

Conclusion: Your bible is either not divinely inspired or your God is a horrible communicator!               


I don't remember the time the connection was made, but it may have been made for me.  I accepted it because it made sense though. That the Jewish leaders were going to stone Him for saying it, makes it even more evident.

It doesn't make it more evident to me especially after reading BeDuhn's argument.  I'm still waiting for that rebuttal.  The circumstantial evidence that the Jews picked up stones to stone him BECAUSE he claimed the divine title is not enough.  Is this your only rebuttal?  You have in the same chapter Jesus saying, "But as it is, you are SEEKING TO KILL ME, a MAN who has told you the truth, which I heard FROM God..." (John 8:40).  Even by Jesus saying that he heard something FROM God is excluding him from being God.  In addition, why were the Jews seeking to kill Jesus (verse 40)?  It wasn't for claiming to be God was it?  But then you say that in 19 verses later the Jews are picking up stones because Jesus is claiming to be God.  I'm not buying it.  BeDuhn's argument that the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus for claiming to be superior to Abraham and to have "superhuman longevity" is much more plausible. 

I'm also not buying that the "I am" connection "MAY" have been made for you.  Sorry, I wish I could believe you that you possibly made this connection yourself but I just don't believe you.  Additionally, I believe you would have remembered making this amazing connection on your own.


I don't emphasize that it's an absolute pre-requisite for salvation.  I hope that I've conveyed that clearly enough.  But I understand what you are talking about.  I know that many do emphasize it.


You don't emphasize that believing that Jesus is God is an absolute pre-requisite for salvation???  You hope that you have conveyed that clearly enough???  Quite the opposite Patrick Henry.  You have not conveyed that clearly enough.  In post #115 you state:

"I think that it's very important to understand that Jesus is the Son of God (Deity).  That He was sinless, that He was present in the creation with God, that they are One.  All these things are crucial to understanding salvation."

I believe I have spotted a contradiction.  Truth is to falsehood like Patrick Henry's view of salvation is to contradiction.

By the way, why wouldn't you think that it is a pre-requisite for salvation to believe that Jesus is the one true God?  John 8:24 says that you will "die in your sins" if you don't believe that Jesus is "I am".  If you think that Jesus is the "I am" of John 8:58 then you have to believe he is mentioning the divine title in John 8:24 as well. 

I can't believe you can look at a verse like John 8:24 with your view of the "I am" and then say it is NOT a pre-requisite to believe that Jesus is the one true God ("I am").  Explain yourself please.

Jesus says that unless one believes that Jesus is "I am" they will die in their sins.
Patrick Henry says, "I don't emphasize that it's an absolute pre-requisite for salvation".

Huh???


I understand your point, but I disagree with your conclusion that God likes to see His children.......kill one another......over contradictory doctrine.   This sounds no different than the arguments that God must not be real or He wouldn't allow evil and human suffering. 
Surely you knew that wars have been fought over doctrinal differences and power struggles over the centuries.  What Calvin was a part of probably seemed justified to him.  I don't understand how, but living in that time of religious authority, I can imagine it.  It's no excuse though, he should have been convicted by God but really a Christian is capable of committing sin against another person as we both know.
I don't fault God for that.  You may disagree, but the scriptures are clear enough, that believers should know better than to kill over such things.   At least from the new testament.  I don't get that, and I don't think it's in there.

Remember Patrick that I take issue with people saying "clear" and "scripture" in the same sentence.  It is God's fault!  Like I said earlier, if your God is all-powerful it would not be hard for him to clearly write/inspire a text to give his followers the correct understanding of his nature. 

Believers should know better than to kill over such things???  Christians are to be Christ-like!  If you think Jesus is the same person as the Holy Spirit then we have Jesus murdering two individuals for being hypocrites and not giving to the church all they promised (Acts 5).  John Calvin is just following the leadership of Jesus.  John Calvin is a murderer just like Jesus is a murderer.  You can find justification for almost anything in the bible and that is because THE SCRIPTURES ARE NOT CLEAR! 


If God doesn't reveal all things to us directly, but through a combination of the bible and the Holy Spirit, and we know that is taught, wouldn't it make sense that human beings, even Christians, will evolve in their faith and understanding of Him?

You might come to this conclusion but this makes no sense to me.  One of the reasons I "evolved" out of my faith is because the bible says the Holy Spirit will guide individuals into "all truth" (John 16:13).  This sounds great but then I realized there are over 40,000 different Christian denominations and all these denominations believe different things about the bible because of different interpretations over different doctrines.  Which denomination has the correct view on all doctrines?  Is there even one individual in this world who has the correct view on all the doctrines?  Which denomination has the Holy Spirit guiding then into all truth?  They can't all be right. 

My conclusion:  The Holy Spirit has been falsified and, therefore, does not exist.  Either that or Jesus is a liar when he said the Holy Spirit will guide people into "all truth".       

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on January 07, 2014, 10:37:12 AM
Whoa, wait a minute. Is harbinger now arguing in favor of snake handling? Because the people get bitten a lot, but mostly don't die? WTF is he smoking?  Doesn't it seem that if they are blessed by god or protected by god or something, they should never get bitten at all? And these are snakes that are used to the people, right?

Try a little snake handling with an African black mamba straight from the wild, or the snake the local people called the "you die in four hours" snake. On second thought, don't. :P
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: xyzzy on January 07, 2014, 10:59:12 AM
Whoa, wait a minute. Is harbinger now arguing in favor of snake handling? Because the people get bitten a lot, but mostly don't die? WTF is he smoking?  Doesn't it seem that if they are blessed by god or protected by god or something, they should never get bitten at all? And these are snakes that are used to the people, right?

Correct. The fact that a father and son (Wolfords) both died from a snake bite[1] is somehow proof of something because they didn't die earlier. Or something like that. The point has been made consistently, though, that death from snake-bite in America is a rare event, in and of itself.

Harbinger, if you explained this when I asked about it earlier, then I missed it, maybe you didn't get to it with all the other things we asked about, but I don't recall you answering my point about the fact that they ever experienced envenomation, or that any snake-handler died as a result of that?
 1. the newspaper reports say that these were pets - but the takeaway is that they are used to being handled
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on January 07, 2014, 12:20:13 PM
Whoa, wait a minute. Is harbinger now arguing in favor of snake handling? Because the people get bitten a lot, but mostly don't die? WTF is he smoking?  Doesn't it seem that if they are blessed by god or protected by god or something, they should never get bitten at all? And these are snakes that are used to the people, right?

Try a little snake handling with an African black mamba straight from the wild, or the snake the local people called the "you die in four hours" snake. On second thought, don't. :P

Better yet an anaconda. ;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on January 07, 2014, 04:32:03 PM
Hell, just jump into a tank of piranahs. If god wants you to survive it, you will.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 07, 2014, 05:01:14 PM
You laugh, but you may be interested, if only for comic relief, to see that some follow your scripture reference right down to drinking poison. Guess what... death from untreated snake bite or poisoning is rare among these people.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcwBVcsWYJd8

30,000+ get bitten by poisonous snakes every year in the US, and at most, 10 or 12 die. There was a kid fascinated by cottonmouths that I lived near in Illinois, and he'd been bitten three times but never told his mom or had the bites treated because he was afraid she wouldn't let him play with snakes any more. She found out when he was 16 and got interviewed by a newspaper reporter. That's when he confessed. He showed the reporter the places he'd been bitten to confirm his story.

25% of poison snake bites are "dry", which means the snakes don't get any poison into the victim.

So while you're impressed, I'm thinking those folks are luckier than crap that they don't live in Australia, where the snakes are frickin' wicked and you don't walk away too often.

And the drinking of poison? Who is the control. Who also drinks it but doesn't believe and dies? We science types need stuff like that or we won't blindly accept the results.

Snake handlers to die. But of course that means they didn't believe. So no biggie.

Impressed? I didn't express a view. I only presented it's out there.

I think the pastor controls the poison and of course drinks it as well.

why have you asked me to support my claims through science while you make unsubstantiated claims of your own?

Well, thank goodness for the Google Search!

1. Rational Wiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Snake_handling) explains that the snakes are often keep in overcrowded conditions and without food and water so they are rather passive and the bites don't have much venom. Even so, the page lists people killed by handling snakes in church.

2. Reality Show (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Snake_handling) details snake handling in the present day (Oct 2013 article) but still manages to find a death caused by snakes.

3. Even the Christian Post (http://www.christianpost.com/news/snake-handling-christians-faith-prophecy-and-obedience-75985/) isn't impressed with the practice and records a death.

We could go on but the point is that people have and do die from this practice that only started in the beginning of the 20th century. Again, oddly, people reading the text in Mark prior to that never noticed that it was there or that it might mean anything to them. There is also some explanation of the reason there are not more deaths though, frankly, it is cruelty to the snakes and there are prosecutions of the church who do this.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 07, 2014, 05:10:21 PM
Sorry, missed a link out.

A psychologist has studied this phenomena and here is the article. (http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/snake-handling-churches-of-appalachia_09.html) Apparently the rate of death is about 1 a year - not much but in a tiny number of churches pretty significant.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on January 07, 2014, 05:48:12 PM
I am amazed at how people will latch onto one passage in the bible and create an entire new church around it, and then the history of how that church got started just fades away. Seems as if the more mainstream believers are afraid to point out that snake handling (or whatever practice), is nuts and only got started in the US Appalachian south (or whatever region) during the Great depression (or whatever time period) due to certain specific cultural and economic events.

Because then they might have to look at their own church and discover the exact same thing-- ie that their religion has nothing to do with a supernatural being, but is based on people trying to interpret some scary or disruptive aspects of their lives. I wonder how much of Scientology is related to the fear of the atomic bomb, for example. Time period is right.

Read about how the JW's got started--people were so freaked out by the horrors of WWI that they thought the world was literally ending. They were the ones chosen to tell everyone and save people from Armageddon. And have been predicting the apocalypse, and being wrong, ever since.[1]
 1. Or as my late blackabilly JW grandmother would say, "every sance"
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Patrick Henry on January 08, 2014, 02:43:22 AM

I'm confused.  Why would you mention Ecclesiastes, Job, and Isaiah.  You are getting off topic.  All these writers believed in God but not a trinitarian God.  What is contradictory about the nature of God that is written in these books?

I'm glad you at least admitted to the fact that Jesus being ignorant of the timing of his second coming is a contradiction to the belief that Jesus is "one being" with the Father.  I have a question for you.  Do you think it's fair for God to require humans to believe in a contradiction in order to be saved?  If I have to believe that Jesus is the one true God ("I am") to avoid dying in my sins (John 8:24) then, with all due respect, your God is a monster for requiring me to believe in a contradiction for salvation.     
Sorry I don't have time to answer your entire post.  I'll try to get to it. 
So I've been thinking about this a little bit more.
John 5:19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

It’s not that the Son of God is inferior to the Father, but there is a unity in the Godhead.  One nature, doesn't mean separate. 
Jesus became man and limited Himself to being human and needing to rely upon His Father.  Remember the idea that He is also our example, as well as our Savior.  So by relying on God He shows us that we need to do the same. 
So it stands to reason that Jesus, while still being God in nature, was limited in knowledge as well as physical strength and the other human limitations.  So He is saying that God needs to reveal things to Him and the second coming apparently wasn't revealed to Him. 
When I said that it's impossible and a contradiction, I'm saying that it takes the Holy Spirit to reveal it in the heart.  It's difficult for me to describe, but I don't sense any contradiction here, even though it's tough to put into words.  I do think that it's good to think through and be ABLE to explain it, which is part of the reason why I'm here.  To be challenged to think and explain.

Does a person need to believe in the Trinity to be saved?  Back to that question.  I still say that it's important to understand who you believe in.  If Jesus is a created being, it doesn't make sense that He could create eternal souls.  Since He, Himself isn't eternal.  If Jesus is eternal Son, then the idea of a personal relationship with God makes sense because being our Creator, He loved us so much that He went to the cross.  Christ loved us so much that He tells the story of leaving the 99 sheep to find the one lost.  The prodigal son story, and shows compassion for and rescues the prostitute.  That Jesus was not only there during the creation of the world, but He "knew us before the foundations of the world". Eph 1:4
I see it like this:  If I hear a story of a child who is lost, I feel bad, and go about my day with concern.  If MY child was lost, my day doesn't end until I find her and I will spend all my time, and energy, and be willing to lose my own life to rescue her.  That is the difference between a Jesus who wasn't there during creation as God, and a Jesus who is God and is the Creator and Savior of those who are lost.  There's a big difference and it affects a person if they understand it. 
It's not just Jesus the created being on the cross.  It's Jesus your Creator on the cross because He knows you intimately, and loves you.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on January 08, 2014, 12:53:42 PM

John 5:19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

It’s not that the Son of God is inferior to the Father, but there is a unity in the Godhead.  One nature, doesn't mean separate. 
Jesus became man and limited Himself to being human and needing to rely upon His Father.

O.K. Let me see if I got this.

1.) "The Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner."

Interpretation: Since the Son can do nothing of Himself then the Son is a separate being from the Father.

2.) "It’s not that the Son of God is inferior to the Father, but there is a unity in the Godhead.  One nature, doesn't mean separate."

Interpretation: The Son is co-equal to the Father and one nature doesn't mean separate so the Son is the same being as the Father.

3.) "Jesus became man and limited Himself to being human and needing to rely upon His Father."

Interpretation: Jesus needed to rely upon his Father so the Son is a separate being from the Father.


Jesus went from being the same being as the Father, to a separate being from the Father, to the same being as the Father in just four sentences.  You would have made a great New Testament author. 

My argument as a "Christian heretic" would have been against your claim in #2 that the Son of God is not inferior to the Father.  The bible suggested to me that Jesus WAS inferior to the Father which meant that he was a separate being.  A few examples:

1 Cor. 11:3 - "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

John 14:28 - "...because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

1 Cor. 15:28 - "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

 
 
So it stands to reason that Jesus, while still being God in nature, was limited in knowledge as well as physical strength and the other human limitations.  So He is saying that God needs to reveal things to Him and the second coming apparently wasn't revealed to Him.

Look at that.  I'm a prophet.  Referring to Jesus' ignorance of the timing of his second coming, I stated in post #142, "I am going to predict that the answer you will give me will sound a lot like you are trying to round the corners of a square to make it a circle so they can be the same shape.  Nothing you say will make sense to me because this is a contradiction.  My guess is that you will "round the corners" and say that Jesus didn't have all the attributes in His humanity."

Just kidding.  I am not a prophet.  It was just a good guess.  Something to think about:  If Jesus was "limited in knowledge as well as physical strength and the other human limitations", then He wasn't fully God.  I'm going to use your phrase and say it "stands to reason" that Jesus is not fully God if there is evidence of Him not possessing all the attributes of God.  Saying that Jesus is fully man and fully God is a CONTRADICTION.  The Trinity is impossible to understand because CONTRADICTIONS DON'T MAKE SENSE TO LOGICAL HUMANS WHO UTILIZE THE ATTRIBUTE OF "REASON"!   

   
When I said that it's impossible and a contradiction, I'm saying that it takes the Holy Spirit to reveal it in the heart.  It's difficult for me to describe, but I don't sense any contradiction here, even though it's tough to put into words.



I think you have this backwards.  It's tough to put into words because it is a contradiction.  I think I have just spotted a contradiction of contradictions.  I hope this doesn't turn out to be an infinite regression of contradictions.

Referring to the apparent contradiction of Jesus being one being with the Father and at the same time not knowing the timing of his second coming you said in post #159, "It's not only a contradiction to a logical human being.  It's a contradiction to all human beings."

But now you say, "I don't sense any contradiction here".

You are contradicting yourself saying that you don't sense any contradiction here. 


I do think that it's good to think through and be ABLE to explain it, which is part of the reason why I'm here.  To be challenged to think and explain.

It is good to think through all of this and be ABLE to explain it.  I commend you for being here.  I especially respect the fact that you are trying to defend the most controversial and illogical doctrine presented in the bible.  The reason why it is challenging for you to explain the Trinity to me is because I have too much ammo from the bible that speaks directly against the notion that there is one God presented in three persons that are co-equal, co-eternal and con-substantial. 

You say I twist certain scriptures and as a former "Christian heretic" I would say that you are twisting certain scriptures.  The truth is that every Christian apologist has to twist certain scriptures to fit their view of certain doctrines because there are too many apparent contradictions.  My conclusion: Either the Holy Spirit is a horrible communicator or this Holy Spirit thing doesn't exist.  I have jumped the fence from the land of make-believe to the land of reason and logic and now believe the latter.       

Does a person need to believe in the Trinity to be saved?  Back to that question.


Great it seems like you are going to finally answer this question directly.  I am still confused as to your answer to this question.  You said it is important to understand that Jesus is God to understand salvation and then it seemed like you contradicted yourself by saying that it is not a prerequisite to believe that Jesus is "I am" (Yahweh).  So a simple yes or no would be great! 

So I'm reading your answer.........................aaaaaand once again I am disappointed as you don't answer the question directly.  I still have no idea if you believe that one has to believe in the Trinity (or binity) in order to be saved.

I'm left to believe that you might not even have an answer to this.  In addition, I'm left to believe, once again, that the doctrine of salvation is unclear in the bible.     

I still say that it's important to understand who you believe in.  If Jesus is a created being, it doesn't make sense that He could create eternal souls.  Since He, Himself isn't eternal.


This sounds like exactly what my former pastor preached.  However this is your opinion and not biblical.  In addition, this is what you call a non-sequitur (logical fallacy).  It is just as plausible that the Father created the Son and then they shared in the creation.  Two verses to consider: Proverbs 30:4 and John 17:4. 

Furthermore, ask yourself, is there any evidence in the bible where Jesus is GIVEN authority by the Father?  Yep!  One example:

Matt. 28:18 - "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth."  It "stands to reason" that if power had to be GIVEN to the Son then the Son is not co-equal or con-substantial with the Father.   

If Jesus is eternal Son, then the idea of a personal relationship with God makes sense because being our Creator, He loved us so much that He went to the cross.  Christ loved us so much that He tells the story of leaving the 99 sheep to find the one lost.  The prodigal son story, and shows compassion for and rescues the prostitute. 

Not to get too off topic but this sounds like I might have a chance at this thing you call salvation.  Harbinger says, "The holy spirit won't regenerate the non-elect. Until then, much like yourself, there is no desire to repent nor can there be".

It seems like you (and Jesus) are implying that I am lost and that Jesus will possibly rescue me.  Even though the odds are one in a million, are you saying that I have a chance?  Harbinger says that the Holy Spirit won't regenerate the non-elect and there can be no desire for a person like me to repent. 

Do you agree with him?  Do I have a chance?  A yes or no would be much appreciated.  I'm testing the credibility of my previous conclusion that the Holy Spirit (a.k.a God) is either a horrible communicator or he doesn't even exist.         

It's not just Jesus the created being on the cross.  It's Jesus your Creator on the cross because He knows you intimately, and loves you.

Why can't it be both?  Jesus can be both a created being and my creator right?  The definition of SON implies that Jesus was created.

In addition, I have an argument that it was not Jesus' plan to come down to earth to die on the cross for the sins of mankind because he loves people.  He only did what the Father commanded him to do.  It seems to me that the Son died on the cross not out of love for people so much but out of obedience to his Father.  It was the Father's plan and not the Son's.  Three verses to consider:

Matt. 26:39 - "And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”

John 8:42 - "...for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me".

John 6:38 - "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me".

TWO DIFFERENT INITIATIVES - TWO DIFFERENT WILLS - TWO DIFFERENT BEINGS!  It "stands to reason" that the doctrine of the Trinity is either contradictory or completely unbiblical depending on how one wants to twist scripture to fit their view of Jesus.



 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 08, 2014, 11:16:14 PM
I am amazed at how people will latch onto one passage in the bible and create an entire new church around it, and then the history of how that church got started just fades away. Seems as if the more mainstream believers are afraid to point out that snake handling (or whatever practice), is nuts and only got started in the US Appalachian south (or whatever region) during the Great depression (or whatever time period) due to certain specific cultural and economic events.

Because then they might have to look at their own church and discover the exact same thing-- ie that their religion has nothing to do with a supernatural being, but is based on people trying to interpret some scary or disruptive aspects of their lives. I wonder how much of Scientology is related to the fear of the atomic bomb, for example. Time period is right.

Read about how the JW's got started--people were so freaked out by the horrors of WWI that they thought the world was literally ending. They were the ones chosen to tell everyone and save people from Armageddon. And have been predicting the apocalypse, and being wrong, ever since.[1]
 1. Or as my late blackabilly JW grandmother would say, "every sance"

I never attempted to defend the crazy dudes that do this. I only mentioned it's done. It's related to God's word and a desire to embrace all the words of jesus... nothing more nothing less.

Do you honestly believe that ALL christians have no clue about church history? Especially their own denominational History? Is it safe to say you didn't grow up in a church?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 08, 2014, 11:43:25 PM
 This is getting out of hand... :/
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 09, 2014, 02:26:27 AM
at least we agree on something...
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on January 09, 2014, 05:04:07 PM
I am amazed at how people will latch onto one passage in the bible and create an entire new church around it, and then the history of how that church got started just fades away. Seems as if the more mainstream believers are afraid to point out that snake handling (or whatever practice), is nuts and only got started in the US Appalachian south (or whatever region) during the Great depression (or whatever time period) due to certain specific cultural and economic events.

Because then they might have to look at their own church and discover the exact same thing-- ie that their religion has nothing to do with a supernatural being, but is based on people trying to interpret some scary or disruptive aspects of their lives. I wonder how much of Scientology is related to the fear of the atomic bomb, for example. Time period is right.

Read about how the JW's got started--people were so freaked out by the horrors of WWI that they thought the world was literally ending. They were the ones chosen to tell everyone and save people from Armageddon. And have been predicting the apocalypse, and being wrong, ever since.[1]
 1. Or as my late blackabilly JW grandmother would say, "every sance"

I never attempted to defend the crazy dudes that do this. I only mentioned it's done. It's related to God's word and a desire to embrace all the words of jesus... nothing more nothing less.

Do you honestly believe that ALL christians have no clue about church history? Especially their own denominational History? Is it safe to say you didn't grow up in a church?

I grew up in the JW religion. I don't know if you consider them a church or not. I am pretty sure you don't consider them to be Christians!

We were taught that we were the only real Christians on earth, and of course there wouldn't be very many of us because many are called but few answer, and you will be persecuted for god and so forth. I remember the smirking, superior attitude that was the reaction to other churches who called themselves Christian....

Of course some people know their own church history, but they tend to gloss over the places where something clearly was political or military or financial or just plain lucky that helped their god do his thing. In any other person's faith they can see that it was not supernatural, but in their own it was of course the god magic.

Example: Christianity has been the dominant religious force in the western world for the past 500 years. Many Christians will cite the 2 billion believers worldwide that as proof of their god's super powers, or at least that their religion must be true. In fact the spread of this faith was due largely to Spanish and British colonization, superior weapons and some pretty bada$$ diseases.

Example: Islam has spread much faster than Christianity. It is now the fastest growing major religion. Muslims cite this as proof of their god's super powers, or at least that their religion must be true. In fact the spread of this faith was due largely to people being angry at their previous empires, and in more recent times to a) being similar enough to Christianity but with more specific rules, and b) really good communications and transportation technology.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 09, 2014, 09:36:13 PM
I am amazed at how people will latch onto one passage in the bible and create an entire new church around it, and then the history of how that church got started just fades away. Seems as if the more mainstream believers are afraid to point out that snake handling (or whatever practice), is nuts and only got started in the US Appalachian south (or whatever region) during the Great depression (or whatever time period) due to certain specific cultural and economic events.

Because then they might have to look at their own church and discover the exact same thing-- ie that their religion has nothing to do with a supernatural being, but is based on people trying to interpret some scary or disruptive aspects of their lives. I wonder how much of Scientology is related to the fear of the atomic bomb, for example. Time period is right.

Read about how the JW's got started--people were so freaked out by the horrors of WWI that they thought the world was literally ending. They were the ones chosen to tell everyone and save people from Armageddon. And have been predicting the apocalypse, and being wrong, ever since.[1]
 1. Or as my late blackabilly JW grandmother would say, "every sance"

I never attempted to defend the crazy dudes that do this. I only mentioned it's done. It's related to God's word and a desire to embrace all the words of jesus... nothing more nothing less.

Do you honestly believe that ALL christians have no clue about church history? Especially their own denominational History? Is it safe to say you didn't grow up in a church?

I grew up in the JW religion. I don't know if you consider them a church or not. I am pretty sure you don't consider them to be Christians!

We were taught that we were the only real Christians on earth, and of course there wouldn't be very many of us because many are called but few answer, and you will be persecuted for god and so forth. I remember the smirking, superior attitude that was the reaction to other churches who called themselves Christian....

Of course some people know their own church history, but they tend to gloss over the places where something clearly was political or military or financial or just plain lucky that helped their god do his thing. In any other person's faith they can see that it was not supernatural, but in their own it was of course the god magic.

Example: Christianity has been the dominant religious force in the western world for the past 500 years. Many Christians will cite the 2 billion believers worldwide that as proof of their god's super powers, or at least that their religion must be true. In fact the spread of this faith was due largely to Spanish and British colonization, superior weapons and some pretty bada$$ diseases.

Example: Islam has spread much faster than Christianity. It is now the fastest growing major religion. Muslims cite this as proof of their god's super powers, or at least that their religion must be true. In fact the spread of this faith was due largely to people being angry at their previous empires, and in more recent times to a) being similar enough to Christianity but with more specific rules, and b) really good communications and transportation technology.

I Place them in the same category as the Mormons. JW are not christian and are therefore not THE church. I would be willing to call them A church though. So yeah you got me...
 
Theology so fragile I can Call attention to one verse and refute the entire thing. Even using the new world translation. What do you care though you are out right?

So, honest curiosity, as an apostate I know you have been excommunicated, does your family still speak to you? Are they even still in with JW? Did you move away from everything?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 09, 2014, 10:02:42 PM
I Place them in the same category as the Mormons. JW are not christian and are therefore not THE church. I would be willing to call them A church though. So yeah you got me...

Jehovah's witnesses are Christians...
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 10, 2014, 03:31:35 AM


I Place them in the same category as the Mormons. JW are not christian and are therefore not THE church. I would be willing to call them A church though. So yeah you got me...
 
Theology so fragile I can Call attention to one verse and refute the entire thing. Even using the new world translation. What do you care though you are out right?

So, honest curiosity, as an apostate I know you have been excommunicated, does your family still speak to you? Are they even still in with JW? Did you move away from everything?

So, could you tell us on what precise basis you regard JWs as not Christian? Who sets the rules for what a verse means and what it doesn't mean?

You see, this was problem in the Early Church - what were the right things to believe such as who was god and who was Jesus. It could not be settled by individuals and so was settled by conferences of bishops who set out the limits to what the doctrine could be. So I hope that your rejections of JWs, who worship Jesus, isn't a personal one but based on at least the Church Fathers doctrines.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 10, 2014, 07:41:42 AM
why would I base anything on something more than the Bible? Even the early church fathers should be checked out in the light of scripture. Scripture, not mans doctrine, is the authority. I plan to go deeper on JW it's time to get the kids ready for school...
Interesting to note no body wants to argue the mormons as being christian.. why is that?
Aside from that why do you even care?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 10, 2014, 09:09:17 AM
A Christian should always stick to the bible and the teachings contained in it. If your interpretation is in conflict with any part, your wrong. This is the fundamental reason I have yet to find a denomination I trust. With that being said I present the case against JW.

JW's deny several fundamental doctrines of the Bible, including the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, His bodily return, the Millennial reign of Christ, and the Holy Spirit. JW's deny a literal Hell and teach that hell (Sheol in the Old Testament) merely refers to the grave. However, Psalm 9:17 plainly states that the wicked shall be turned into Hell. If the righteous and the wicked go to the same place, then Psalm 9:17 would make no sense at all. Clearly, the righteous and the wicked go to different places upon death. JW teach soul sleep but, absent from the body is present with the Lord. This is also unbiblical.
JW's teach that Michael the archangel BECAME Jesus. They try to steer away from this doctrine because it is one of the topics that can be used to show prospective JW's the fallacy of their religion. Most regular people, let alone bible scholars, have a problem with the idea that Michael and Jesus are the same person, because they are not.

JW's teach that Jesus is “a god,” but not almighty God. Jesus plainly claimed in Revelation 1:8 to be
“the almighty.” John 10:33 evidences that Jesus taught men that He is God. If God is God and Jesus is "a god" then you now have a pantheon of at least 2 gods. If Jesus is just "a god" the The father is also just "a god"

JW's don't believe in owing allegiance to the government, which is unbiblical. Biblically, although God comes first, Christians are to submit and owe allegiance to their government, as the government was established by God himself.
 
Add to this, as mentioned, the JW witnesses teach they are the one true church. They have divine revelation from God himself. Yet, they have been giving us dates for the end since they were established. When we read what a prophet is in the old testament then this shows us they are no true church. In the least they have no special contact with God.

I could supply several links to learn the teachings you don't get at the front door. As with most cults, such as the mormons, and the masons, you have to stick around for a while before they start droppin' the bombs on ya.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 10, 2014, 09:39:41 AM
A Christian should always stick to the bible and the teachings contained in it. If your interpretation is in conflict with any part, your wrong. This is the fundamental reason I have yet to find a denomination I trust.

So, you have set yourself up as n authority as to what doctrines match the bible what what doctrines do not? This is what I was asking you about in my earlier post about ho sets the rules. Your reply here suggests that you think every individual can be their own authority on the bible and each person can have their own interpretation of the doctrines.

Pardon me for saying this, but the way I read the New Testament is that the fundamental quality of the Christians portrayed by the NT is that they meet together regularly to 'break bread' and discuss their faith. The NT leaves no space for loners. The Early Church would have branded 'loners' as heretics because they did not accept the common doctrine. So what is it about you that you know better than all the denominations of Christianity as far a doctrine is concerned? How is it that none of the other denominations fail to understand the bible when you do? Oh, and why do you not follow the clear way pf life of the early Christians and worship with some church or other as not to do so is certainly not following the spirit of the NT at the very least?

 
Quote
With that being said I present the case against JW.

JW's deny several fundamental doctrines of the Bible, including the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, His bodily return, the Millennial reign of Christ, and the Holy Spirit. JW's deny a literal Hell and teach that hell (Sheol in the Old Testament) merely refers to the grave. However, Psalm 9:17 plainly states that the wicked shall be turned into Hell. If the righteous and the wicked go to the same place, then Psalm 9:17 would make no sense at all. Clearly, the righteous and the wicked go to different places upon death. JW teach soul sleep but, absent from the body is present with the Lord. This is also unbiblical.
JW's teach that Michael the archangel BECAME Jesus. They try to steer away from this doctrine because it is one of the topics that can be used to show prospective JW's the fallacy of their religion. Most regular people, let alone bible scholars, have a problem with the idea that Michael and Jesus are the same person, because they are not.

JW's teach that Jesus is “a god,” but not almighty God. Jesus plainly claimed in Revelation 1:8 to be
“the almighty.” John 10:33 evidences that Jesus taught men that He is God. If God is God and Jesus is "a god" then you now have a pantheon of at least 2 gods. If Jesus is just "a god" the The father is also just "a god"

JW's don't believe in owing allegiance to the government, which is unbiblical. Biblically, although God comes first, Christians are to submit and owe allegiance to their government, as the government was established by God himself.
 
Add to this, as mentioned, the JW witnesses teach they are the one true church. They have divine revelation from God himself. Yet, they have been giving us dates for the end since they were established. When we read what a prophet is in the old testament then this shows us they are no true church. In the least they have no special contact with God.

I could supply several links to learn the teachings you don't get at the front door. As with most cults, such as the mormons, and the masons, you have to stick around for a while before they start droppin' the bombs on ya.

You are quite right about the JWs and the Mormons. They have some very interesting doctrines they keep quiet about - avoiding any such discussion to seem to be like the other denominations.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 10, 2014, 02:00:24 PM
A Christian should always stick to the bible and the teachings contained in it. If your interpretation is in conflict with any part, your wrong. This is the fundamental reason I have yet to find a denomination I trust.

So, you have set yourself up as n authority as to what doctrines match the bible what what doctrines do not? This is what I was asking you about in my earlier post about ho sets the rules. Your reply here suggests that you think every individual can be their own authority on the bible and each person can have their own interpretation of the doctrines.

Pardon me for saying this, but the way I read the New Testament is that the fundamental quality of the Christians portrayed by the NT is that they meet together regularly to 'break bread' and discuss their faith. The NT leaves no space for loners. The Early Church would have branded 'loners' as heretics because they did not accept the common doctrine. So what is it about you that you know better than all the denominations of Christianity as far a doctrine is concerned? How is it that none of the other denominations fail to understand the bible when you do? Oh, and why do you not follow the clear way pf life of the early Christians and worship with some church or other as not to do so is certainly not following the spirit of the NT at the very least?

 
Quote
With that being said I present the case against JW.

JW's deny several fundamental doctrines of the Bible, including the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, His bodily return, the Millennial reign of Christ, and the Holy Spirit. JW's deny a literal Hell and teach that hell (Sheol in the Old Testament) merely refers to the grave. However, Psalm 9:17 plainly states that the wicked shall be turned into Hell. If the righteous and the wicked go to the same place, then Psalm 9:17 would make no sense at all. Clearly, the righteous and the wicked go to different places upon death. JW teach soul sleep but, absent from the body is present with the Lord. This is also unbiblical.
JW's teach that Michael the archangel BECAME Jesus. They try to steer away from this doctrine because it is one of the topics that can be used to show prospective JW's the fallacy of their religion. Most regular people, let alone bible scholars, have a problem with the idea that Michael and Jesus are the same person, because they are not.

JW's teach that Jesus is “a god,” but not almighty God. Jesus plainly claimed in Revelation 1:8 to be
“the almighty.” John 10:33 evidences that Jesus taught men that He is God. If God is God and Jesus is "a god" then you now have a pantheon of at least 2 gods. If Jesus is just "a god" the The father is also just "a god"

JW's don't believe in owing allegiance to the government, which is unbiblical. Biblically, although God comes first, Christians are to submit and owe allegiance to their government, as the government was established by God himself.
 
Add to this, as mentioned, the JW witnesses teach they are the one true church. They have divine revelation from God himself. Yet, they have been giving us dates for the end since they were established. When we read what a prophet is in the old testament then this shows us they are no true church. In the least they have no special contact with God.

I could supply several links to learn the teachings you don't get at the front door. As with most cults, such as the mormons, and the masons, you have to stick around for a while before they start droppin' the bombs on ya.

You are quite right about the JWs and the Mormons. They have some very interesting doctrines they keep quiet about - avoiding any such discussion to seem to be like the other denominations.

authority is the word of God NOT the man.
quoting this lends to what you have stated.
Hebrews 10:25
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is;...

I do not disagree with your interpretation.
The Idea of church being a stationary building is not the early Christian Idea. As for doctrine you are correct. the early church would have kicked you out for not holding the proper doctrine. I believe their proper doctrine would have in the least been FULLY supported by the writings available. Are you saying that the current doctrine is correct only because it's current?
I do not pretend I am Perfectly correct. I leave my mind open for correction. I think if I have an advantage at all it's that I don't have a tradition that I was taught to me that I hold dear. I'm not trying to fit something in rather trying to pull something out. I certainly don't care if what I find offends some, as the bible does that already. I find a lot of church doctrine that is spot on.. there just always seems to be some extra garbage thrown in. That's the point when I would reject said denomination.

I do go to a church. I happen to disagree with a lot of the denominational doctrine of the church and have discussed such openly with deacons and the pastor. The fact I'm allowed to stay speaks against proper church discipline. If I could find a small group Bible based home church I would be there. It's not, to my knowledge, available in my area.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 10, 2014, 03:02:41 PM
OK, Harbinger, what makes you say the the bible is
Quote
authority is the word of God NOT the man.
I assume you mean bible as that is he only source to which we all have access.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 10, 2014, 05:46:56 PM
OK, Harbinger, what makes you say the the bible is
Quote
authority is the word of God NOT the man.
I assume you mean bible as that is he only source to which we all have access.

The Bible should be used to interpret the Bible. Line upon line precept upon precept. That's what I meant.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 11, 2014, 09:37:16 AM
OK, Harbinger, what makes you say the the bible is
Quote
authority is the word of God NOT the man.
I assume you mean bible as that is he only source to which we all have access.

The Bible should be used to interpret the Bible. Line upon line precept upon precept. That's what I meant.

This sounds a little circular. Why would want to work like that rather than to do textual analysis as we would do with any other ancient text? We can't recover the thoughts of the author but we an decide what the words all mean and thus derive meaning. Of course, if you mean that when we find texts that don't agree on something that we should assume they do, really, both mean the same thing, then that's a different idea altogether. Its unscholarly and, in effect, cheating to get the answers one wants.

Finally, the word authority. Why do you give the book such authority to rule your life. You know it has been redacted and redacted over the time it was written and the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Apocrypha providing the evidence. If this was really the word of a god would that god really allow redactors to keep changing it? 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 11, 2014, 03:14:01 PM
OK, Harbinger, what makes you say the the bible is
Quote
authority is the word of God NOT the man.
I assume you mean bible as that is he only source to which we all have access.

The Bible should be used to interpret the Bible. Line upon line precept upon precept. That's what I meant.

This sounds a little circular. Why would want to work like that rather than to do textual analysis as we would do with any other ancient text? We can't recover the thoughts of the author but we an decide what the words all mean and thus derive meaning. Of course, if you mean that when we find texts that don't agree on something that we should assume they do, really, both mean the same thing, then that's a different idea altogether. Its unscholarly and, in effect, cheating to get the answers one wants.

Finally, the word authority. Why do you give the book such authority to rule your life. You know it has been redacted and redacted over the time it was written and the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Apocrypha providing the evidence. If this was really the word of a god would that god really allow redactors to keep changing it?

I think (not counting) there are 3-4 threads all currently on the same topic... I JUST answered these questions on a thread you are also involved in...
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 11, 2014, 03:34:38 PM
I think your answer is here
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?action=post;quote=594532;topic=25096.203;last_msg=594534
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 11, 2014, 04:50:37 PM
why didn't anyone want to argue against my claim for Mormon's not being Christian while JW would be strongly defended? still curious...
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: naemhni on January 11, 2014, 05:04:41 PM
why didn't anyone want to argue against my claim for Mormon's not being Christian while JW would be strongly defended? still curious...

For my own part, since I'm an atheist, if someone self-identifies as a Christian, I don't feel that it's my place to say, "No, you're not."  That would similarly apply in a case such as this one where someone is trying to argue that group A is Christian whereas group B is not: it isn't my right to dispute the point if I disagree with it.

It's somewhat similar to what atheists very often encounter from believers.  When we tell people that we are atheists, it is very common for us to be "informed" by believers that we're not really atheists because of (x, y, or z).  You may have heard, for example, that Oprah Winfrey recently did this to a guest on her show.  While I don't presume to speak for all atheists, I can certainly tell you that when someone tries to tell me that I don't truly believe the things that I believe, I become extremely offended, and I would expect that if I were to try to tell a Christian that he "wasn't really a Christian", he'd probably be pretty offended as well.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 11, 2014, 08:59:24 PM
why didn't anyone want to argue against my claim for Mormon's not being Christian while JW would be strongly defended? still curious...

Those are the magic underwear guys, right?
Aside from that, i know squat about them, nor do i want to know anything about them.

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Spinner198 on January 11, 2014, 09:08:53 PM
Try to imagine infinity or perfect nothingness. Can't do it. It's the same with the holy trinity. It works, but we can't really fully understand how it works. There are things our mind can't comprehend, and appealing to that inability isn't a legitimate refutation of the holy trinity itself.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 11, 2014, 09:15:50 PM
Try to imagine infinity or perfect nothingness. Can't do it. It's the same with the holy trinity. It works, but we can't really fully understand how it works. There are things our mind can't comprehend, and appealing to that inability isn't a legitimate refutation of the holy trinity itself.

Try to imagine infinity or perfect nothingness. Can't do it. Its the same with the magic blue potato on Uranus. It works, but we can't really fully understand how it works. There are things our mind can't comprehend, and appealing to that inability isn't a legitimate refutation of the magical blue potato on Uranus itself.

Wait, yes it is. Otherwise you can make up any infinite thing and no one could say otherwise.

I could sporadically say "there is this infinite god who says for me to nuke syria" and yet you say that its obvious nonexistence is not valid?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: xyzzy on January 11, 2014, 11:46:05 PM
Try to imagine infinity or perfect nothingness. Can't do it. It's the same with the holy trinity. It works, but we can't really fully understand how it works. There are things our mind can't comprehend, and appealing to that inability isn't a legitimate refutation of the holy trinity itself.

Great. If you want to compare the trinity to abstract concepts, have at it.

The trinity is an abstract concept. Got it.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jdawg70 on January 12, 2014, 06:56:22 PM
Try to imagine infinity or perfect nothingness. Can't do it. It's the same with the holy trinity. It works, but we can't really fully understand how it works. There are things our mind can't comprehend, and appealing to that inability isn't a legitimate refutation of the holy trinity itself.

What do you mean by 'it works'?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on January 12, 2014, 06:59:53 PM
I am the last person to try to argue that the JW's have it right. They are clearly wrong-- that it why I am no longer a member. But the critical thinking that led me away from the JW's will not allow me to replace that silly belief system with another one just as unfounded and baseless. Once I started to see that the JW religion did not reflect reality, it was impossible to insert another one that did not reflect reality any better. And down the slippery slope into scientific rationality and on to godless unbelief I went!

My sister and younger brother also quit but are not hard-core atheists like me. They are more like the great mass of "unchurched" people in the US--they sorta believe in god kinda but don't follow any denomination or regularly go to any services. Not surprising that they quit, because you have to be kinda active to be a JW-- hard to be a half a$$ed JW.  Our oldest brother stayed in the religion and became a high mucky muck elder type. He still talked to me and my lapsed siblings, so I guess we were never formally excommunicated. We all went to his funeral when he died, and it was weird, but that might have just been me being surrounded by his wife and the other Stepford JW's. (My father was formally exed, but that is another story.)

So, yeah, the JW's got it all wrong. But that does not mean that the Muslims or the Mormons or the Catholics or the Scientologists got it right, either. If by "it" we mean "the real deal on god, the universe, the meaning of life and everything", well, then, they all have it wrong, too.

Not because of all the fine points of religious disagreement that people are willing to kill and die over--Jesus is/is not divine; heaven or hell is/is not the final destination; Allah is really one/two/three magical parts; Xenu is/is not the sexiest, Travolta-ist, Cruise-ist of all the gods; the unforgiveable sin is x, y or z; Israel is/is not god's chosen-ist country; you should/should not celebrate Jesus' birthday.

Because none of their views reflect reality.

Lastly on the subject of who gets to call themselves Christians--anyone who wants to call themselves one. When you are going to make categories but there is no objective test that everyone can agree on, you have to self-identify. Since there is nobody who can follow all the rules perfectly or even define without a doubt what those rules are, anyone who says they are a member is a member.

You cannot tell who is a Christian by their behavior. We are all evil sinners, after all, even the most devout Christian. We have had people come here and say that Hitler or any other horrible mass murderer can be a saved Christian if they give themselves to Jesus before they die. And of course many say that there is no way a Hindu or a Muslim or a Buddhist can be saved, no matter how nice, kind, helpful and law-abiding they may be. Then there are the few new age type Christians who say that even an atheist can be saved if they live an otherwise "Christian" life. With that kind of strange criteria you have to let people self-identify. If they say they are in the club, they are.

It is like telling someone else who says they are gay that they are not. See, only a person who has never even thought about having sex with the opposite gender can be really gay. If they married someone of the opposite sex and had kids in their 20's, and later realized that they never were really attracted to the opposite sex and got divorced and have been with their new same sex spouse the 40 years ever since, well, not gay. Silly, they think they are gay. but they are not. &)

Either all self-styled Christians are equally Christian, or you guys need to develop some kind of written test, maybe with percentiles and rankings like the SAT.

harbinger, final question, if someone--my oldest brother, say-- was raised a JW and was told all their life that they were a Christian, and thought they were doing everything that a Christian should do, will they go to heaven or hell after death?  In fact, you could say that he died for his faith, since he refused medical treatment-- like blood transfusions-- that might have saved his life. He was an elder, remember, who devoted his entire life to the religion and died without a dime; he was not faking his belief.[1]
 1. I think he was crazy but he probably thought the same of me.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on January 12, 2014, 09:39:52 PM
What do you mean by 'it works'?

I can only assume he means "I think it works, but by definition, no one can ever know it works".
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: harbinger77 on January 14, 2014, 12:19:38 AM
Quote from: nogodsforme
...of course many say that there is no way a Hindu or a Muslim or a Buddhist can be saved, no matter how nice, kind, helpful and law-abiding they may be. Then there are the few new age type Christians who say that even an atheist can be saved if they live an otherwise "Christian" life. With that kind of strange criteria you have to let people self-identify. If they say they are in the club, they are

The Bible is the "Christian Handbook" once you start spouting off a bunch of feel good garbage that is directly against especially a clear cut doctrine in the "handbook," you're outta the club! As Christians we not only have the right but the obligation to call out a brother who has strayed from the flock. To help him find his way back in... Or give him over...

Quote
Either all self-styled Christians are equally Christian, or you guys need to develop some kind of written test, maybe with percentiles and rankings like the SAT.
First we have the bible. Which is a written standard.
As Jesus said, "If you are not with me (Jesus) you are against me."
 A test with percentages and rankings would suggest there are well.. rankings. Fact is, you either are or you are not. no one member is above the other. once you're in, you're in.
If the Bible is to much, we also have cliff notes.
In the form of the Belgic confession.
https://www.rca.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=317
Not that I would recommend skipping the actual Bible.
Quote
raised a JW and was told all their life that they were a Christian, and thought they were doing everything that a Christian should do, will they go to heaven or hell after death?
I'm sorry for your loss. I pray for you and your siblings, for a restored hope, and that the still living may find peace in their rest as well.
 
Working with JW doctrine. I would say that most of the 144,000 are already in heaven. who knows how many have "received the vision" The chances are slim he had "heavenly hope" anyway. I know there's a middle place too. Hell is not implied.

It's not for me to pass this type of eternal Judgment only God knows the heart of man. However, I think your statement is rather telling. IF his faith was 100% in Jesus Christ who saves alone, then sure He may well be in Heaven. The problem with JW is the very belief their church is the true church. It means you must have a degree of faith in the denomination. Then the various works that MUST be done. Another degree of faith. Then YOU do the work, a degree of faith in self. I'm sure the list is long. How much faith is left for Jesus? When your brother was on his way out did he say things in pride like I'm not worried I've done AB&C OR Was he pointing towards Christ in humility? I think the answer to your question is found in the last question I asked. I didn't know your brother so this is as close to an answer I can come.
I can leave you with a sobering verse though...
Mat7:22-23
 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have
we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many
wonderful works?
 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 14, 2014, 05:20:26 AM
Quote from: nogodsforme
Either all self-styled Christians are equally Christian, or you guys need to develop some kind of written test, maybe with percentiles and rankings like the SAT.
First we have the bible. Which is a written standard.
As Jesus said, "If you are not with me (Jesus) you are against me."
 A test with percentages and rankings would suggest there are well.. rankings. Fact is, you either are or you are not. no one member is above the other. once you're in, you're in.
If the Bible is to much, we also have cliff notes.
In the form of the Belgic confession.
https://www.rca.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=317
Not that I would recommend skipping the actual Bible.

You know, Harbinger, there's a line from Jesus somewhere. He says not to judge other people in case you get judged. Do you ever worry that you could get in trouble for judging others?

Meanwhile, nogodsforme has a good point. Every Christian sect seems to have different standards and different understandings of the religion based on the same book. I suppose this has to come down to authority in the end - just who in this day and age has the authority to say just what is right? The episcopal churches, including Rome, are the bearers of the oldest traditions all based on Nicea and Chalcedon. These are the oldest creeds and were the standard up to the Reformation.

What is certain is that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Unless Christians start to agree on doctrine they are doomed to disappear as they are in Europe and starting to be in North America. Don't say you haven't been warned, Harbinger.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on January 14, 2014, 10:10:24 PM
I have to say, harbinger, that was probably the nicest post a theist has written to me in a long time. I accept your sympathy and kind thoughts, even if I disagree with all the religious aspects.

Now then, was it Jesus or George Bush who said "you are either with me or against me"? Sometimes, like the conservatives, I get the two confused...

Anyway, the Belgic statement of faith you linked to was pretty long and detailed. I wonder how many people around the world who consider themselves Christians have even heard of it. It was written in the Middle Ages, in Europe. For the 1400 years or so before it was written, were Christians just kinda winging it, like jazz singers scatting? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbL9vr4Q2LU

I think about some of the most devoutly faithful believers I know, esp. my friends and relations living in third world countries. Many are illiterate subsistence farmers, live far from cities with churches and can barely read the bible. They are Catholic, because that is who conquered their ancestors and forced them to change their religious practices. Well, I say Catholic, but their worship is so distinctly Afro-Latin that it would be unrecognizable to the Pope. (Well, maybe not this pope. He's from Argentina.)

They live more like people in the bible than anyone I have ever known. They are humble, kind, communal, wash the feet of strangers, and really know their sheep from their goats.[1] But because they kept their sanity and self-respect by holding onto their African practices, and keeping them despite being taught the religion of their Christian slave masters, they are "wayward". They do feast days with all night drumming and dancing.[2] They get possessed by saints. They believe in witchcraft. They worship idols.

So, by your god's standards, they are all going to hell. Because they don't follow some  medieval to-do list.

I think I prefer the "all dogs go to heaven" variety of Christian..... &)



 1. I once actually had a family wash my feet after I walked several miles through a washed out muddy road to see them! They sent me back home on a horse.
 2. I have paid for several of these fiestas with my filthy atheist dollars.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 15, 2014, 03:58:11 AM
nogodsforme, thanks for the video - listening to that made my day!
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on January 15, 2014, 05:32:04 PM
Ella= Queen of scat. 8)

My last post made me think of something else:
Can a person learn the true version of Christianity from a false Christian?

This is important because many people who are Christians today became so because their ancestors were colonized and enslaved by evil Christian bastards. Part of the slavery deal during the past 500 years was conversion to whatever type of Christianity the slave owner practiced (or Islam if you were captured and sold into that region).

We are told by theists here that no true Christian would ever colonize, oppress or enslave anyone, so all evil bastard slave owners must have been false Christians.

False Christians who nonetheless did everything one would expect true Christians to do: built churches, set up missions, printed and distributed bibles, kept the Sabbath holy, did not spare the rod, said that idle hands were the devil's playground, named their kids and their cities after biblical figures-- and stomped out non-Christian beliefs at every turn. The evil bastards--false but highly convincing-- were the only Christian game in town, so to speak. They must have even convinced themselves.....

So, that means that nearly all the Christians in Africa, Asia and Latin America-- and parts of Europe like Scandinavia and Ireland-- learned the faith from false Christians, evil bastard slave masters and such. The same lessons have been passed down, with slight variations, to their theist descendants today.

Can anyone today be a real Christian, if it was false Christians who spread the faith? The correct choice for the native peoples--assuming they even wanted to give up their own religions and learn true Christianity-- would have been to fight tooth and nail against conversion by these false Christians, and hold out for the real deal, but who, and based on what? The Christian people who were too poor to own any slaves, but too humble and powerless  to do anything to fight against slavery?

I doubt that the Belgic confession, translated into all the native languages, was widely available. Besides, I don't think the Belgic confession condemned slavery, did it? In fact,  the Belgic confession was the basis of the Dutch Reformed Church, which was the major institution that supported and upheld apartheid in South Africa for all those years. Also false Christians, I suppose.

All the major Christian groups, both Catholic and Protestant, were engaged in oppression and slavery and were using the bible to justify it; nobody's hands were clean. 

So, who were the true Christians?
:-\
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jdawg70 on January 15, 2014, 08:55:19 PM
So, who were the true Christians?
:-\

There's more than this, but it's a start:

Biblical literalist Christian response:
"The bible is the sole authority.  While there are leaders and teachers that provide guidance regarding true Christianity, it is ultimately the responsibility of the person (soul) in question, and a proper reading of the bible should reveal the true path.  It is your fault, no matter what, unless you read the bible correctly.  Beware of false prophets.  The bible is the final authority.  Here's how to read it, and you should listen to me because I know what I'm talking about.  Trust me."

Liberal progressive Christian response:
"The messages given throughout generations are given simply by the experience of life itself.  These experiences are filtered through the leaders and teachers, which, because the totality of experiences of life itself provide such a large amount of data, consciously, objectively unknowable but spiritually knowable, gets filtered through fallible humans, then, while the core of the message passes through, some noise in the form of incorrect teachings on relatively minor points is inserted in.  So, all Christians are true Christians as long as they have the core message right - the message that....HEY SQUIRREL!"

Neo-con Christian response:
"There were plenty of true Christians back then.  That's who guided my path towards Christ.  Did you say 'history'?  What a strange word!  History!  Is that word Chinese?"

Hippy-lapsed Catholic that likes to say 'yes' to the question 'does god exist' response:
"There was a squirrel here a second ago."
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on January 16, 2014, 11:43:52 AM
Yeah. That. And no way to objectively tell whether you are following the right version of Christianity or not.

All denominations say they are the people who really follow the bible, understand what Jesus was really all about, know what god really meant, etc. All have sincere followers willing to suffer and even die for their faith. All say that other groups who do almost the exact same things are wrong. And all do some things that no outsider can understand, and appear to be batsh!t crazy to an unbeliever.

All mainstream Christian groups participated in and benefited from slavery, oppression and colonization. None condemned or banned it--not even for their members. All managed to find ways to justify and support it in their religions. Whenever societies began to change and become more egalitarian, there were strong Christian voices against social reforms.

The KKK, Nazis and other racist groups were entrenched in the Christian churches of their communities. There were pastors who led lynchings on Saturday and then preached sermons full of racism to all-white congregations on Sunday. The Christian churches were all racially segregated! Now people want to rewrite history and act like slavery, racism and oppression were just little blips and were not part and parcel of mainstream Christian life. Now Christians want to take credit for abolition, civil rights and integration. There were some who helped fight for equal rights, true.  But it would not have taken nearly so long if the vast majority of Christians hadn't been trying to hold onto their racism.

I am not saying Christians are somehow worse than other religions in this regard--all religions had slavery-- right up until they didn't. My point is that there is no sign that any supernatural being was involved in Christianity, unless this being also loved colonialism, slavery, etc from prehistory until the 19th century-- and then suddenly changed his mind about 1964.  &)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 16, 2014, 01:20:10 PM
Ah, nogodsforme, but you forgot something. When the slavers were busy setting up the the New World and all that, at that time slavery had not be condemned as unchristian and therefore these people were, not quite the one true Christiantm but certainly Christians - doing that their churches and governments said was OK. It is only later, when changed the rules, so to speak, that the poor slavers end up being the bad guys.. Since they didn't know about the change of plan, though, I can see how they can be condemned as that would be like retrospective legislation.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on January 16, 2014, 04:47:05 PM
Exactly. Slavery was not condemned back then. So you could be a perfectly good Christian and have slaves. You could even have sex with them and make kids with them, as long as you freed your mistress and children posthumously in your will. True history. Massa was still on his way to heaven. He's there now, surrounded by his legit wife and kids.

If his slave mistress and slave kids refused to accept Massa's religion for the understandable reasons of him being a two-faced bastard rapist slave owner with all the morals of a rabid polecat, well, they are, of course, burning up in hell for all eternity. Just stands to reason. Only thing god could possibly do. A clearer demonstration of the love of Jesus, I cannot imagine.

Since there is an easy-to-understand, unchanging, biblical, godly moral code, I am sure Christians today have no problem with this scenario at all.  :angel:
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: acturbo on January 27, 2014, 06:45:07 PM
a couple things to consider...

1. if Mary was his mother, and god (lowercase) was his father, then he would be considered a demigod.

2. consider also that we may confuse the term god and God. Meaning, the one-all-be-all entity or source called God may be something much more vast and beyond our current comprehension that sits far above actual beings our ancient history and bibles refer to as "god". And that these beings called "god" are spiritually more advanced than us, but are not to be confused with the ultimate entity God. So, in summary, we seem to confuse "god" and  "God" and "demigod".
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on January 27, 2014, 06:47:38 PM
I always thought "God" was the Christians way of signifying that theirs is above all other gods. I could be wrong.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 27, 2014, 06:52:07 PM
But of course, if none of them exist, it really isn't all that important what they are called.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: MrFriday on January 28, 2014, 05:10:48 PM
But of course, if none of them exist, it really isn't all that important what they are called.

Maybe for all the theological seminary students
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on January 28, 2014, 05:22:17 PM
a couple things to consider...

1. if Mary was his mother, and god (lowercase) was his father, then he would be considered a demigod.

2. consider also that we may confuse the term god and God. Meaning, the one-all-be-all entity or source called God may be something much more vast and beyond our current comprehension that sits far above actual beings our ancient history and bibles refer to as "god". And that these beings called "god" are spiritually more advanced than us, but are not to be confused with the ultimate entity God. So, in summary, we seem to confuse "god" and  "God" and "demigod".

1. You have to go with the flow. Greek Legends, Roman Legends and, of course, Christian ones too go with the idea that is a god is your father then you are a god! Probably best not to annoy the gods with pedantic ideas about half-gods though.  :D

2. Not for the Jews and Christians. They conceived of monotheism which is juts one god who created everything and did everything. You might be right but when considering this Christian topic we are probably best sticking with the general way of thinking of the bible even if some of us only then dismiss the idea of any gods.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Lectus on February 11, 2014, 12:10:32 PM
A Christian should always stick to the bible and the teachings contained in it. If your interpretation is in conflict with any part, your wrong. This is the fundamental reason I have yet to find a denomination I trust. With that being said I present the case against JW.

JW's deny several fundamental doctrines of the Bible, including the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, His bodily return, the Millennial reign of Christ, and the Holy Spirit. JW's deny a literal Hell and teach that hell (Sheol in the Old Testament) merely refers to the grave. However, Psalm 9:17 plainly states that the wicked shall be turned into Hell. If the righteous and the wicked go to the same place, then Psalm 9:17 would make no sense at all. Clearly, the righteous and the wicked go to different places upon death. JW teach soul sleep but, absent from the body is present with the Lord. This is also unbiblical.
JW's teach that Michael the archangel BECAME Jesus. They try to steer away from this doctrine because it is one of the topics that can be used to show prospective JW's the fallacy of their religion. Most regular people, let alone bible scholars, have a problem with the idea that Michael and Jesus are the same person, because they are not.

JW's teach that Jesus is “a god,” but not almighty God. Jesus plainly claimed in Revelation 1:8 to be
“the almighty.” John 10:33 evidences that Jesus taught men that He is God. If God is God and Jesus is "a god" then you now have a pantheon of at least 2 gods. If Jesus is just "a god" the The father is also just "a god"

JW's don't believe in owing allegiance to the government, which is unbiblical. Biblically, although God comes first, Christians are to submit and owe allegiance to their government, as the government was established by God himself.
 
Add to this, as mentioned, the JW witnesses teach they are the one true church. They have divine revelation from God himself. Yet, they have been giving us dates for the end since they were established. When we read what a prophet is in the old testament then this shows us they are no true church. In the least they have no special contact with God.

I could supply several links to learn the teachings you don't get at the front door. As with most cults, such as the mormons, and the masons, you have to stick around for a while before they start droppin' the bombs on ya.

I'm not a theist, but I agree with JWs when they say Jesus is not God.

The bible never said Jesus is the same as Yahweh. Where does it say it?

Jesus said that the father was bigger than him. The bible also said the authority was given to him by the father. No God needs someone else to give him authority.

JW's may be wrong about other interpretations. But Jesus never claimed to be God.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on February 11, 2014, 01:18:15 PM
Good point, Lectus. Any quotes from Revelation in which Jesus is supposed to be speaking are certainly not words that more than one person heard. Indeed, I think the whole work is more in the nature of a book encouraging Christians when they were being persecuted. The Beast - 666 - is the numerical representation of Emperor Nero for example. Of course the text is written in a way so as to hide the real meaning for any Romans who happen on a copy but that'[s the nature of trying to stay secure when being persecuted.

No, this is the author expressing what he thought was the right belief to his fellow Christians. It doesn't reflect any further words from anyone but the author. So that quote really can't be counted.

As for the gospels p- the only places where we might find the speech of Jesus there is no place where Jesus specifically claims to be 'THE GOD' and often denies it.

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on February 11, 2014, 04:22:49 PM
That is the main reason I try to never capitalize the word "god".

To do that seems presumptuous, as if everyone agrees that there is only one and everyone knows who that is, (wink wink). Weird assumption. Like if someone always capitalized the words Husband, Neighbor, Tree, Car or Computer like nobody else could have one that matters, or as if theirs is the only one that exists,. Even though your kid, dog, drugs and cell phone are special, do you capitalize the word Kid, Dog, Pot Stash or Cell Phone when you refer to one of them?

I have yet to have a student challenge me when I write something about "god" or "gods" on the board. I try to use the actual name of the god if I am referring to any specific one. Although Allah means god, but it's in Arabic so it doesn't count... ;)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 17, 2014, 10:30:47 PM
Jesus became human to save us. Through Him, our helper, advocate and redeemer, we can begin again. He is preparing heaven for us and will return to take us there.

God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1-3.)

Jesus is the Son of God, which means he is God the Son equal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit Who are One without end.

The concept of the Son of God is in the Old Testament, the Jewish Holy text.  See below;

Who but God goes up to heaven and comes back down? Who holds the wind in his fists? Who wraps up the oceans in his cloak? Who has created the whole wide world? What is his name--and his son's name? Tell me if you know! (Proverbs 30:4).

Source: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/god/son/


Quote
For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 17, 2014, 10:57:36 PM
Jesus became human to save us.

Was he an extra-terrestrial?

Quote
Through Him, our helper, advocate and redeemer, we can begin again.

Begin again? Damnit! the game ain't over yet! I haven't had my roll. :'(

Quote
He is preparing heaven for us and will return to take us there.

Is that anything like Disney World?

Quote
God the eternal

You know what else is eternal? Farts. Yep! They never go away. They just choke you to death. Must be the work of Satan.

Quote
Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ.

Then, not really human. LIAR! I'm telling! Lying is for bad people. You must be bad.

Quote
Through Him all things were created

Then why are people like you so hellbent on killing and persecuting those not like you? If it's Biblegod's creation, then it must be good.

Quote
the character of God is revealed

Fictional character.

Quote
the salvation of humanity is accomplished and the world is judged.

Sounds like an after school special. Those suck.

Quote
Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.

So Biblegod raped a little girl? Oh, it was a gangup, Biblegod, The Holy Spirit, and the spirit of Jesus raped Mary. Talk about incest!

Quote
He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1-3.)

You copy/pasted this, didn't you? Don't have your own words? Are you just a dronemuggeringspammer? I think so.

Quote
Jesus is the Son of God, which means he is God the Son equal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit Who are One without end.

Just like your idiocy, retardation, and stupidity are one.

Quote
The concept of the Son of God is in the Old Testament, the Jewish Holy text.  See below;

You definitely copy/pasted this. Drive by, too?

Quote
Who but God goes up to heaven and comes back down? Who holds the wind in his fists? Who wraps up the oceans in his cloak? Who has created the whole wide world? What is his name--and his son's name? Tell me if you know! (Proverbs 30:4).

Source: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/god/son/

Idiot spammer.

Preaching isn't allowed here but then, you don't give a shit because you are shit.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 17, 2014, 11:31:55 PM
Quote
You definitely copy/pasted this. Drive by, too?


Source is supplied. It seems stating simple facts winds you up even more than quoting the Bible, the source of all truth. If you had evolved from a dog, which you foolish atheists accept as fact, you'd be chasing your own tail and eating your own excrement.

Quote
...you don't give a shit because you are shit.

Enjoy every last bit, there's more coming for you to digest and vomit out from your filthy dog mouth.


Quote
For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Emily on February 17, 2014, 11:37:45 PM
SwordofGod, I have an 8 month old daughter. Would it make sense to you for her to be saved from the trouble that I've been in in the past?

If the bible is correct, why do we need a savior to save us from something we had no control over (Adam and Eve falling, according to Genesis)?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Astreja on February 17, 2014, 11:50:37 PM
... the Bible, the source of all truth ...

(Springy G reaches into Her desk caddy and pulls out a pair of scissors, humming Walkürenritt by Wagner as She thumbs through the pages of a large, ornate book)

SwordOfGod, I'm calling your "truth" bluff.  Either you courier a real, live Talking Snake™ (Genesis 3) to My home by 9 a.m. CST tomorrow morning, or your page in the Book of Life gets it.

Or you could just apologize to us for your embarrassingly execrable misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution, and go troll some other site.

*snip snip snip* So you’ve got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 18, 2014, 12:08:03 AM
Source is supplied.

Yeah, sure was. Got any thoughts of your own, or are you just one of the plethora of drones out there?

Quote
It seems stating simple facts winds you up even more than quoting the Bible

What facts? You didn't provide any facts, you provided propaganda from a website with its own bias. Where are the sources filled with all the evidence any of it is true? You think your one link is the evidence? Hilarious.

Quote
the source of all truth.

To you, and those like you. That doesn't mean it's an actual truth, just one you wish to believe in.

Quote
If you had evolved from a dog, which you foolish atheists accept as fact

What does evolution have to do with atheism? Secondly, show me where I stated I evolved from a dog, where any atheist has stated that. I can show, by your own words, you're an idiot, so, you're making a claim: back it up.

Quote
you'd be chasing your own tail and eating your own excrement.

Yes but I'd still be saner than you.

Quote
Enjoy every last bit, there's more coming for you to digest and vomit out from your filthy dog mouth.

Evidence?


Quote
For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.

Only ones who say trite like this are people who can't provide any evidence because they believe in fiction.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 18, 2014, 12:11:33 AM
Hi Emily,

First of all, congratulations on having a daughter, I myself have a 6 month old baby girl as well.  I know they change our world completely.  We become more protective, loving and careful in the choices we make in life. So... just to quote you..

SwordofGod, I have an 8 month old daughter. Would it make sense to you for her to be saved from the trouble that I've been in in the past?

If the bible is correct, why do we need a savior to save us from something we had no control over (Adam and Eve falling, according to Genesis)?

... basically, God is our Father.  He is perfect in every way.  He cares for us like we care for our children, but much more so. He gave us free choice to do what is right in His sight, yet we chose to rebel against Him in our hearts. Most children do the same to their parents eventually, but in love we correct them because we love them. It is the same with God and us. We are all His children.

So why do we need a Savior?  Do you think your child will ever need you to save her from certain situations in life, be it emotional, financial, physical etc..?? You will ensure to the best of your ability your child is safe. Why?  Because you love her.  God wants to save us from life's situations which cause us pain as best He can, because He loves you.  Sin in the world causes this for us. God saves us from the curse of Sin when we turn to Him in repentance and acknowledge our faults to Him.

Would it make sense for you daughter to be saved from the sins of your past? Yes, of course. Your personality traits are passed down to your daughter, so if you have certain troublesome habits, its likely she will develop them as well.  Would you like to save her from those? As with hereditary diseases, there are hereditary personality / character flaws which are passed down to our children.  Sin is passed down from Adam and Eve throughout the world.  We do not inherit their guilt for their sins, but are guilty for our own due to inherent weakness on our part.  That's why we need a Saviour, to be our strength in our weakness, to be our Saviour from sin by the power of God. This saving power redeems our lives from destruction if we accept it.  I would invite you to accept that truth.

Quote
For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 18, 2014, 12:30:56 AM


Quote
For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.

Only ones who say trite like this are people who can't provide any evidence because they believe in fiction.

-Nam
[/quote]


Obviously the fictional character Humpty Dumpty never made you quite as angry as the historical Jesus did.



Quote
For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don't believe, no proof is possible
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Astreja on February 18, 2014, 12:31:58 AM
Sin is passed down from Adam and Eve throughout the world.

Well, there's no evidence for "Adam" and "Eve" as in the Biblical characters.  There is Mitochondrial Eve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve), however, so hypothetically we all have genes that can be traced back to her.  Which chromosome contains the encoding for "sin"?  (I'm presuming that Biblegod would have had to identically modify the same chromosome in both Adam and Eve in order for such a genetic disease to be transmissible to all of humanity.)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Astreja on February 18, 2014, 12:34:38 AM
Would it make sense for you daughter to be saved from the sins of your past? ... Would you like to save her from those?

Is it just Me, or does this sound just a bit like a protection racket?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 18, 2014, 12:39:13 AM


Quote
For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.

Only ones who say trite like this are people who can't provide any evidence because they believe in fiction.

-Nam


Obviously the fictional character Humpty Dumpty never made you quite as angry as the historical Jesus did.



Quote
For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don't believe, no proof is possible
[/quote]

I can't speak for Nam, but Jesus has never made me angry. Now folks who kill in his name, they piss me off big time. But not the kid himself. His never existing kind of protects him in that department.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Willie on February 18, 2014, 01:12:31 AM
Would it make sense for you daughter to be saved from the sins of your past? Yes, of course. Your personality traits are passed down to your daughter, so if you have certain troublesome habits, its likely she will develop them as well.  Would you like to save her from those? As with hereditary diseases, there are hereditary personality / character flaws which are passed down to our children.  Sin is passed down from Adam and Eve throughout the world.  We do not inherit their guilt for their sins, but are guilty for our own due to inherent weakness on our part.  That's why we need a Saviour, to be our strength in our weakness, to be our Saviour from sin by the power of God. This saving power redeems our lives from destruction if we accept it.  I would invite you to accept that truth.

Original sin is among the most vile, most evil of lies, yet you label it "truth" and pretend that it is good. It is you, Christian, who should be repenting for this sickness that you deliberately attempt to spread. Maybe someday, if you ever break free from the grip of the indoctrination that has poisoned your mind, you will recognize it for the vile thing that it is.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 18, 2014, 02:05:12 AM
Obviously the fictional character Humpty Dumpty never made you quite as angry as the historical Jesus did.

How silly it would be if I were angry at things that relatively can't be proven to actually exist. Not my department, that would be yours.

You come here, post a spammers propaganda preaching comment to a topic in which you actually do not address the OP but copy/paste triviality from a website as a reply probably because you couldn't create a topic to do so.

If I am angry at anything or anyone it would be you you idiot.

Quote
I can't speak for Nam

Apparently you can't even speak for yourself based on your first post which is copy/paste.

Quote
but Jesus has never made me angry. Now folks who kill in his name, they piss me off big time. But not the kid himself. His never existing kind of protects him in that department.

Please learn to quote. There's a test area.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 18, 2014, 02:23:37 AM
Would it make sense for you daughter to be saved from the sins of your past? Yes, of course. Your personality traits are passed down to your daughter, so if you have certain troublesome habits, its likely she will develop them as well.  Would you like to save her from those? As with hereditary diseases, there are hereditary personality / character flaws which are passed down to our children.  Sin is passed down from Adam and Eve throughout the world.  We do not inherit their guilt for their sins, but are guilty for our own due to inherent weakness on our part.  That's why we need a Saviour, to be our strength in our weakness, to be our Saviour from sin by the power of God. This saving power redeems our lives from destruction if we accept it.  I would invite you to accept that truth.

There is no truth there. Your generalizations demonstrate a lack of knowledge in the genetics and psychology department, and your insistence that our lack of perfection is due to something besides the fact that there is no perfect for us to be is painful to imagine.

God stories such as yours are a sad reminder that some humans live their entire life hoping things are better than they appear, and to do so they have to make up excuses for everything that isn't as they want it to be. And too, they have to pretend that they have a future past death where things will be even better.

Don't ask me to join in on such delusions. I've got a life to live and folks lille you keep trying to mess it up. I don't get to live after death and I dislike needing to take time to fight against those that are so, so wrong. Such as yourself.

Not only is life not supposed to be simple, we are also not supposed to pretend that it is. But religions such as your own, which couldn't face reality if it was covered in marshmallows and delivered by cartoon squirrels, somehow manage to mess things up by ignorance alone.  Which I would think impossible, if I didn't keep seeing it with my own two eyes.

We're all wrong about a whole bunch of things. The difference is, those of us who think a little bit more than you know better than to build monuments to our ignorance in the form of churches. Let alone publish our flawed thoughts in a book and call it good.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on February 18, 2014, 06:36:01 AM
Indeed, PP. This sort of 'recruiting' using fear as the preferred weapon is vile. The fact is that this religion, like all the others, is man-made and without any truth in it as far as its claims of the supernatural and deities. Sure Christianity has some good morals embedded in it, but we don't need the religion to get the morals - they are common-sense really, 

Of course, Sword, if you could demonstrate the claims you make, not with and ancient book but with actual evidence, we might take things more seriously but as it is, it just sounds like fairy tales designed to get people paying money to churches as protection money.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 18, 2014, 07:24:51 AM
No it doesn't. Anyone, or thing, who uses what they say is "good" (whether others agree or not, irrelevant) and use that as a tool of converting by force then it's a guise, and nothing more. On the surface it "looks good" but underneath it's all sinister.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 18, 2014, 02:51:35 PM
Nam,

The quotes you attribute to me are not made by me, but by ParkingPlaces on page 8 of this discussion, the so-called very intelligent fish brain 'professor'. It was he who claimed he couldn't speak for you, blah blah blah. So, get your facts right and stop being such a Namby Pamby cry baby.  In response to your continued abusive language toward me, the only silly people here are the abusive hypocritical and godless swine who speak according to their own self destructive condition and attempt to inflict it upon others as they have nothing positive to contribute.

As for the copy and paste etc, etc.. change the record... you have hands or hooves? Not quite sure what stage of the evolution process you claim to be at, if any.


Wheels...


Protection racket?  Youd have to explain what you mean by that for me to answer it as best I can.


Willie...

What you said about my post earlier, regarding 'Original Sin' is incorrect since what I described is not the doctrine of Original Sin at all.  We reject the concept of Original Sin which states man is guilty for Adams sin and man bears Adams weakness. I stated that we are not guilty for Adams sin, but we have inherent weakness, thus a tendancy to sin and break Gods Law.  Original Sin is viewed differently by different denominations.  I am a Seventh-day Adventist Christian. 




Quote
For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don't believe, no proof is possible



Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Foxy Freedom on February 18, 2014, 03:01:41 PM
We reject the concept of Original Sin which states man is guilty for Adams sin and man bears Adams weakness. I stated that we are not guilty for Adams sin, but we have inherent weakness, thus a tendancy to sin and break Gods Law.  Original Sin is viewed differently by different denominations.  I am a Seventh-day Adventist Christian. 

So you know better than the bible, congratulations.

Which other parts of the bible do you reject? Enlighten me with your all knowingness.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Astreja on February 18, 2014, 03:21:37 PM
*snip* *snip* *snip*

*SHRED*

No Talking Snake™ arrived at My home this morning.  Accordingly, SwordOfGod, your truthiness claim for the Bible has been rejected and your page in the Book of Life has been destroyed.

Now quit it with the playground insults and explain yourself in language more appropriate to a civil debate.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 18, 2014, 03:41:30 PM
Nam,

The quotes you attribute to me are not made by me, but by ParkingPlaces on page 8 of this discussion, the so-called very intelligent fish brain 'professor'. It was he who claimed he couldn't speak for you, blah blah blah. So, get your facts right and stop being such a Namby Pamby cry baby.

If my reply #232 is not your words, that's not my fault. As you can see in the first quote, it has your user name as quoted. I didn't insert that, I'm on a phone, I can't. Either the website fucked up, or PP did, so, if those aren't your words, not my fault that's how it quoted therefore not me being a "cry baby" you moron.

Quote
In response to your continued abusive language toward me, the only silly people here are the abusive hypocritical and godless swine who speak according to their own self destructive condition and attempt to inflict it upon others as they have nothing positive to contribute.

Hypocrite much? I'm only abusive when others are first. You were abusive on your first post. Copy/pasting and preaching is abuse. Your first post is both of those. Also, you didn't reply to the OP, you spammed a comment to a topic that you probably thought best fit your spam.

Quote
As for the copy and paste etc, etc.. change the record... you have hands or hooves? Not quite sure what stage of the evolution process you claim to be at, if any.

I only claim you're a moron, other than that: I claim nothing.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jdawg70 on February 18, 2014, 03:44:07 PM
What you said about my post earlier, regarding 'Original Sin' is incorrect since what I described is not the doctrine of Original Sin at all.  We reject the concept of Original Sin which states man is guilty for Adams sin and man bears Adams weakness. I stated that we are not guilty for Adams sin, but we have inherent weakness, thus a tendancy to sin and break Gods Law.  Original Sin is viewed differently by different denominations.  I am a Seventh-day Adventist Christian. 

Why didn't god just nip this 'sin tendency' thing in the bud?  Perhaps by divinely stripping that 'sin tendency' in Eve's first (and second and third, etc) born?  Or maybe enacting the Jesus-salvation plan way early in the history of mankind?  Or maybe by making the nature of procreation such that things like 'sin tendency' do not get passed down?  Or maybe by not giving Adam and Eve this 'sin tendency' thing in the first place?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on February 18, 2014, 11:19:07 PM
Telling a person  that they have a problem and you have the solution, but if they don't admit that they have the problem and accept your solution, something bad will happen to them = protection racket.

Nice daughter you have there. Too bad she inherited original sin from Adam and Eve. Would be terrible is something happened to her. I can help you with that, otherwise she might burn forever in eternal flame= protection racket.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: screwtape on February 19, 2014, 09:26:59 AM
I am a Seventh-day Adventist Christian. 

You know they are an end-times cult, right?  Like, "then end is nigh!  We shall hide out in caves while the world burns, and come back out when jesus H appears!"  Spinoff of Millerites.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on February 19, 2014, 11:33:52 AM
^^^Yes, US-based "Jesus will return soon" type church; similar time period, cultural influences and antecedents as the JW's.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on February 19, 2014, 11:35:37 AM
Sin is passed down from Adam and Eve throughout the world.  We do not inherit their guilt for their sins, but are guilty for our own due to inherent weakness on our part.  That's why we need a Saviour, to be our strength in our weakness, to be our Saviour from sin by the power of God.

Hey SwordOfGod, welcome to the forum!

You say that sin is passed down from Adam and Eve but people today do not "inherit their guilt" for their sins.  Don't you think it is wrong of your god to have people today avoid the guilt of Adam and Eve's original sin but still have to bear their punishment?  I mean, we still have women today who are paying for the punishment of Eve's sin through the pain of childbirth.  Women don't inherit Eve's guilt but inherit Eve's punishment through painful childbirth.  Do you see how some people (like myself) might see that your god is a jerk???

Wouldn't it be awesome if Christian women, namely Seventh-Day Adventist women, bore children without any pain?  It would be a great gift the Almighty could bestow to show that your denomination is true Christianity?  It would be nice if women had a supernatural Savior to save them from their pain in childbirth!  If all women who accepted your version of Christianity avoided pain through childbirth, then that would be remarkable evidence for your god.  The fact that your Savior does not relieve this pain makes me think that your god is a jerk (or maybe doesn't exist) because although women don't inherit guilt, they still inherit Eve's punishment. 

My wife is here by my side and she says she would have much rather inherited Eve's guilt and not her punishment!

 

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on February 19, 2014, 12:14:45 PM
I am a Seventh-day Adventist Christian. 

You know they are an end-times cult, right?  Like, "then end is nigh!  We shall hide out in caves while the world burns, and come back out when jesus H appears!"  Spinoff of Millerites.

Hey Screwtape and Nogodsforme,  I don't think you can say the SDA's are a "cult".  Hiding out in caves while the world burns and coming back out when "jesus H" appears is not cultic according to CULT EXPERT Walter Martin:

"In the late 1950s, CULT EXPERT Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute, in collaboration with neo-evangelical Donald Barnhouse, made an extensive investigation of the teachings (doctrines) of Seventh-Day Adventism. Their purpose was to determine whether to classify SDA as part of the evangelical community, or to go along with the majority of evangelicals and treat SDAs as cult members (thereby requiring evangelicals to exercise Biblical separation). (In the 1955 edition of The Kingdom of the Cults, Martin originally did classify SDA as cultic.) Martin and Barnhouse concluded that SDA was within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. Walter Martin, in his article in the 12/19/60 Christianity Today, said: "That Adventists should be recognized as Christians and that fellowship should be extended to them we do not deny" (p. 15)."

Link:   http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/sda/adventi.htm


Don't you think it's funny that Martin originally said the SDA's were a cult in 1955 and then changed his mind in the late 1950's?

You want to know what's funnier than that?  The term "CULT EXPERT"!   :laugh:   

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 19, 2014, 01:01:01 PM
Quote
Hey SwordOfGod, welcome to the forum!

Thanks Andy S, lol, thats the first welcome I've had on this forum... coming on here, its like walking in on a war zone and getting shot a million times, so the first friendly hello deserves a medal sir!

Regarding the guilt/punishment thing...  The gospel is good news, and tough news. It brings supernatural ecstasy and rough times. Joy and sorrow run together throughout God’s salvation program. It is the joy of travail that lets Jesus know He will be satisfied (Isa. 53:11). Travail is pain, but giving birth is joy.

We are promised that there will be no more pain in the perfect world to come. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (Rev. 21:4). Jesus pointed out that the pain a woman endures in childbirth but soon forgets is like the suffering that humans endure while on this earth, but that it too is fleeting. "A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy" (John 16:21, 22).

The concept of salvation is so deep and complex that we will never fully understand the plan until God reveals it to us face-to-face after the Second Coming. However, each baby that is born is a reminder of how Jesus fulfilled prophecy to save us from pain forever. And so, even though we still endure physical pain for a time, and expectant mothers continue to request epidurals, we can live with the constant hope that soon and very soon our tears will be wiped away by the divine and yet human finger of our Lord.

Source: http://archives.adventistreview.org/2004-1538/story1.html


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


RE:  Is the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA's) Church a Cult?? 

In terms of Christianity, those labelled a 'cult' are victims of forced doctrinal conformity who have rejected calls for ecumenicalism. Those who do not conform to the majority view are deemed a 'cult' in a futile attempt to delegitimize faith and practice.  However, we are not a cult.  Cults all have one thing in common; they deviate from historical Christianity.  What makes SDA's not a cult?  What is it that other Christian denominations have deviated from?  We keep the Sabbath and dont eat pork, just as Jesus and ALL his disciples did.  The other churches do deviate as they eat pork and keep Sunday, a day never commanded once in the bible.

Proof.

''The [Roman Catholic] Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant.'' The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4


Source: http://www.sabbathtruth.com/sabbath-history/denominational-statements-on-the-sabbath/id/982/catholic.aspx

Quote
For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don't believe, no proof is possible
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on February 19, 2014, 01:23:40 PM


RE:  Is the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA's) Church a Cult?? 

In terms of Christianity, those labelled a 'cult' are victims of forced doctrinal conformity who have rejected calls for ecumenicalism. Those who do not conform to the majority view are deemed a 'cult' in a futile attempt to delegitimize faith and practice.  However, we are not a cult.  Cults all have one thing in common; they deviate from historical Christianity.  What makes SDA's not a cult?  What is it that other Christian denominations have deviated from?  We keep the Sabbath and dont eat pork, just as Jesus and ALL his disciples did.  The other churches do deviate as they eat pork and keep Sunday, a day never commanded once in the bible.

Proof.

''The [Roman Catholic] Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant.'' The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4


Source: http://www.sabbathtruth.com/sabbath-history/denominational-statements-on-the-sabbath/id/982/catholic.aspx

Quote
For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don't believe, no proof is possible

I'm sure it is a good thing that you don't eat pork - it is forbidden in the OT after all. The thing is, though, that Peter's vision in Acts legitimised the eating of all foods as did the teaching of Jesus which commented that it was not that which went into a man but that which came out of his mouth that defiled him. Finally, Acts 15 ended up with restricting Gentile Christians to not to eat meat offered to idols and not to eat blood. So your exclusion of pork from the diet seems a lot less biblical that first thought.

Of course, I'm sure you follow all the other commandments that Jesus followed do you? Not working on the Sabbath would be one so I imagine no one drives to church, say, and no one works at the church on the Sabbath. I suppose you keep to circumcisions as well as keep the festivals of Pesach and so on with New Year in September? If not, how did you decide pork was more important that circumcision or the Sabbath more important that washing the things a menstruating woman has sat on in the river?

Just wondering...
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jdawg70 on February 19, 2014, 01:28:21 PM
...we can live with the constant hope that soon and very soon our tears will be wiped away by the divine and yet human finger of our Lord.

What do you mean by 'soon and very soon'?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 19, 2014, 01:48:49 PM
Quote
Pork... Peters vision..
Just wondering...

Wheels..
You're the one who never reads texts from beginning to end in full context..Read verse 27 of the vision in chapter 10..

27 While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. BUT GOD HAS SHOWN ME THAT I SHOULD NOT CALL ANYONE IMPURE OR UNCLEAN. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”

Thats the meaning of the vision as explained by the Angel, NOT that its OK to eat pork.


Second:  In Acts 15:20 We are to eat kosher /  halal because we are not allowed to eat blood of the animal, referring to the Law in Leviticus.

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, AND FROM BLOOD.

kosher / halal blessing is principally a process to drain the meat of blood.






Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: screwtape on February 19, 2014, 01:52:13 PM
I'm very sorry I didn't welcome you before shooting at you. 

Welcome to our forum.

Now, I'm going to shoot at you some more.

The concept of salvation is so deep and complex that we will never fully understand the plan until God reveals it to us face-to-face after the Second Coming.

If someone tells me I cannot understand something until I'm dead, it raises red flags that, you know, what they are telling me is probably bullshit.



RE:  Is the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA's) Church a Cult?? 

...
Source: http://www.sabbathtruth.com/sabbath-history/denominational-statements-on-the-sabbath/id/982/catholic.aspx

Sorry.  That does not answer the question.  Sabbath day is a minor dispute among the religious.  As if the omnipotent creator of all being is fussy about what day you go to church.  As if jesus H would smite you to hell for churching on the wrong day.  Please.   

It's an end times cult.  The Millerites were a cult and the SDA was a sub-cult of theirs.   Look up  October 22, 1844.  You won't be disappointed.  wink wink.  Or maybe you will. Wink wink.

If your religious identity is consumed by what day you church-o-fy, then you, my little friend, are in a cult.

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on February 19, 2014, 02:32:56 PM
Quote
Pork... Peters vision..
Just wondering...

Wheels..
You're the one who never reads texts from beginning to end in full context..Read verse 27 of the vision in chapter 10..

27 While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. BUT GOD HAS SHOWN ME THAT I SHOULD NOT CALL ANYONE IMPURE OR UNCLEAN. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”

Thats the meaning of the vision as explained by the Angel, NOT that its OK to eat pork.


Second:  In Acts 15:20 We are to eat kosher /  halal because we are not allowed to eat blood of the animal, referring to the Law in Leviticus.

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, AND FROM BLOOD.

kosher / halal blessing is principally a process to drain the meat of blood.

So, how do you get from Acts 15 to only refraining from pork?
 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Astreja on February 19, 2014, 03:32:44 PM
If someone tells me I cannot understand something until I'm dead, it raises red flags that, you know, what they are telling me is probably bullshit.

^ ^ ^ This. 

The existence of disciples and apostles in the New Testament -- Especially people like Paul of Tarsus[1] -- makes one wonder how much any of them could have known (or taught) if they couldn't possibly have comprehended till they died.  Seems that the ones running the show always "understand" well enough to say that they're right and everyone else is wrong.
 1. a.k.a. Paul the Antichrist, who took great delight in contradicting much of what Jesus taught and setting up his own version of "the rules."
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 19, 2014, 08:09:40 PM
Quote
What do you mean by 'soon and very soon'?

Hi Jdawg70

Below you will see what is meant by 'soon and very soon'.  We are at the period called the 'Divided Nations' aka 'Feet of Iron and Clay' at the bottom.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/hj7n.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/hj7n.jpg/)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 19, 2014, 08:20:59 PM
Quote
What do you mean by 'soon and very soon'?

..... Jdawg70

Here is another link which shows the earths timeline and we are are on this according to the Bible. We are at the period of time called the Third Woe since 2001.

http://imageshack.com/a/img691/1365/0jqz.jpg (http://imageshack.com/a/img691/1365/0jqz.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on February 19, 2014, 09:21:59 PM
Soooo, skeptic, all the other predictions of the endtimes were wrong, and this one is correct, because?

Remember, people believed that other charts, dates and timelines were accurate, to the point of selling their belongings and even committing suicide, so it's not like they weren't as sure as you are...

so, how do you know you are right?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Backspace on February 19, 2014, 10:02:19 PM
We are at the period of time called the Third Woe since 2001.

How very sad.  The Divine being who endowed Sword with a brain and the power to reason has forsaken it all for faith in meaningless drivel.  One more "I'm right and everyone else who doesn't think like me[1] is wrong."  Jim Jones would be proud of you Sword.

 1. or the person who thinks for you
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 19, 2014, 10:17:06 PM

Quote
So, how do you get from Acts 15 to only refraining from pork?

Wheels..

The eating of pork is one, but very common issue out of the dietary law topic that most are familiar with and even joke about. Acts 15 reinforces the fact that the New Testament (NT) teaches very clearly as Christians we are not to eat the blood in meat according to Leviticus 17:14.  This teaching is consistent with the whole biblical narrative. Alternative lifestyles, although a God given right and independent choice, are not biblical even if someone labels it as such in an attempt to justify unbiblical behavior.


screwtape

Quote
Now, I'm going to shoot at you some more.......Sabbath day is a minor dispute among the religious.  As if the omnipotent creator of all being is fussy about what day you go to church.  As if jesus H would smite you to hell for churching on the wrong day.  Please.   

It's an end times cult.  The Millerites were a cult and the SDA was a sub-cult of theirs.   Look up  October 22, 1844.  You won't be disappointed.  wink wink.  Or maybe you will. Wink wink.

If your religious identity is consumed by what day you church-o-fy, then you, my little friend, are in a cult. 

blah blah blah...

1.  God said "Remember the Sabbath day.." Ex 20:8 (In other words, do not forget it)
2. God said "I am Lord of the Sabbath" (in other words, the Sabbath is His day - Isaiah 58:13)
3.  God said "Sabbath was made for man" Mark 2:27 (In other words, that's the day He made for us to worship and rest on)
4. God said "He, [the Antichrist] will seek to change times and laws"  Daniel 7:25 (In other words, the antichrist would attempt to change Gods law)
5. God said "do not obey the Antichrist, but obey God the creator or burn in the lake of fire forever". Revelation 14:6-12, 21:8

So yes, God does care what day we go to church.. He commanded the Sabbath to be the day of rest and all who obey the Antichrist will die. God alone is the one who speaks for Himself, do not presume to speak on His behalf when you are but a worm to Him.

As for 1844, this was man trying to understand the time prophecy in Daniel. The Christians knew it (The Cleansing of the Sanctuary) meant something significant for their time, but they were not sure what it was.  William Miller, a BAPTIST minister, who predicted the time prophecy in Daniel meant it would be Christs return to earth, as he believed the Earth was the sanctuary for some strange reason. Ellen G White, said it was the entering of the Most Holy Place (sanctuary) in the heavenly temple as revealed in a vision by God.  Sister White was the founder of Adventism, not Miller. However, such a Great Disappointment brought great repentance and a new spiritual passion to be pure and holy, serving God in love and fear.  Such a 'Disappointment' brought tremendous blessing. Check your history again and don't be too quick to shoot first and talk later. Talk first, then shoot later if you have to. That would make more sense wouldn't it?

Cult?  The more educated phrase would be NRM.  However, since Im used to atheist double standards and forked measuring sticks, I'll just label you a stupid fool who is not only deceived by the devil, but on a road to hell with no chance at all.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)


Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 19, 2014, 10:33:06 PM
Soooo, skeptic, all the other predictions of the endtimes were wrong, and this one is correct, because?

Remember, people believed that other charts, dates and timelines were accurate, to the point of selling their belongings and even committing suicide, so it's not like they weren't as sure as you are...

so, how do you know you are right?

Because we use the Historicist method of interpretation for the Book of Revelation. This means the majority of things have already happened which have been prophesied, such as the First and second Woeand we understand prophecy in light of current and past events rather than future and current events. 

here is one example from the chart where it says '1260 (3 1/2)' :

THE 1260 DAYS OF DANIEL 7


The number 1260 is mentioned seven
times in the Bible in various different ways:

   Daniel 7:25      "a time, times and half a time"
   Daniel 12:7      "a time, times and half a time"
   Revelation 11:2      "42 months"
   Revelation 11:3      "1260 days"
   Revelation 12:6      "1260 days"
   Revelation 12:14   "a time, times and half a time"
   Revelation 13:5      "forty-two months"

It can be shown that all these texts are referring to the same period of
time:

   A time is one year      =  360 days
   Times are two years      =  720 days
   Half a time is half a year   =  180 days
   -----------------------------------------
   Therefore the total      = 1260 days

A month in prophecy is equal to 30 days, therefore forty-two months is
equal to 42 x 30 = 1260 days.

So we can see that these seven texts are talking about the same period of
time, but what does it mean?

In prophecy a day is sometimes used to represent a year, and that is the case
here. (See Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6) So the prophecy is talking about
a period of 1260 years.

If we now go back to Daniel 7:25 we can see that it is the power of the
Little Horn which will control the "saints" for this period of time.

Papal Rome defeated the last of its major enemies (the Ostrogoths) in the
year 538 A.D. when Emperor Justinian's decree came into effect. Throughout
the Dark Ages the Catholic church was the most powerful political force in
the whole world, and it used its power for political and financial gain as
well as for religious purposes. Many millions were persecuted and put to
death - "oppressing the saints of the Most High" as Daniel puts it.

However the power of the Papal Church came to an end when the armed forces
of Napoleon, under general Berthier marched into Rome and took the Pope
captive. This happened in the year 1798 A.D. surprisingly (or perhaps not
so surprisingly) exactly 1260 years after the Papacy came to power in 538
A.D.

That's one way we know it is correct. Its also the time line most reformers used until  only in the last 90c years the Catholic church began its "ecumenical" task of undoing the work of the Reformers, and began teaching Futurist views among others to hide the identity of the Antichrist power which was "drunk with the blood of the saints of the Most High"


Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: lotanddaughters on February 19, 2014, 11:22:17 PM
Soooo, skeptic, all the other predictions of the endtimes were wrong, and this one is correct, because?

Remember, people believed that other charts, dates and timelines were accurate, to the point of selling their belongings and even committing suicide, so it's not like they weren't as sure as you are...

so, how do you know you are right?

Because we use the Historicist method of interpretation for the Book of Revelation. This means the majority of things have already happened which have been prophesied, such as the First and second Woeand we understand prophecy in light of current and past events rather than future and current events. 

here is one example from the chart where it says '1260 (3 1/2)' :

THE 1260 DAYS OF DANIEL 7


The number 1260 is mentioned seven
times in the Bible in various different ways:

   Daniel 7:25      "a time, times and half a time"
   Daniel 12:7      "a time, times and half a time"
   Revelation 11:2      "42 months"
   Revelation 11:3      "1260 days"
   Revelation 12:6      "1260 days"
   Revelation 12:14   "a time, times and half a time"
   Revelation 13:5      "forty-two months"

It can be shown that all these texts are referring to the same period of
time:

   A time is one year      =  360 days
   Times are two years      =  720 days
   Half a time is half a year   =  180 days
   -----------------------------------------
   Therefore the total      = 1260 days

A month in prophecy is equal to 30 days, therefore forty-two months is
equal to 42 x 30 = 1260 days.

So we can see that these seven texts are talking about the same period of
time, but what does it mean?

In prophecy a day is sometimes used to represent a year, and that is the case
here. (See Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6) So the prophecy is talking about
a period of 1260 years.

If we now go back to Daniel 7:25 we can see that it is the power of the
Little Horn which will control the "saints" for this period of time.

Papal Rome defeated the last of its major enemies (the Ostrogoths) in the
year 538 A.D. when Emperor Justinian's decree came into effect. Throughout
the Dark Ages the Catholic church was the most powerful political force in
the whole world, and it used its power for political and financial gain as
well as for religious purposes. Many millions were persecuted and put to
death - "oppressing the saints of the Most High" as Daniel puts it.

However the power of the Papal Church came to an end when the armed forces
of Napoleon, under general Berthier marched into Rome and took the Pope
captive. This happened in the year 1798 A.D. surprisingly (or perhaps not
so surprisingly) exactly 1260 years after the Papacy came to power in 538
A.D.

That's one way we know it is correct. Its also the time line most reformers used until  only in the last 90c years the Catholic church began its "ecumenical" task of undoing the work of the Reformers, and began teaching Futurist views among others to hide the identity of the Antichrist power which was "drunk with the blood of the saints of the Most High"

Skeptic-whatever-the-fuck.


SwordOfGod.




You are just asking to get banned with your Lando Calrissian avatar.




Poe's Law, Asshole.

Poe's Law.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: voodoo child on February 20, 2014, 12:04:41 AM
I wonder what the SDA would think, if one of their own was married to an atheist and the atheist is paying for the son’s education at a SDA collage? 


   
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on February 20, 2014, 04:29:37 AM
SwordofGod

This unconventional interpretation of Daniel and Revelation was, I understand first invented in the mid 1800s.We have had over 150 years since that time. What has since been discovered that suggests that this interpretation has any validity at all. Talk of Christ doing things is heaven is, of course, entirely a matter of belief but the chart you linked to suggests that things happening on earth can be linked to the interpretation. So,

1. What events can you point to on earth that can be realistically said to have been predicted by the interpretation?

2. On this interpretation, when will the world end?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jynnan tonnix on February 20, 2014, 08:26:42 AM

Skeptic-whatever-the-fuck.


SwordOfGod.




You are just asking to get banned with your Lando Calrissian avatar.


Poe's Law, Asshole.

Poe's Law.

Yeah, why do SwordofGod and Skeptic have the same avatars? It's confusing. Did I miss something? Does Lando Calrissian have some sort of Christian symbolism? It's been way too long since I saw any Star Wars movies, and I honestly don't remember much of anything about his character.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Anfauglir on February 20, 2014, 08:37:05 AM
Yeah, why do SwordofGod and Skeptic have the same avatars? It's confusing. Did I miss something? Does Lando Calrissian have some sort of Christian symbolism? It's been way too long since I saw any Star Wars movies, and I honestly don't remember much of anything about his character.

"StarWars" is one of the default categories of avatar that new members can choose.  It could be that two believers with the same sort of ideas randomly chose the same one - but they ddn't independantly upload them, they are picked from limited choice on the server.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 20, 2014, 08:39:15 AM
Yeah, they're not inventive like those of us who choose off site avatars.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jdawg70 on February 20, 2014, 09:11:23 AM
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/hj7n.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/hj7n.jpg/)
http://imageshack.com/a/img691/1365/0jqz.jpg (http://imageshack.com/a/img691/1365/0jqz.jpg)

So 'soon and very soon' isn't really a time estimate or anything.  It just means that we're in the Third Woe.  You guys might want to rethink the use of words like 'soon' and 'very soon' though.  Bit misleading.

What's the basis for establishing that the 9/11/2001 attacks mark the beginning of the Third Woe and 'Modern Islam'?

How old is the Earth?

Edit: forget to add the quip about not using 'soon' or 'very soon'
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 09:14:51 AM
Nam...

LOVE the avatar!  ha ha ha.

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: screwtape on February 20, 2014, 10:30:25 AM
So yes, God does care what day we go to church.. He commanded the Sabbath to be the day of rest and all who obey the Antichrist will die.

Does that sound even remotely rational to you?  Nevermind.  Don't answer that.  I can be sure you will say "yes" because as I pointed out, your whole religious identity hinges on it. 

Sorry, S.O.G., your quotes not withstanding, I just cannot imagine an ominmax and benevolent god that would get torqued up over what day we worship, as long as we worship.  It strikes me as something petty and beneath him, like a rule a low level bureaucrat would enforce simply because they have the slightest bit of power to make people comply.  There is nothing majestic or inspiring about it. 

God alone is the one who speaks for Himself,

Actually, no.  God never speaks for himself.  If you notice, he only ever speaks through other people.  And he often did it through the most unlikely people.  So, you really should pay attention. I actually could be here doing the lord's work. 


you are but a worm to Him.

That is quite a benevolent and generous god you have there.  You should be careful to not confuse yourself with god.  Because it seems to me you are trying to say that I am but a worm to you.  Which is neither nice nor correct.  And it is, you know, kind of blasphemous.

Technically, though, we would be even less than that.  We would be to god less than bacteria is to us.  Which begs the question, since we don't generally consider bacteria to be much more than a nuissance, why would god care about us at all?  Do we care which day bacteria prays to us?  And if it's the wrong day, does that really bother you?

William Miller, a BAPTIST minister,

whoa now.  Once you break away from actual Baptist teaching, you don't really get to call yourself a Baptist.  Lutherans don't call themselves Catholics.  And you don't call yourself baptist either. So stop with the pretense and argument.  Miller was a cult leader and a kook.  Your little cult was just a spin off of a failed end of times cult and you still, obviously, retain a lot of those Millerite end of times beliefs.  Quit protesting and accept it.

Ellen G White, said it was the entering of the Most Holy Place  (sanctuary) in the heavenly temple as revealed in a vision by God

Sure, sure. Vision by god.  And what makes her vision any more valid than, say, Old Joe Smith's visions (which lead to mormonism)?  Or any other weirdo who claimed to have visions from god whom you and I would both agree were religious kooks?  How can you tell the bona fide visionaries from the charlatans and the mentally ill?

Sister White was the founder of Adventism, not Miller.

But it was all based on Miller's beliefs with just a twist of White.  Gin with twist of lime is still gin.  Only, with a twist of lime.  You are a Millerite, with a twist.

However, such a Great Disappointment brought great repentance and a new spiritual passion to be pure and holy, serving God in love and fear.

Oh sure, the Great Dis was a good thing.  Of course.  It was definitely not a humiliating excoriation of ridiculous beliefs.  It was a clarification and vindication of them

Just like when the hebrews were defeated by the Babylonians and the temple was destroyed, that was not proof positive that Marduk was greater than yhwh.  No.  That was proof Marduk was sent by yhwh.  And when the Nazis killed a few million jews in the mid 20th century, that was not proof that yhwh was not in anyway protecting the "chosen people".  No.  The fact that some of them survived because of the Allies was proof of the opposite.

Here is something that may help you - a book on the psychology of failed prophecy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

that link has a lot of good information along with further links to more good information.  Like cognitive dissonance and disconfirmed expectations.   It is not a coincidence that under the heading of "see also" there is a link to the Great Dis.  It is the exact same situation.  This is going to make you uncomfortable, but you need to face it for your own good.

 
I'll just label you a stupid fool who is not only deceived by the devil, but on a road to hell with no chance at all.

Sure.  You're the one who thinks a god who considers us to be worms cares what day the worms pray, and the Great Dis was a good, clarifying, vindicating event.  And I'm the stupid fool.  You sure got me.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

1. Don't threaten me.  It isn't nice. 

2. Especially don't threaten me with imaginary after-death punishments from fictional characters.  They do not scare me and make you look ridiculous.

3. Don't quote bible at me.  I'm immune to it.  It is like shooting bullets at Superman.  Only, I quote back:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
Matt 5:43-45

"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil"
Luke 6:22

I guess I should say thank you for the blessing.  You should ask yourself, "am I really are making jesus H proud?"  If I were jesus H, and for all you know, I could be, I would have to say, no, you're not.


Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on February 20, 2014, 10:44:39 AM
Hey SwordOfGod.  Thanks for the lengthy response.  I will return the favor. 

I disagree with just about everything you said but it was an interesting post. I can see why it is like "walking in on a war zone" for you.  One of the main reasons it may have seemed that way to you is because you started out "preaching" which is actually against the rules here.  However, I like the preaching.  But then again, I'm one of those agnostic atheists who listen to Christian preaching on the radio everyday.  Not because I have to but because I want to.  Don't ask why, I don't know. 

By the way, I don't know if you are really "Skeptic" who is posing to be "SwordOfGod" or not.  I don't think you are (maybe I'm gullible) but I just want to let you know that there is another Christian on this forum named "Skeptic" with your same avatar so you might want to change your avatar.  That's why people are calling you "Skeptic". 

Regarding the guilt/punishment thing...  The gospel is good news, and tough news. It brings supernatural ecstasy and rough times. Joy and sorrow run together throughout God’s salvation program. It is the joy of travail that lets Jesus know He will be satisfied (Isa. 53:11). Travail is pain, but giving birth is joy.

I take it this is your answer to my question, "Don't you think it is wrong of your god to have people today avoid the guilt of Adam and Eve's original sin but still have to bear their punishment?".  I don't think you, as a man, are in a position to say, "giving birth is a joy".  My wife says that giving birth was not a "joy" even with pain relievers.  Our baby boy was a joy but giving birth was definitely not a "joy".  I know her testimony is anecdotal but I'm going to have to accept her evidence, as a women, over your view, as a man. 

In addition, you can't say universally that giving birth is a "joy" because women and children have, and still do, die during the process of childbirth.  That's not a "joyful" experience.     

You gave me Isa. 53:11 as a verse.  The end of the verse states, "He will bear their iniquities".  If you think the "he" is Jesus and he bore the "iniquities" (sins) of people then why do women still endure the punishment for the sins that Jesus took upon himself.  The punishment should be taken away and there should be no more pain in childbirth.  After Jesus bore everybody's sins on the cross, the earthly punishment of a painful childbirth should have been taken away and the new punishment (eternal torture), should be the only punishment people have on earth.  The fact that the punishment is two-fold (earthly and eternally) really makes your god look like a jerk.  If Jesus saves certain Christian women from their sins here on earth then the pain of childbirth should at least go away for these select women because that is the earthly punishment brought all the way down from Eve's sin.

If you ask me, Isaiah 53 can't be talking about Jesus because the fact that the punishment did not go away makes me think that Jesus was not the Servant that was described in chapter 53.  The "Servant" could be (or could have been) "Jacob".  In fact, Isaiah specifically says the "Servant" is "Jacob" as explained in Isaiah 44:1.  Or the "Servant" could be Israel like Isaiah 41:8 says.  Ethically and logically, I would say the "Servant" cannot be Jesus in Isaiah 53 because if he bore the earthly sins of people then the earthly punishment should be taken away.  Jesus should have taken the pain of childbirth with him on the cross. 

For example, if my wife shoots someone intentionally and the cops knock on my door and I accept the blame (or bear her "iniquity") for her wrongdoing, I also have to bear the punishment of her wrongdoing.  For this whole thing to make sense, Jesus should have bore not only the "iniquities" of people, but he should have also bore the punishment.  Humans should be free of any earthly punishment just like my wife would be free from the punishment of murder because I bore her "iniquity".     

We are promised that there will be no more pain in the perfect world to come. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (Rev. 21:4). Jesus pointed out that the pain a woman endures in childbirth but soon forgets is like the suffering that humans endure while on this earth, but that it too is fleeting. "A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy" (John 16:21, 22).

My wife just read this and she called Jesus a liar.  She still remembers her anguish during childbirth. 

In additon, this doesn't answer the question as to why women still have pain in childbirth.  Why do women avoid carrying the guilt of Eve but still have to bear her punishment.  This is not a very powerful Savior if he can't relieve women of their pain here on earth.  God had the power to give women this pain on earth so why doesn't he have the power to take this pain away?  Your savior can save women from sin on earth but can't SAVE them from the punishment of sin on earth???  This makes no sense to me.  To play off of Epicurus' quote a bit:   

“Is God willing to take away the pain during childbirth, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then why do women still have pain during childbirth?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

 

The concept of salvation is so deep and complex that we will never fully understand the plan until God reveals it to us face-to-face after the Second Coming.

I see this as a huge red flag.  As a human who tries everyday to use logic and reason, I try not to accept things until I fully understand them.  Salvation should not be "deep and complex" to humans especially when eternal torment could be a consequence for not accepting this plan.  The concept of salvation should be one of the easiest things for humans to understand.  Since it is not one of the easiest things to understand, I think your god is malevolent.  God's plan of salvation should be easy for humans to understand if this god wants to be viewed as a god worthy of worship.

However, each baby that is born is a reminder of how Jesus fulfilled prophecy to save us from pain forever.

I'm confused.  I have never heard this before.  "Each baby that is born is a reminder of how Jesus fulfilled prophecy to save us from pain forever"???  Christians don't KNOW that they don't have pain forever so how can you say that Jesus FULFILLED PROPHECY to save humans from pain forever?  Christians have faith that they might not have pain in heaven but you can't say this is fulfilled prophecy.  I might not be understanding you correctly.  Can you clarify?

Maybe you might be saying that god did not take the pain of childbirth away after he sacrificed himself to himself because he wanted this pain of childbirth to be a reminder of how he fulfilled prophecy.  If so, your god is a jerk.  I see no other way around this.  This is not a description of a loving god.


In terms of Christianity, those labelled a 'cult' are victims of forced doctrinal conformity who have rejected calls for ecumenicalism. Those who do not conform to the majority view are deemed a 'cult' in a futile attempt to delegitimize faith and practice.  However, we are not a cult.  Cults all have one thing in common; they deviate from historical Christianity. 

The problem with your definition of "cult" is that nobody really knows for sure what "historical Christianity" really was.  The bible is written so ambiguously that no denomination can claim they have "sound doctrine".  For instance, I could say that most all Christian denominations "deviate from historical Christianity" because the Christians who wrote the New Testament were not Trinitarians.  I could pretend I am a Christian apologist and you could pretend you are a Christian apologist and we could shoot verses back and forth to one another that defend our positions but in the end, if we were honest with ourselves, both of us would have to remain agnostic on this topic because the bible is written too ambiguously to come to a conclusion. 

You don't KNOW if the writers were Trinitarian.  You don't KNOW that the writers of the NT believed that the father, son, and holy spirit were con-substantial (one being), co-equal, and co-eternal like the doctrine of the Trinity suggests.  Therefore, you don't KNOW if your denomination is deviating from "historical Christianity" because the nature of the godhead is unclear in the bible.

Conclusion:  There is no such thing as a "cult expert" so don't pretend to be one!   

What makes SDA's not a cult?  What is it that other Christian denominations have deviated from?  We keep the Sabbath and dont eat pork, just as Jesus and ALL his disciples did.  The other churches do deviate as they eat pork and keep Sunday, a day never commanded once in the bible.

Proof.

''The [Roman Catholic] Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant.'' The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4

Sooooooo....the SDA's are not a cult because the Roman Catholic church says, "the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant"??? 

Soooooo.....the Roman Catholic church does not have the authority to change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday but they do have the authority to name your denomination "the only consistent Protestant"???

Soooooo......you call this "proof" that the SDA's are not a cult???  You might want to look up the logical fallacy called "non-sequitur".

In addition, I am going to make an argument that the other churches do NOT deviate from historical Christianity because they eat pork and keep Sunday.  It is a matter of interpretation but I think "other churches" have every right to eat pork and worship on Sunday.  I hope I don't get "disciplined" by a moderator but I give you Paul's "preaching" in Romans chapter 14 (emphasis on bold):

     "1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written,

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall give praise to God.”

12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.




Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 11:23:33 AM
SwordofGod

This unconventional interpretation of Daniel and Revelation was, I understand first invented in the mid 1800s.We have had over 150 years since that time. What has since been discovered that suggests that this interpretation has any validity at all. Talk of Christ doing things is heaven is, of course, entirely a matter of belief but the chart you linked to suggests that things happening on earth can be linked to the interpretation. So,

1. What events can you point to on earth that can be realistically said to have been predicted by the interpretation?

2. On this interpretation, when will the world end?

Wheels..

You are certainly right when you say 'Christ doing things in heaven is a matter of belief'.  Other denominations have different views on it.  However, personally, I regard the Adventist position to make most sense. I was in the Pentecostal church for many years when I took an interest in end time prophecy (eschatology).  This led me to change my views and adopt the Adventist interpretation, since as you'll see below, it is based on the Antiochene school of thought, the first people called Christians in the Bible.

Regarding the interpretation you mentioned, we have a Historicist view of eschatology.  Seventh-day Adventists believe the Christian church is the historical continuation of the Old Testament Israel as God's people, centered around Jesus, and that Old Testament end-time prophecies about Israel will be fulfilled more broadly. This stands in contrast to dispensationalism, a popular conservative / fundamentalist Christian view, which sees a prominent place for the nation of Israel in the end-times, hence their blind support of the modern state of Israel. Adventist hermeneutics categorically rejects preterism, futurism and idealism as proper hermeneutical systems of interpretation of Bible prophecy. Our use of biblical typology follows the ancient Antiochene school of interpretation in contrast to the Alexandrian school of thought. Interpretation of prophecy is better understood in light of the past. Adventists believe revelation is progressive. Pieces of the jigsaw are revealed over time which gives us understanding and builds up the overall picture of end time events. 

To answer your points specifically:

1. a) Emperor Justinians Decree was made in 538 AD 
http://www.thethirdangelsmessage.com/justinian_code.php (http://www.thethirdangelsmessage.com/justinian_code.php) this is the official document

    b)  in 538 A.D., Belisarius, one of Justinian's generals routed the Ostrogoths, the last of the barbarian kingdoms, from the city of Rome and the bishop of Rome could begin establishing his universal civil authority. So, by the military intervention of the Eastern Roman Empire, the bishop of Rome became all-powerful throughout the area of the old Roman Empire.  This marked the rise of the 'little horn power' in Daniel 7 which ruled for exactly 1260 years as the bible foretold.

c)  The little horn power is identified as:

                                                 A Little horn      -      The Vatican is a little country

It comes up among the other horns  Dan 7:8    -      The Catholic Church came to power among the ten split kingdoms of Europe

It plucks up 3 of the other horns     Dan 7:8       -      The Catholic Church destroyed 3 kingdoms, Heruli, Vandals + Ostrogoths. (7 left of ten toes of Daniel 2 Dream / kingdoms)

It is diverse from the other 10 horns   Dan 7:24   -    The Papacy (Catholic Church) is a religio-political power

It speaks great things against God     Dan 7:25 -     The Catholic Church speaks blasphemies against God

It wears out the saints      Dan 7:25                -       The Catholic Church persecuted and killed millions of Christians

It thinks to change times and law   Dan 7:25   -      The Catholic church thinks it can change the laws of God, Sabbath to Sunday etc

It thinks to change times and law   Dan 7:25   -      The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD

It ruled for 1260 years  Dan 7:25                     -       The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD



2.  Since we are near the climax of world history, which all denominations agree on at least, this gives us strong indication that the time prophecies are coming to a close. 

We know from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, that was In Daniel 11:40 the Soviet Union is the king of the south, the Papacy is the king of the north, and the United States is the chariots, ships and horsemen. Verse 40 says that at the time of the end, in 1798, the king of the south, atheism, was going to begin a war against the Papacy, the king of the north. As Seventh-day Adventists we know that in 1798 atheistic France delivered the deadly wound to the Papacy. That’s Daniel 11:40. But it continues on in the verse to say, that in time, in a period of time, the king of the north would return and retaliate against atheism, the king of the south. The verse also says, that when the king of the north, the Papacy, retaliates against atheism, the king of the south, when that takes place, that the king of the north, the Papacy, would have the ally of the United States – the chariots, ships and horsemen. This demonstrates how in the Ronald Reagan years, Ronald Reagan formed a secret alliance with the antichrist of Bible prophecy (Rome / Pope) for the purpose of sweeping away the king of the south, the Soviet Union. That was fulfilled in 1989. That is the history of Daniel 11:40.

The Antichrist (Pope) actually takes credit for the fall of communism. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28398-2005Apr5.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28398-2005Apr5.html)


Source: http://www.little-book.org/
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 20, 2014, 11:37:37 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_eschatology -- a lot of what is posted above comes directly, word-for-word from this link.

That's called plagiarism when you don't source.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 20, 2014, 11:40:51 AM


c)  The little horn power is identified as:

                                                 A Little horn      -      The Vatican is a little country
<snip>
It ruled for 1260 years  Dan 7:25                     -       The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD

I am in no academic position too enter into this discussion, but I have a quick question, Sword.  How does your recently formed religion and this specific look at Catholicism excuse away the statement that the Catholic Church ruled between 538 and 1798, but it did not (the Vatican) become a country until 1929. Wouldn't their failure to overlap chronologically kind of put a crimp in at leafs one of those claims?

Or is it just a case that as long as all those prophecies happen, it doesn't matter in what order?

Edit: Fixed bad edit in the original.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 11:48:55 AM
So yes, God does care what day we go to church.. He commanded the Sabbath to be the day of rest and all who obey the Antichrist will die.

Does that sound even remotely rational to you?  Nevermind.  Don't answer that.  I can be sure you will say "yes" because as I pointed out, your whole religious identity hinges on it. 

Sorry, S.O.G., your quotes not withstanding, I just cannot imagine an ominmax and benevolent god that would get torqued up over what day we worship, as long as we worship.  It strikes me as something petty and beneath him, like a rule a low level bureaucrat would enforce simply because they have the slightest bit of power to make people comply.  There is nothing majestic or inspiring about it. 

God alone is the one who speaks for Himself,

Actually, no.  God never speaks for himself.  If you notice, he only ever speaks through other people.  And he often did it through the most unlikely people.  So, you really should pay attention. I actually could be here doing the lord's work. 


you are but a worm to Him.

That is quite a benevolent and generous god you have there.  You should be careful to not confuse yourself with god.  Because it seems to me you are trying to say that I am but a worm to you.  Which is neither nice nor correct.  And it is, you know, kind of blasphemous.

Technically, though, we would be even less than that.  We would be to god less than bacteria is to us.  Which begs the question, since we don't generally consider bacteria to be much more than a nuissance, why would god care about us at all?  Do we care which day bacteria prays to us?  And if it's the wrong day, does that really bother you?

William Miller, a BAPTIST minister,

whoa now.  Once you break away from actual Baptist teaching, you don't really get to call yourself a Baptist.  Lutherans don't call themselves Catholics.  And you don't call yourself baptist either. So stop with the pretense and argument.  Miller was a cult leader and a kook.  Your little cult was just a spin off of a failed end of times cult and you still, obviously, retain a lot of those Millerite end of times beliefs.  Quit protesting and accept it.

Ellen G White, said it was the entering of the Most Holy Place  (sanctuary) in the heavenly temple as revealed in a vision by God

Sure, sure. Vision by god.  And what makes her vision any more valid than, say, Old Joe Smith's visions (which lead to mormonism)?  Or any other weirdo who claimed to have visions from god whom you and I would both agree were religious kooks?  How can you tell the bona fide visionaries from the charlatans and the mentally ill?

Sister White was the founder of Adventism, not Miller.

But it was all based on Miller's beliefs with just a twist of White.  Gin with twist of lime is still gin.  Only, with a twist of lime.  You are a Millerite, with a twist.

However, such a Great Disappointment brought great repentance and a new spiritual passion to be pure and holy, serving God in love and fear.

Oh sure, the Great Dis was a good thing.  Of course.  It was definitely not a humiliating excoriation of ridiculous beliefs.  It was a clarification and vindication of them

Just like when the hebrews were defeated by the Babylonians and the temple was destroyed, that was not proof positive that Marduk was greater than yhwh.  No.  That was proof Marduk was sent by yhwh.  And when the Nazis killed a few million jews in the mid 20th century, that was not proof that yhwh was not in anyway protecting the "chosen people".  No.  The fact that some of them survived because of the Allies was proof of the opposite.

Here is something that may help you - a book on the psychology of failed prophecy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

that link has a lot of good information along with further links to more good information.  Like cognitive dissonance and disconfirmed expectations.   It is not a coincidence that under the heading of "see also" there is a link to the Great Dis.  It is the exact same situation.  This is going to make you uncomfortable, but you need to face it for your own good.

 
I'll just label you a stupid fool who is not only deceived by the devil, but on a road to hell with no chance at all.

Sure.  You're the one who thinks a god who considers us to be worms cares what day the worms pray, and the Great Dis was a good, clarifying, vindicating event.  And I'm the stupid fool.  You sure got me.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

1. Don't threaten me.  It isn't nice. 

2. Especially don't threaten me with imaginary after-death punishments from fictional characters.  They do not scare me and make you look ridiculous.

3. Don't quote bible at me.  I'm immune to it.  It is like shooting bullets at Superman.  Only, I quote back:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
Matt 5:43-45

"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil"
Luke 6:22

I guess I should say thank you for the blessing.  You should ask yourself, "am I really are making jesus H proud?"  If I were jesus H, and for all you know, I could be, I would have to say, no, you're not.

Exposing error (Eph 5:11) and pointing out facts is not hate, for truth is no respecter of persons.  It is true whether you like it or not. We live in an age of relative truth and in a politically correct society where views that upset others are incorrectly seen by the opposing side as 'hate'. Such a world would have football games where there was never any winner or loser.  That's the sort of truth you promote.

Worm Theology was more acceptable by Christians of previous generations, but it is a way of emphasizing mans sorry state. St. Paul writes "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?" (Romans 7:24, NIV).

You should read 1 Philippians 15-18:

15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice

Insinuating I hate you is very negative, and quite untrue.  However, I quote the verse for your viewing pleasure since you are so immune to it.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on February 20, 2014, 11:53:58 AM
Needless to say, I don't subscribe to this view of the text of Daniel. There appears not reason to apply it to any particular period later that the period to which it naturally fits. Let's start by dating the writing. The historical detail is such that by th time the text gets to Antiochus Epiphanes it is at its greatest detail - especially the desecration of the Temple. This would lead us to date it a little after the cleansing of the Temple so maybe around 160BCE. Now the Canon of the Prophets was closed at about 200BCE and Daniel failed to make it (see the Septuagint which dates from then). The only explanations available were either that it wasn't thought suitable or that it wasn't written. In made it into the Hebrews scriptures so likely the latter is more accurate.

So, if we are working with a date of around 160BCE we can see that the figure you reckon covers modern history has already passed. The kings were the king  with the final one being Antiochus himself.There's nothing prophetic about it at all - it merely recounts events that have already happened. I'm sorry that people like Miller tried some rather dodgy ideas out on such a text - especially as he made quite a few assumptions that have no place but to fit his decided pattern. We ought to be reminded of Harold Camping who also made calculations from bible books only to find it was wrong. It would probably have been better if his ideas had been discarded when his calculations failed. As it is it is pure speculation that anything at all happened in 1844 or indeed later.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 12:04:55 PM


c)  The little horn power is identified as:

                                                 A Little horn      -      The Vatican is a little country
<snip>
It ruled for 1260 years  Dan 7:25                     -       The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD


I am in no academic position too enter into this discussion, but I have a quick question, Sword.  How does your recently formed religion and this specific look at Catholicism excuse away the statement that the Catholic Church ruled between 538 and 1798, but it did not (the Vatican) become a country until 1929. Wouldn't their failure to overlap chronologically kind of put a crimp in at leafs one of those claims?

Or is it just a case that as long as all those prophecies happen, it doesn't matter in what order?

Edit: Fixed bad edit in the original.

Glad you asked that question! Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_eschatology] states that SDAs teach that
Quote
in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Attribution added.

SwordOfGod, missing out an attribution is an easy mistake to make: please watch out for it.
GB Mod

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 20, 2014, 12:10:10 PM


c)  The little horn power is identified as:

                                                 A Little horn      -      The Vatican is a little country
<snip>
It ruled for 1260 years  Dan 7:25                     -       The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD


I am in no academic position too enter into this discussion, but I have a quick question, Sword.  How does your recently formed religion and this specific look at Catholicism excuse away the statement that the Catholic Church ruled between 538 and 1798, but it did not (the Vatican) become a country until 1929. Wouldn't their failure to overlap chronologically kind of put a crimp in at leafs one of those claims?

Or is it just a case that as long as all those prophecies happen, it doesn't matter in what order?

Edit: Fixed bad edit in the original.

Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Stop copy/pasting from wikipedia as if these are your words. How difficult is it to source and use the quote function? Hell, there's a wiki function, use that. Stop plagiarizing!

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: wheels5894 on February 20, 2014, 12:10:33 PM


c)  The little horn power is identified as:

                                                 A Little horn      -      The Vatican is a little country
<snip>
It ruled for 1260 years  Dan 7:25                     -       The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD


I am in no academic position too enter into this discussion, but I have a quick question, Sword.  How does your recently formed religion and this specific look at Catholicism excuse away the statement that the Catholic Church ruled between 538 and 1798, but it did not (the Vatican) become a country until 1929. Wouldn't their failure to overlap chronologically kind of put a crimp in at leafs one of those claims?

Or is it just a case that as long as all those prophecies happen, it doesn't matter in what order?

Edit: Fixed bad edit in the original.

Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

I'm sorry but once again, you have no reason to assume that the Apocalypse is telling the future. The author is busy trying to help fellow Christians caught up in persecutions from Rome - maybe under Nero or possible Domitian. He writes in code that is easily understood by those who know the OT to avoid problems of the literature being found by the Romans. There is nothing in there that links anything to present history except the imagination of modern people - and then its more a matter of finding events and looking back to get the bible to agree with them.

Remember, if this system was right, Jesus would be back on earth in 1844. The fact that he did not ought to raise serious questions as to the whole validity of these calculations yet, somehow,   that problem is ignored.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 12:12:11 PM
Needless to say, I don't subscribe to this view of the text of Daniel. There appears not reason to apply it to any particular period later that the period to which it naturally fits. Let's start by dating the writing. The historical detail is such that by th time the text gets to Antiochus Epiphanes it is at its greatest detail - especially the desecration of the Temple. This would lead us to date it a little after the cleansing of the Temple so maybe around 160BCE. Now the Canon of the Prophets was closed at about 200BCE and Daniel failed to make it (see the Septuagint which dates from then). The only explanations available were either that it wasn't thought suitable or that it wasn't written. In made it into the Hebrews scriptures so likely the latter is more accurate.

So, if we are working with a date of around 160BCE we can see that the figure you reckon covers modern history has already passed. The kings were the king  with the final one being Antiochus himself.There's nothing prophetic about it at all - it merely recounts events that have already happened. I'm sorry that people like Miller tried some rather dodgy ideas out on such a text - especially as he made quite a few assumptions that have no place but to fit his decided pattern. We ought to be reminded of Harold Camping who also made calculations from bible books only to find it was wrong. It would probably have been better if his ideas had been discarded when his calculations failed. As it is it is pure speculation that anything at all happened in 1844 or indeed later.

Careful, careful!  You'd have more chance of starting up your own cultic church denomination with views like that!  Joking aside, such views are like holding paper to a fiery furnace.. they just go up in smoke when touched by the reality of the facts. But well done for trying.

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 20, 2014, 12:12:33 PM
Wheels,

You can read all his responses at wiki. He copy/pastes them from there. You're not arguing with him, you're arguing with an article.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jdawg70 on February 20, 2014, 12:13:41 PM
Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Why doesn't god tell the laity of the Catholic church that they are a part of The Beast of Revelation and should consider rethinking their support of the organization?  I mean, at the very least, that's like...many millions of people[1] who earnestly wish to follow god but are unintentionally part of a very disingenuous club.

Seems pretty unfair to me.
 1. I tend to take numbers showing the number of practicing Catholics with a grain of salt, so I'll just low-ball to be on the safe side
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 12:14:18 PM


c)  The little horn power is identified as:

                                                 A Little horn      -      The Vatican is a little country
<snip>
It ruled for 1260 years  Dan 7:25                     -       The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD


I am in no academic position too enter into this discussion, but I have a quick question, Sword.  How does your recently formed religion and this specific look at Catholicism excuse away the statement that the Catholic Church ruled between 538 and 1798, but it did not (the Vatican) become a country until 1929. Wouldn't their failure to overlap chronologically kind of put a crimp in at leafs one of those claims?

Or is it just a case that as long as all those prophecies happen, it doesn't matter in what order?

Edit: Fixed bad edit in the original.

Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Stop copy/pasting from wikipedia as if these are your words. How difficult is it to source and use the quote function? Hell, there's a wiki function, use that. Stop plagiarizing!

-Nam

Its not a copy and paste. 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 20, 2014, 12:16:30 PM
Yes it is: 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_eschatology

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Mrjason on February 20, 2014, 12:17:06 PM
    b)  in 538 A.D., Belisarius, one of Justinian's generals routed the Ostrogoths, the last of the barbarian kingdoms, from the city of Rome and the bishop of Rome could begin establishing his universal civil authority. So, by the military intervention of the Eastern Roman Empire, the bishop of Rome became all-powerful throughout the area of the old Roman Empire.  This marked the rise of the 'little horn power' in Daniel 7 which ruled for exactly 1260 years as the bible foretold.


True, except you missed the part where the pagan [wiki]Lombards[/wiki] invaded in 568 C.E. Granted one of their later kings, [wiki]Adaloald[/wiki], was a Christian but he didn't get onto the throne until 616. I make that exactly 1182 years or 1212 depending on whether you're counting total time or consecutive time for the rise of the little horn.
Of course even the two estimates of number of years given above are total bollocks as rome has been sacked more that once after 616 and popes have been murdered and replaced by puppets on several occasions due to European political intrigue
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 12:18:48 PM
Wheels,

You can read all his responses at wiki. He copy/pastes them from there. You're not arguing with him, you're arguing with an article.

-Nam

All facts have to be verified before i confirm in my own words. Sources are given.  See my previous posts.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 12:22:20 PM
Nam, just putting a link next to my work is no proof at all. All my work is sourced and links provided.  Anyone can google my responses by copying mine and googling it.. there will be source links on my posts.

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 12:25:20 PM


c)  The little horn power is identified as:

                                                 A Little horn      -      The Vatican is a little country
<snip>
It ruled for 1260 years  Dan 7:25                     -       The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD


I am in no academic position too enter into this discussion, but I have a quick question, Sword.  How does your recently formed religion and this specific look at Catholicism excuse away the statement that the Catholic Church ruled between 538 and 1798, but it did not (the Vatican) become a country until 1929. Wouldn't their failure to overlap chronologically kind of put a crimp in at leafs one of those claims?

Or is it just a case that as long as all those prophecies happen, it doesn't matter in what order?

Edit: Fixed bad edit in the original.

Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Stop copy/pasting from wikipedia as if these are your words. How difficult is it to source and use the quote function? Hell, there's a wiki function, use that. Stop plagiarizing!

-Nam


Go back and see the source link in my post and open your eyes instead of flapping about like a blind bat.  Stop being such a moron.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 20, 2014, 12:26:53 PM
Nam, just putting a link next to my work is no proof at all. All my work is sourced and links provided.  Anyone can google my responses by copying mine and googling it.. there will be source links on my posts.



Oh, so after you wrote that here in response to someone, someone grabbed it up, and placed it at Wikipedia, and other websites where I found it? Let's say it's true: how do we know they are your words? Because you say so?

Please...you're like others here: you don't think for yourself, you don't know how. Your religion speaks for you so you use their words, not your own.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 20, 2014, 12:34:39 PM
Go back and see the source link in my post and open your eyes instead of flapping about like a blind bat.  Stop being such a moron.

Your reply #274 has no links, nor sources. Copy/pasted from wiki, the link I provide above, it's under "Antichrist" of the article.

Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Where is the link, source, huh?

And I checked your other links to the other comment the first half is from wiki, the rest is to the link is you provided.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 12:37:07 PM
I have got facts checked and they are sourced.  I am not the inventor of Adventism, so I do not speak something new, but about something which has been said millions of times before, so its very probable that millions of other people have written about it online and we might actually say the same thing word for word in places. 

However, I can assure you, my posts ARE sourced as can be seen previously by all here. My writings are NOT 100% plagiarized as you make out and I say that as an honest person defending the faith.

 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 12:40:10 PM
As stated, that is not a copy and paste as you claim. 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 20, 2014, 12:40:25 PM
I have got facts checked and they are sourced.  I am not the inventor of Adventism, so I do not speak something new, but about something which has been said millions of times before, so its very probable that millions of other people have written about it online and we might actually say the same thing word for word in places.

However, I can assure you, my posts ARE sourced as can be seen previously by all here. My writings are NOT 100% plagiarized as you make out and I say that as an honest person defending the faith.

Word for word. I found the above WORD FOR WORD at about 20 websites. Please, just admit you plagiarized and/or copy/pasted, and then don't do it again.

Stop making excuses.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 20, 2014, 12:43:00 PM
As stated, that is not a copy and paste as you claim. 

Bold is yours:

Quote
Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

You lose.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 12:49:38 PM
Then copy and paste the said article here with the link.

Its not a copy and paste word for word as you claim.

Here is my response:

Quote
Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Now show me the word for word copy and paste next to mine.


Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jdawg70 on February 20, 2014, 12:55:00 PM
Then copy and paste the said article here with the link.

Its not a copy and paste word for word as you claim.

Here is my response:

Quote
Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Now show me the word for word copy and paste next to mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_eschatology#Antichrist

It's not 'word-for-word'.  But it's high school word for word - that is, if I were a lazy high school student trying to get away with plagiary, and were not really good at it, I'd make around the same number of word changes and additions.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 12:57:52 PM
Then copy and paste the said article here with the link.

Its not a copy and paste word for word as you claim.

Here is my response:

Quote
Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Now show me the word for word copy and paste next to mine.

Nam.... tick tock tick tock.... Im waiting for this word for word copy and paste.

 

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 20, 2014, 12:59:08 PM


c)  The little horn power is identified as:

                                                 A Little horn      -      The Vatican is a little country
<snip>
It ruled for 1260 years  Dan 7:25                     -       The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD


I am in no academic position too enter into this discussion, but I have a quick question, Sword.  How does your recently formed religion and this specific look at Catholicism excuse away the statement that the Catholic Church ruled between 538 and 1798, but it did not (the Vatican) become a country until 1929. Wouldn't their failure to overlap chronologically kind of put a crimp in at leafs one of those claims?

Or is it just a case that as long as all those prophecies happen, it doesn't matter in what order?

Edit: Fixed bad edit in the original.

Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Thank you. That answered my question. As an atheist, I'm obviously not impressed, but at least someone is paying attention to the details.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 01:03:38 PM
Then copy and paste the said article here with the link.

Its not a copy and paste word for word as you claim.

Here is my response:

Quote
Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Now show me the word for word copy and paste next to mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_eschatology#Antichrist

It's not 'word-for-word'.  But it's high school word for word - that is, if I were a lazy high school student trying to get away with plagiary, and were not really good at it, I'd make around the same number of word changes and additions.

Have a go if you will. My so called 'copy and paste', leaves half of that you've quoted out of it, and my post includes the main points all SDAs agree on from the site you point to. These are the facts.

Nam could not find a word for word copy and paste, as was his stupid claim. All you found is points which we believe, but not a direct copy and paste.


 

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jdawg70 on February 20, 2014, 01:15:22 PM
Have a go if you will. My so called 'copy and paste', leaves half of that you've quoted out of it, and my post includes the main points all SDAs agree on from the site you point to. These are the facts.

And that's fine.  But there is certainly a part of your post that you really should have made a citation to the Wikipedia article.

Quote
Nam could not find a word for word copy and paste, as was his stupid claim. All you found is points which we believe, but not a direct copy and paste.

And it seriously looks like you copied parts of those texts and made a couple of minor textual additions.  That is something that one would expect a citation for, that's all.

You would be wise to just concede.  If you don't, that means that you and all the other SDAs are really good at rote memorization but that you haven't necessarily internalized what the claims actually mean.  If you guys respond with essentially the same text[1] to questions like this, it doesn't go a real long way in proving that you and your peers have really thought about it at all.

Note that I am not at the point of accusing you of being a robot merely repeating claims you've heard without actually giving those claims any thought.  But your refusal to acknowledge what appears to be a very blatant copy-paste job isn't helping me or anyone else not lean towards that conclusion.  Just admit that you copied and pasted some of that text from Wikipedia (or adventnews.org or wherever) and be done with it.  There's nothing wrong with the copy/paste job.  But being stubborn about it is nothing but detrimental to your case.
 1. Note I say the text and not the content.  I would expect the content to be very similar.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: screwtape on February 20, 2014, 01:15:55 PM
SOG,

My use of green text indicates I am acting as a moderator, not as a participant in the discussion.  Please do not respond to this post in thread.  If you have questions about the moderation I am giving, please us the PM system.

When you use other sources, please make it apparent that you are doing so and please provide the reference.  It does appear that you copied parts of your posts directly from wikipedia.  That is considered plagiarism and it is not allowed here. 

Bole mine:

Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798) but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_eschatology#Antichrist
Quote
In 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is taken as a fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast of Revelation would receive a deadly wound but that the wound would be healed. Adventists have attributed the wounding and resurgence in Revelation 13:3 to the papacy, referring to General Louis Berthier's capture of Pope Pius VI in 1798 and the pope's subsequent death in 1799.

Also, while lying about it is not specifically forbidden in the forum rules, it is bad form.  Not to mention, it breaks one of your 10 commandments.

My advice to you is to take a little break.  Go have a glass of water.  Then come back later with a better attitude and more honorable behavior.  I mean that in the best possible way. 


Everyone else,

If you are not a moderator, please do not engage in "vigilante moderation" in-thread.  It is off topic and derails the thread.

thank you. 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Graybeard on February 20, 2014, 01:16:53 PM
As stated, that is not a copy and paste as you claim.
I suppose the Miracle of The Coincidental Wording could be to blame, but, at #274, I found fit to attribute the quote that you did not. : )
GB Mod
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 01:38:25 PM
off topic comments removed
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 01:41:14 PM
off topic comments removed
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 01:44:30 PM
off topic comments removed
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 01:58:42 PM
off topic comments removed
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: screwtape on February 20, 2014, 01:59:33 PM
Which part of "Please do not respond to this post in thread" did you not understand?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 02:18:37 PM


c)  The little horn power is identified as:

                                                 A Little horn      -      The Vatican is a little country
<snip>
It ruled for 1260 years  Dan 7:25                     -       The Catholic Church reigned between 538AD - 1798AD


I am in no academic position too enter into this discussion, but I have a quick question, Sword.  How does your recently formed religion and this specific look at Catholicism excuse away the statement that the Catholic Church ruled between 538 and 1798, but it did not (the Vatican) become a country until 1929. Wouldn't their failure to overlap chronologically kind of put a crimp in at leafs one of those claims?

Or is it just a case that as long as all those prophecies happen, it doesn't matter in what order?

Edit: Fixed bad edit in the original.

Glad you asked that question! SDAs teach that in 1798, the French General Berthier exiled the Pope and took away all his authority, which was later restored in 1929. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Beast (RCC) of Revelation would receive a deadly wound (1798)  but that the wound would be healed. The wounding (1798) and healing (1929) in Revelation 13:3 is referring to the papacy, when General Louis Berthier's captured Pope Pius VI in 1798 and then the state of the Vatican coming into existence in 1929 was the healing of the deadly wound.

So, the 1260 days happened first as predicted according to Daniel 7, then in Revelation 13:3, the 'Mortal Wound' of the beast was 'healed' until the time of the end.

Thank you. That answered my question. As an atheist, I'm obviously not impressed, but at least someone is paying attention to the details.

It was a pleasure.  If you have any more questions on end time prophecy, I will be glad to answer you as best I can.  The answers will sometimes come from Adventist websites and teachings which I accept as reliable.

More answers can be found at:

http://www.adventist.org/ - General beliefs
http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/ - Eschatology
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/ - Adventist living, eschatology, apologetics etc.
http://adventist-defense-league.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/uncomfortable-questions-posed-to.html - Answers to critics




Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 02:32:35 PM
Off topic commentary removed.

If you have a moderation issue you need to discuss, you may bring it up via Private Message.

Also, being abusive toward staff is not allowed.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Dante on February 20, 2014, 03:02:11 PM
off topic commentary removed.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Astreja on February 20, 2014, 03:34:43 PM
The concept of salvation is so deep and complex that we will never fully understand the plan until God reveals it to us face-to-face after the Second Coming.

To expand on what I said earlier, SoG, what's the point in posting excerpts from SDA doctrine or even from the Bible if the mortals responsible for those writings are unable to fully "understand the plan"?  Who's to say that anyone actually got it right, especially considering the wide disparity in beliefs from one group to another?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 04:54:50 PM
Off topic commentary removed.

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 05:07:06 PM
Off topic commentary removed.

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Quesi on February 20, 2014, 05:10:17 PM
Off topic commentary removed.


How do you address your anger issues in real life?  I'd be happy to talk through some strategies with you if you are interested. 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 05:45:14 PM
The concept of salvation is so deep and complex that we will never fully understand the plan until God reveals it to us face-to-face after the Second Coming.

To expand on what I said earlier, SoG, what's the point in posting excerpts from SDA doctrine or even from the Bible if the mortals responsible for those writings are unable to fully "understand the plan"?  Who's to say that anyone actually got it right, especially considering the wide disparity in beliefs from one group to another?

Prophecy is revealed progressively and understood fully when it comes to pass.  This is the Historicist approach to prophecy and eschatology.  The early church in Antioch used this approach.  For example; during the 1260 day prophecy, no one could be 100% sure that the Roman Church was the Antichrist, unless that person just believed it was using the internal approach, i.e, they have a gut feeling (Arguably, such approaches are used in Pentecostal and Mormon churches where knowledge is based on feelings or religious experience alone) However, there are external tests required to verify these things whether they are true or not.  Adventists rely on external tests, not internal ones. We do not simply believe these prophecies to be true, we have external evidence which tells us so. The external evidence in this case is historical facts i.e, coupled with Bible scripture. 

Example: 

Historical Fact 1 - Babylon was conquered  by Medo-Persia under Cyrus the Great.

Biblical Scripture:

The Prophet Isaiah said 150 years before this happened:

"who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd,
and he shall fulfill all my purpose’;
saying of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be built,’
    and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid.’”
(Isaiah 44:28)

The Prophet Daniel said:

"and wherever the children of men dwell, or the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven, He has given them into your hand, and has made you ruler over them all—you are this head of gold. 39 But after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth."  (Daniel 2:38-39)

"PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians."  (Daniel 5:28)


So, we see these prophesies and we have an idea what they mean before their fulfillment, but afterward, when they are fulfilled, it becomes clearer what they are referring to. This is the Historicist method. We know in part as God reveals over time to us. Other denominations are entitled to their view, but we believe our method can be proven using history time lines. We all agree on the main elements, but the details are varied among us. We all have different views.  Adventism is fairly uniform though.



Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 05:49:49 PM
Off topic commentary removed.


How do you address your anger issues in real life?  I'd be happy to talk through some strategies with you if you are interested.

Do you ever get angry?  I take it from your response nothing ever angers you.  If I thought you were serious, Id probably take you up on your offer ; ) but since we both know you're being sarcastic, I'll leave it thanks.  PS, In Christianity there is the concept of righteous anger.  We can be angry, yet not sin. Christ was angry when the Jews used his temple as a market trading environment, yet he did not sin when he threw them out. I follow the example of Christ.

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on February 20, 2014, 05:51:31 PM
I like the way you can only know a prophecy was actually a prophecy after the fact. Can't lose that way, can you? Well actually, you can lose, and mostly you do, but then you just reinterpret the meaning of the prophecy. After the fact.  &)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 06:06:23 PM
I like the way you can only know a prophecy was actually a prophecy after the fact. Can't lose that way, can you? Well actually, you can lose, and mostly you do, but then you just reinterpret the meaning of the prophecy. After the fact.  &)

No, we know when a prophecy is a prophecy.  We just dont know the full meaning of it until its fulfillment.. hence the word 'ful-fill-ment.'

As explained above, we may have an idea what it means, but we will not know exactly how untill it is fulfilled and we see the event.

How does one reinterpret Daniels words when he says to the King of Babylon, "After you, another kingdom will arise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth" ??? Since the medo-Persians were the only conquerors, it cant be reinterpreted can it... No.  Thus it can ONLY be understood in terms of fulfillment.  We know there is going to be a defeat of Babylon, but how exactly wont be known until its actual defeat.  Quite logical really. There is no "reinterpreting here"  only sweeping statements from your end.

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Astreja on February 20, 2014, 06:59:25 PM
Prophecy is revealed progressively and understood fully when it comes to pass ...

To clarify My question, I'm not talking about humans prophesying; I'm referring specifically to humans trying to explain your god's plan to other humans, despite the fact that none of them have been to heaven and had it explained to them face-to-face.

As for Isaiah and Cyrus, apparently that's a contentious passage similar to the Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus, whereby a second author "augmented" the text at a later date.  I have to run out to a band rehearsal, but when I get back I'll see if I can pull up some more information on that controversy.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on February 20, 2014, 07:26:37 PM
The problem is, that the supposed prophecies are so incredibly vague, that like psychic readings or Rorshach tests, you can make them mean almost anything. There are lots of powerful kingdoms, and they rise and fall and defeat each other. That is not prophetic. That is history.

"Next year two powerful lions, one black and one white, will fight each other and one will die while the other emerges victorious."

See how easy it is? I just made a prophecy. This time next year we will no doubt discover that it came true! But only, after the fact, we will realize that the "lions" are not literal lions at all, but actually two baseball teams in the World Series. Or two movies with lions in them up for the Oscars. Or Burger King and McDonald's. Or a hurricane that hits Florida. Or the SDA church vs the JW's. Or the two presidential nominees on the Republican ticket.

To be a real prophecy, it has to be specific, detailed, contain information not known at the time, and should only have one meaning. If should not be open to many different interpretations, based on changing cultural values.

Nowhere in the bible or any other ancient text does it say, "There will be in the 20th century, a country called the United States of America, and it will be the most powerful land in the world for about 100 years, then another country with far more people called China will take over."

There are NO references to incidents in China, the US, the Americas, England, Russia or South Africa in the bible at all. No references to pandas, kangaroos, polar bears, penguins or llamas, either. No references to any of the important discoveries, inventions, medical advances. No, "Relax, we will someday find a cure for leprosy and it will not be bird's blood. People will be able to fly in giant air ships across the oceans in a few hours. Women won't have to give birth in pain because of medicine. And gay people will turn out to be really cool." 

Why not? Because the people back then in the Middle East did not know that any of those things would happen.

So, to say that a particular vague passage about a small country and a big country and a bronze something and a kingdom has any specific meaning, you have to fill in a lot of blanks with stuff that only makes sense in retrospect. That hardly counts as a prophecy.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 20, 2014, 08:13:07 PM
I prophesize that SwordofGod will reject what nogodsforme states.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jdawg70 on February 20, 2014, 08:26:25 PM
I propose a game that may prove rather educational and relevant to the current topic of discussion.

SwordOfGod, give us an example of a false prophecy.  From the bible or any other text or wherever, but pick a prophecy that you consider is false and can be demonstrated as false (i.e. a prophecy that had predicated or described an event that has already happened but was written prior to said event).

I would guess that, collectively, we could create an interpretation of the state of events of the world that satisfy the fulfillment of that prophesy with...say, a 90% success rate.

Would you like to play a game?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 10:02:28 PM


The problem is, that the supposed prophecies are so incredibly vague, that like psychic readings or Rorshach tests, you can make them mean almost anything. There are lots of powerful kingdoms, and they rise and fall and defeat each other. That is not prophetic. That is history.

"Next year two powerful lions, one black and one white, will fight each other and one will die while the other emerges victorious."

See how easy it is? I just made a prophecy. This time next year we will no doubt discover that it came true! But only, after the fact, we will realize that the "lions" are not literal lions at all, but actually two baseball teams in the World Series. Or two movies with lions in them up for the Oscars. Or Burger King and McDonald's. Or a hurricane that hits Florida. Or the SDA church vs the JW's. Or the two presidential nominees on the Republican ticket.

To be a real prophecy, it has to be specific, detailed, contain information not known at the time, and should only have one meaning. If should not be open to many different interpretations, based on changing cultural values.

Nowhere in the bible or any other ancient text does it say, "There will be in the 20th century, a country called the United States of America, and it will be the most powerful land in the world for about 100 years, then another country with far more people called China will take over."

There are NO references to incidents in China, the US, the Americas, England, Russia or South Africa in the bible at all. No references to pandas, kangaroos, polar bears, penguins or llamas, either. No references to any of the important discoveries, inventions, medical advances. No, "Relax, we will someday find a cure for leprosy and it will not be bird's blood. People will be able to fly in giant air ships across the oceans in a few hours. Women won't have to give birth in pain because of medicine. And gay people will turn out to be really cool." 

Why not? Because the people back then in the Middle East did not know that any of those things would happen.

So, to say that a particular vague passage about a small country and a big country and a bronze something and a kingdom has any specific meaning, you have to fill in a lot of blanks with stuff that only makes sense in retrospect. That hardly counts as a prophecy.

Countries and wordings have changed over time.  The silence on a subject, does not prove that it was not known. However, a closer look will prove otherwise. In brief, here are some points to consider.

1. The Land of Sinim = China - http://www.adventistonline.com/group/chineseadventistsaroundtheworld/forum/topics/china-in-bible-prophecy (http://www.adventistonline.com/group/chineseadventistsaroundtheworld/forum/topics/china-in-bible-prophecy)

a) Surely these shall come from afar; Look, those from the north and the west; And these from the land of Sinim. (Isaiah 49: 12)
b) About the land of Sinim, God says "Your walls are continually before Me.” (Isaiah 49: 15 - 16).

2. America is described as the "Image of the Beast" which is "coming up out of the earth" towards the end of the age. (Revelation 13:11) See previous post on the Catholic Church being the Beast - Antichrist power of Rome.

"Revelation 13:11 ...'and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.' ... This nation rises with "lamb like" features. Christ Jesus as we know is the true Lamb, so this new kingdom would be "Christ-like" and be based upon Christian principles. Now if you take a look at Revelation 12, you will find a woman, a symbol of God's true church, being persecuted by the dragon, a symbol of Satan and the nation of Rome. This persecution comes from the Roman Catholic Church during the 1260 years that it reigned between 538 - 1798. It says in verse 16 that the earth helped the woman escape from the persecution and false teachings of the Papal Church. This is another reference to the new nation of America where Christians fled to find religious freedom away from the Roman Catholic Church.

Interesting Note: The original name of the area upon which we find Capitol Hill today in Washington DC, was ROME. Any wonder why the Capitol Hill building looks just like the Vatican?" See link http://endrtimes.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/rome-mary-land-usa.html (http://endrtimes.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/rome-mary-land-usa.html)  It really is "an image" of the beast just as the Bible said it would be.

Source for point 2 http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/america-bible-prophecy.html (http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/america-bible-prophecy.html)

3.  I could go on about all the other countries, but if these points above do not challenge your current trail of thought, then maybe we can come back to it.

4.  As for the prophecy examples you give, these are just red herrings. Biblical prophecy is unique in that all true prophets are tested according to the biblical standard... all of which other so-called prophets, failed, hence why we reject them. The Bible does say false prophets may give true prophesies as some are easier to make than others, but they are to be tested  according to the Spirit of God and His standard, not mans waffle.





Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 10:06:25 PM
I propose a game that may prove rather educational and relevant to the current topic of discussion.

SwordOfGod, give us an example of a false prophecy.  From the bible or any other text or wherever, but pick a prophecy that you consider is false and can be demonstrated as false (i.e. a prophecy that had predicated or described an event that has already happened but was written prior to said event).

I would guess that, collectively, we could create an interpretation of the state of events of the world that satisfy the fulfillment of that prophesy with...say, a 90% success rate.

Would you like to play a game?





Sure why not lol.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 10:18:52 PM
I propose a game that may prove rather educational and relevant to the current topic of discussion.

SwordOfGod, give us an example of a false prophecy.  From the bible or any other text or wherever, but pick a prophecy that you consider is false and can be demonstrated as false (i.e. a prophecy that had predicated or described an event that has already happened but was written prior to said event).

I would guess that, collectively, we could create an interpretation of the state of events of the world that satisfy the fulfillment of that prophesy with...say, a 90% success rate.

Would you like to play a game?


Im looking forward to this game hehehe.

here is an example of a false prophet; a man called Gerald Coates.  Before you start googling who he is, here is the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Coates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Coates)

Basically, he is one of the pioneers of a very popular mainstream Christian fundamentalist Charasmatic / Pentecostal church movement.  I used to be in their church  until I came to the Seventh-day Adventists.

Here is his so-called 'prophecy';

I wonder Dr. Kendall if you could come here please.
God has put such a deep concern - the seed in your heart for that place of Westminster. Not just the Chapel but for all of those that live in it - within its shadow. I see that God has narrowed you down and narrowed you down and narrowed you down and the cry has gone up so long as you walk the streets on a Saturday morning, as you've been at home in your apartment - 'How long, how long, how long, how long, how long, how long?' God has continued to narrow you down and narrow you down and narrow you down. He's beginning to take away everything that you thought you could trust in, all the things that were safe, but the Spirit of the Lord is upon you. The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you in increasing power, but you need to understand that over these next eighteen months although many attacks will come, that if you are faithful to God, faithful to all that He's taught you, faithful to your brothers and not seek to achieve in human strength what only God can achieve by His Holy Spirit, in eighteen months from this month, in eighteen months from April 1995 your church, Westminster Chapel, will be unrecognisable, completely utterly and totally unrecognisable. And as you walk with your God and allow Him to narrow you down and narrow you down, you will indeed become a man of great laughter and many tears, and as a result of that humility that God will bring about your attempts to bring about the things that you long to see will diminish and the Holy Spirit will increase in power. In eighteen months, in eighteen months, in eighteen months, in eighteen months the Spirit of God - not just upon Westminster Chapel, but upon Westminster itself, upon the high of the land, upon many who live in that area, is going to come on that place and many of your prayers - taxi drivers would get out of their taxis because the Spirit of God is so strong in that place - you're going to see them fulfilled. And it will come from the most unlikely sources, it will not come through the people you would like it to be through, it'll come through the most unlikely sources. And if you keep your heart and your eyes open the Spirit of God is going to surprise us all. The Spirit of God is going to surprise us all. I ask, Lord, for my friend Dr. Kendall, that You will fill him with Your Holy Spirit from the top of his head to the toes of his feet, fill with the presence of God, saturated and learning to carry that presence in his heart and his mind, in Jesus' Name.


Source: http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-473-False-prophecy-today.htm

PS.  I do not have the views of the link above, it is not Adventist.  However, I use the link to highlight an example of false prophecy.

Let the games begin!
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: voodoo child on February 20, 2014, 11:05:44 PM
Im looking forward to this game hehehe.

Another case of Pareidolia, this has been played before you were born.
But if you are game… Jesus was a made up person I do not think he ever existed.
Prove to me/us otherwise.

you never answered my question... although it was irrelevant to this op.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 20, 2014, 11:16:31 PM
Im looking forward to this game hehehe.

Another case of Pareidolia, this has been played before you were born.
But if you are game… Jesus was a made up person I do not think he ever existed.
Prove to me/us otherwise.

you never answered my question... although it was irrelevant to this op.

No intelligent student of truth seeking would deny the existence of Jesus. Only the deceived with a false set premise in mind would proclaim such lies from the pit of hell.  The devil is the Father of Lies and his children follow him to perdition. Do not be deceived.



Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: voodoo child on February 20, 2014, 11:26:45 PM

 The devil is the Father of Lies and his children follow him to perdition. Do not be deceived.

I am sorry I don't understand woo woo.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Astreja on February 21, 2014, 01:57:02 AM
As promised, SwordOfGod et al., I found some material that analyzes the Isaiah prophesy controversy:  Authorship of Isaiah (http://bible-translation.net/page/authorship-of-isaiah) by Gleason L. Archer.

In addition to suggesting that the Cyrus chapters are later additions, this essay also puts forth an interesting hypothesis:  That there may have been a "school" of students of Isaiah that maintained and added to the scripture:

Quote
Some more recent scholars, such as W. H. Brownlee, are coming to the view that the entire Isaianic corpus of sixty-six chapters betrays such strong evidences of unity as to suggest an orderly and systematic arrangement by one or more adherents of a so-called Isaianic School. According to this position, a circle of disciples treasured a recollection of the eighth-century prophet’s utterances and then gradually added to them with each successive generation until finally an able practitioner of this school, living possibly in the third century, reworked the entire body of material into a well-ordered literary masterpiece.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Anfauglir on February 21, 2014, 07:24:49 AM
.....in eighteen months from this month, in eighteen months from April 1995 your church, Westminster Chapel, will be unrecognisable, completely utterly and totally unrecognisable. .....taxi drivers would get out of their taxis because the Spirit of God is so strong in that place - you're going to see them fulfilled.

Interesting.  How does that meet your definition of a prophecy that you gave here?

No, we know when a prophecy is a prophecy.  We just dont know the full meaning of it until its fulfillment.. hence the word 'ful-fill-ment.'

As explained above, we may have an idea what it means, but we will not know exactly how untill it is fulfilled and we see the event.

Your definition of a "false prophecy" is specific and definite, and so far as I can see gives an exact and measurable prediction that can be agreed upon before the fulfilment.

In other words, your definition of "prophecy" is self-fulfilling.  Or can you give an example of a statement that was agreed before the event was a definite prophecy, but later found out not to be?  If you cannot, then there surely is no such thing as an "unfulfilled prophecy"?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 08:12:33 AM

 The devil is the Father of Lies and his children follow him to perdition. Do not be deceived.

I am sorry I don't understand woo woo.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them woo woo.

Source:  Holy Bible, the best book on earth.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 21, 2014, 08:38:19 AM

 The devil is the Father of Lies and his children follow him to perdition. Do not be deceived.

I am sorry I don't understand woo woo.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them woo woo.

Source:  Holy Bible, the best book on earth.

When you source something, such as from the Bible, you give chapter and verse as well as the book. See, this is done with other books: people name the book, the chapter and sometimes the page you find it on.

You're arguing with skilled debaters; if you want a chance at actually winning an argument I suggest you learn the basic rules of debate, and also learn quoting an extremely biased book as the Bible will get you nowhere.

FYI.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Astreja on February 21, 2014, 08:59:04 AM
Source:  Holy Bible, the best book on earth.

My personal shortlist for Best Book on Earth has Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in the top spot, with honourable mention to Good Omens.  ;D
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 09:23:14 AM
Underline indicates previous post comments.


".....in eighteen months from this month, in eighteen months from April 1995 your church, Westminster Chapel, will be unrecognisable, completely utterly and totally unrecognisable. .....taxi drivers would get out of their taxis because the Spirit of God is so strong in that place - you're going to see them fulfilled."


Quote
Interesting.  How does that meet your definition of a prophecy that you gave here?

It meets the definition of a false prophecy.  A prophecy spoken, must be tested by the Biblical standard of who is a 'prophet'.  The Bible is the only 'acid test' to put it in scientific terms. 


"No, we know when a prophecy is a prophecy.  We just dont know the full meaning of it until its fulfillment.. hence the word 'ful-fill-ment.'

As explained above, we may have an idea what it means, but we will not know exactly how untill it is fulfilled and we see the event."


Quote
Your definition of a "false prophecy" is specific and definite, and so far as I can see gives an exact and measurable prediction that can be agreed upon before the fulfilment.

I quote a false prophecy.  True prophecies can also be specific and definite, however, as explained before, we know in part, not in full until the 'ful-fill-ment' when we get all the understnading.  In this case, the King of babylon, knew some of the details, what to expect, but he did not know who the 3rd and 4th kinsdoms would be, he just knew they, whoever they are, would come.  The king of Babylon believed his kingdom would last forever so he built the image he saw in his dream all in Gold, signifying that babylon would rule forever and not accept defeat from other invading kingdoms.  As we know, Babylon was crushed to smithereens and it was indeed taken over by the Medes and the persians as God said through Daniel to the King. See the proof from the Prophet Daniel 2:31 below:

"Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. 32The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. 34While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.

36“This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. 37Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; 38in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.

39“After you, another kingdom will arise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. 40Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. 41Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.


44And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. 45Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.
[/b][/i]"

"PERES; Thy kingdom has been broken and is given to the Medes and Persians". Daniel 5:28

Daniel is very specific in his prophecy.  He says to the King of Babylon YOU ARE THE HEAD OF GOLD, i.e Babylon.  Bold indicates few of the specific details of all the kingdoms that followed in that dream. Rome was divided in two as a historical fact in 395 (see source below) Rome was depicted as the 2 legs of iron in the dream and the Roman kingdom then became subdivided into ten kingdoms signified by the feet with ten toes, partly of iron, partly of clay, showing its weakness.

First division of Rome in 395 by Theodosius 1 see source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Roman_Empire

And then, the divided Roman empire became subdived into ten kingdoms, just as daniel said represented by the toes.


1. Alemanni - Germany.   
2. Visigoths - Spain.
3. Franks - France.   
4. Anglo-Saxons - England.
5. Burgundians - Switzerland.   
6. Ostrogoths - Exterminated.
7. Suevi - Portugal.   
8. Lombards - Italy.
9. Vandals - Exterminated.   
10. Heruli - Exterminated.

Source: http://www.danielbibleprophecy.org/ten_divisions_of_rome.html

Futhermore, verse 43 of daniel 2, states that there would be a diverse people who would not remain united in Europe, even though governments try to go against the Bible by uniting the nations, with a European union.  It will not work, for the people will not remain united, even though political leaders try.  Napoleon tried it, Mousillini tried it, Hitler tried it and the EU have tried it.  All have failed. You only have to look in the news about racism and riots to show how people are not united.


Quote
In other words, your definition of "prophecy" is self-fulfilling.  Or can you give an example of a statement that was agreed before the event was a definite prophecy, but later found out not to be?  If you cannot, then there surely is no such thing as an "unfulfilled prophecy"?

The above prophecy from Gerald coats failed.  It was specific, agreed upon before the supposed event, but never came to pass. On the other hand, Daniel said who would rule, and he was correct.  However, a prophet can only be accepted as a prophet on certain grounds, not just fulfilled prophesies alone.

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 21, 2014, 09:27:45 AM
Quote from: SwordofGod
It meets the definition of a false prophecy.  A prophecy spoken, must be tested by the Biblical standard of who is a 'prophet'.  The Bible is the only 'acid test' to put it in scientific terms.

There's nothing "scientific" in the Bible.

For the rest: show evidence outside the Bible that doesn't use the Bible as its main source that the rest of what you state ever happened, or the people ever existed.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 09:29:56 AM

 The devil is the Father of Lies and his children follow him to perdition. Do not be deceived.

I am sorry I don't understand woo woo.


For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them woo woo.

Source:  Holy Bible, the best book on earth.

When you source something, such as from the Bible, you give chapter and verse as well as the book. See, this is done with other books: people name the book, the chapter and sometimes the page you find it on.

You're arguing with skilled debaters; if you want a chance at actually winning an argument I suggest you learn the basic rules of debate, and also learn quoting an extremely biased book as the Bible will get you nowhere.

FYI.

-Nam

Where's your source?  You cant just make up claims about people being skilled debaters without having any proof. So Ill dismiss that comment as baseless twaddle until you come up with some sort of evidence of skill for all the debaters you speak for on this forum.

I suggest you keep waffle to yourself unless you have any proof to back it up.

Tick tock tick tock...


Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 09:35:04 AM
Quote from: SwordofGod
It meets the definition of a false prophecy.  A prophecy spoken, must be tested by the Biblical standard of who is a 'prophet'.  The Bible is the only 'acid test' to put it in scientific terms.

There's nothing "scientific" in the Bible.

For the rest: show evidence outside the Bible that doesn't use the Bible as its main source that the rest of what you state ever happened, or the people ever existed.

-Nam


Your sweeping (incorrect) statements are boring. There's nothing scientific in your statement either.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 21, 2014, 09:43:17 AM
Quote from: SwordofGod
It meets the definition of a false prophecy.  A prophecy spoken, must be tested by the Biblical standard of who is a 'prophet'.  The Bible is the only 'acid test' to put it in scientific terms.

There's nothing "scientific" in the Bible.

For the rest: show evidence outside the Bible that doesn't use the Bible as its main source that the rest of what you state ever happened, or the people ever existed.

-Nam


Your sweeping (incorrect) statements are boring. There's nothing scientific in your statement either.

Is that a dodge? Did I say anything or even imply anything in my comment to you was "scientific"? If what you state is true, about the Bible having scientific merit then show me without using the Bible or any book that uses the Bible as its main source.

Ditto on the first request of what I state above.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Anfauglir on February 21, 2014, 09:44:00 AM
I quote a false prophecy.  True prophecies can also be specific and definite, however, as explained before, we know in part, not in full until the 'ful-fill-ment' when we get all the understnading. 

So to summarise:

1) A prophecy is only a true prophecy when it is recognised as such after the fact.
2) A statement cannot be reliably identified as likely to be a prophecy before the fact.

If I've got those right, is there any way in which a believer can "lose" the prophecy game?  Statements are either prophecies (when they come true) or false prophecies (when they do not), and you can claim a 100% success rate on your definition.

Feel free to dispute that - but to do so, you would need to detail something identified as a prophecy that did NOT come true.  And by your definition that is impossible.

Can you even come up with something that most people agreed appeared to be likely to be a prophecy, but later was proved false?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jaimehlers on February 21, 2014, 09:45:14 AM
No intelligent student of truth seeking would deny the existence of Jesus. Only the deceived with a false set premise in mind would proclaim such lies from the pit of hell.  The devil is the Father of Lies and his children follow him to perdition. Do not be deceived.
Are you sure that you're not the one being deceived?

It's really easy to make something bad look good, and something good look bad, in a story.  And when you get right down to it, YHWH is a pretty mean and vindictive god, not to mention being unable to hit the broadside of a barn (the great flood hit the entire world, and he nuked an entire valley to get Sodom and Gomorrah).  Almost makes me wonder if he's myopic or something.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jaimehlers on February 21, 2014, 09:50:56 AM
It meets the definition of a false prophecy.  A prophecy spoken, must be tested by the Biblical standard of who is a 'prophet'.  The Bible is the only 'acid test' to put it in scientific terms.
How do you know the biblical standard is any more reliable than any other standard one might choose for what is a prophecy?  I mean, when you get right down to it, people have had access to the Bible and the supposed prophecies contained therein for millennia.  It would not have been difficult at all to make the prophecies of the old testament seem to come true by inventing a character named Jesus who could easily fulfill them since he was no more real than, say, Luke Skywalker., thus making it look like their religion was true.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: voodoo child on February 21, 2014, 10:33:07 AM
I find prophecies akin to the Witch doctors wife throwing chicken bones across the table.   



Squirrel !
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 11:02:38 AM
Quote from: SwordofGod
It meets the definition of a false prophecy.  A prophecy spoken, must be tested by the Biblical standard of who is a 'prophet'.  The Bible is the only 'acid test' to put it in scientific terms.

There's nothing "scientific" in the Bible.

For the rest: show evidence outside the Bible that doesn't use the Bible as its main source that the rest of what you state ever happened, or the people ever existed.

-Nam

Nam.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_FmADVggCk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_FmADVggCk)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jaimehlers on February 21, 2014, 11:05:29 AM
^So, SwordofGod, are you admitting that you have no such evidence?

Posting a Youtube video with the words "our survey said ... fail" rather strongly implies that you don't, since if you did, you wouldn't hesitate to post it.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 21, 2014, 11:20:01 AM
A 2 second video that is an opinion based on some unknown survey[1] is your evidence?

You failed, not me. If I made claims as you do, I'd back them up.

-Nam
 1. unless the video is sarcasm, which I'm thinking it is
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on February 21, 2014, 11:25:40 AM
Hey S.O.G., I was wondering how you can say other Christian churches "deviate from historical Christianity" by eating Pork and worshiping on Sunday when Paul seems to be saying these things are okay in Romans 14.  You might think it is wrong to eat Pork and worship on Sunday but listen to what Paul says, "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean to him it is unclean" (v. 14).  So it is okay to say FOR YOURSELF that eating pork is wrong but you can't say other Christian Churches are "deviating from historical Christianity".  Paul also says people "must be fully convinced IN HIS OWN MIND" as to which day to "observe" (v. 5,6).  If you ask me, the SDA's are diverting from historical Christianity.  Actually, that might not be totally correct.  I would say the SDA's are diverting from historical PAULinity.       

2. America is described as the "Image of the Beast" which is "coming up out of the earth" towards the end of the age. (Revelation 13:11) See previous post on the Catholic Church being the Beast - Antichrist power of Rome.

Now I think you are a victim of this disease called "SDA brainwashing".  America is described as the "Image of the Beast"???  And you get that out of Rev. 13:11.  Okay, let's keep reading...."He (America) exercises all the authority of the first beast (Roman Catholic Church) in his presence.  And he (America) makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast (Roman Catholic Church) whose fatal wound has been healed".  When has America made the whole earth worship the Roman Catholic Church?  Please respond by saying, "It hasn't happened yet but it will happen" because I need a good laugh today.

Continuing in Rev. 13 verse 13 it states, "He (America) performs great signs, so that he (America) makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men".  WOW!  Maybe the other beast is America!  America does make fireworks "come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men" on the forth of July.  Prophecy fulfilled!!! ;D


It says in verse 16 that the earth helped the woman escape from the persecution and false teachings of the Papal Church. This is another reference to the new nation of America where Christians fled to find religious freedom away from the Roman Catholic Church.

Where does it say in Rev. 12:16 that "the earth helped the woman escape from the persecution and false teachings of the Papal Church"?  I know you got in trouble for plagiarizing earlier but if it is going to be anything to plagiarize, please plagiarize the bible.  Don't just add to the bible and put words in a verse that cannot be found.  I really think you are a victim of SDA brainwashing.

Just to let you know, you are adding to a verse in Revelation and Revelation 22:18 says, "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city...".

I'm worried for you S.O.G.!

The Bible does say false prophets may give true prophesies as some are easier to make than others, but they are to be tested  according to the Spirit of God and His standard, not mans waffle.

I don't think the bible says "false prophets may give true prophesies".  Instead, the bible says just the opposite.  Deut. 18:22 says, " When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him".  I would not be surprised if I was to find a verse in the bible that contradicts this.  What verse are you pulling from to say "false prophets may give true prophesies"???

Maybe I can learn something from you today.  I am unaware of this claim in the bible.  I do know that false prophets give false prophesies.  You know, like Jesus prophesying all the signs accompanying his return, and his second coming, would happen in the generation of his followers (Mark 13:30).
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 11:39:26 AM
I quote a false prophecy.  True prophecies can also be specific and definite, however, as explained before, we know in part, not in full until the 'ful-fill-ment' when we get all the understnading. 

So to summarise:

1) A prophecy is only a true prophecy when it is recognised as such after the fact.
2) A statement cannot be reliably identified as likely to be a prophecy before the fact.

If I've got those right, is there any way in which a believer can "lose" the prophecy game?  Statements are either prophecies (when they come true) or false prophecies (when they do not), and you can claim a 100% success rate on your definition.

Feel free to dispute that - but to do so, you would need to detail something identified as a prophecy that did NOT come true.  And by your definition that is impossible.

Can you even come up with something that most people agreed appeared to be likely to be a prophecy, but later was proved false?

In response to point 1) A true prophecy is assessed based on the bibles 'acid test', not when it is simply recognized after the fact.

The Bible sets forth several characteristics of the true prophet in relationship to the law and the prophets, or the Scriptures as we know them:

1. He / she will exalt the true God (Deuteronomy 13:1-4).

2. He / she will teach obedience to God's law (2 Chronicles 24:19, 20; Deuteronomy 13:4).

3. He / she will believe and teach that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1 John 4:2, 3).

4. He / she will speak as he is inspired by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21).

Source: http://www.whiteestate.org/books/bhp/bhpc06.html

So, prophet Joseph Smith from the Mormon church for example, would not be classified as a true prophet, since he did not teach the law of God according to the test of true prophethood, and many other things he failed on.

testing of prophesies is not an internal test, or a subjective one.  It is an external, objective test. This is the method of Seventh-day Adventist Christians.

In response to point 2)  A statement is a [true / false] prophecy by definition if one claims something is going to happen in the future, and that they say or claim God has told them it would happen and that these words were not their own.  A prophet should never claim they are his / her own words, but that they are speaking on behalf of God Himself, because God has directed them to do so. 

Deuteronomy 18:21-22, "And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

The true Prophet of the Lord predicts that which does come to pass. If the Prophet's predictions fail, they are exposed as NOT of God.


 Source: http://www.remnantofgod.org/Trueprophets.htm


An honest answer to your question is that a believer can lose the prophecy game if he believes in a false prophet.  I have to admit, I have lost this game before when listening to anyone who claimed to know something about the future as a Christian self styled prophet of God, such as Gerald Coates who I had direct contact with, and who prophesied over my family and I in 1992.  Thats why I left the fundamentalist Christian movement, and became a Seventh-day Adventist.  The tests of prophethood here are applied thoroughly, which is what gives us 100% confidence in them.  No one in our church makes prophesies today.  The word of God is alone is enough. 


Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on February 21, 2014, 11:39:44 AM

 
I'll just label you a stupid fool who is not only deceived by the devil, but on a road to hell with no chance at all.


The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)


3. Don't quote bible at me.  I'm immune to it.  It is like shooting bullets at Superman.  Only, I quote back:


Interesting! I never thought the bible had bullets.  I have had many Christians tell me I'm "on a road to hell" too.  They hold up their bibles like a gun and tell me I'm going to hell.  I just tell them their gun isn't loaded.  I have yet to see any bullets.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 11:43:25 AM
A 2 second video that is an opinion based on some unknown survey[1] is your evidence?

You failed, not me. If I made claims as you do, I'd back them up.

-Nam
 1. unless the video is sarcasm, which I'm thinking it is

Ra ha ha ha ha!

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 11:46:19 AM
^So, SwordofGod, are you admitting that you have no such evidence?

Posting a Youtube video with the words "our survey said ... fail" rather strongly implies that you don't, since if you did, you wouldn't hesitate to post it.

Clowns get a jokers response.  Questions that are worth giving a decent response to, I reply to as best I can.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 11:49:28 AM

 
I'll just label you a stupid fool who is not only deceived by the devil, but on a road to hell with no chance at all.


The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)


3. Don't quote bible at me.  I'm immune to it.  It is like shooting bullets at Superman.  Only, I quote back:


Interesting! I never thought the bible had bullets.  I have had many Christians tell me I'm "on a road to hell" too.  They hold up their bibles like a gun and tell me I'm going to hell.  I just tell them their gun isn't loaded.  I have yet to see any bullets.

If you mean that I was responsible for point 3 comment above, that was not my wording. It was another forum member. 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Anfauglir on February 21, 2014, 12:26:46 PM
The Bible sets forth several characteristics of the true prophet in relationship to the law and the prophets, or the Scriptures as we know them:

1. He / she will exalt the true God (Deuteronomy 13:1-4).

2. He / she will teach obedience to God's law (2 Chronicles 24:19, 20; Deuteronomy 13:4).

3. He / she will believe and teach that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1 John 4:2, 3).

4. He / she will speak as he is inspired by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21).

.....
I have to admit, I have lost this game before .....

Wait - you mean you applied all the tests from the Bible, they were passed, and the prophecy proved to be wrong?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 01:12:31 PM
No.  When all tests are passed, then it is a true prophecy. Only a true prophecy will come to pass from a true prophet of God.  Prophets which do not meet the criteria fail.

Coming from the Pentecostal background, I did not know this.  When I realised what the tests of a true prophet are according to the Bible, I re-examined my beliefs and adjusted them accordingly, hence now being a Seventh-day Adventist.

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 21, 2014, 01:22:44 PM
^So, SwordofGod, are you admitting that you have no such evidence?

Posting a Youtube video with the words "our survey said ... fail" rather strongly implies that you don't, since if you did, you wouldn't hesitate to post it.

Clowns get a jokers response.  Questions that are worth giving a decent response to, I reply to as best I can.

Bullshit.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: screwtape on February 21, 2014, 02:09:24 PM
When I realised what the tests of a true prophet are according to the Bible,

Have you considered that the tests the bible proposes might be... sub-optimal?  That is, they may yield false positives and negatives.  Or what tests might be used from the point of view of a rationalist?   

I ask because the bible was written long before anyone understood how the brain worked, or biases, or anything about epistemology.  Here is the thing: there are 33,000+ sects of xianity.  Many of them have very different interpretations as to what prophesies mean, how they were "fulfilled", whether the were fulfilled, etc. And they all pretty much claim to use the bible as a guide to know real prophets and prophesies from fake ones. 

To me, all this confusion indicates that the methods laid out in the bible are...not very good. The results are not reproduceable, as we would say in quality jargon.  That is, you have a process that varies widely when use by different people.  That is a poor process.

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on February 21, 2014, 02:14:42 PM

 
I'll just label you a stupid fool who is not only deceived by the devil, but on a road to hell with no chance at all.


The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)


3. Don't quote bible at me.  I'm immune to it.  It is like shooting bullets at Superman.  Only, I quote back:


Interesting! I never thought the bible had bullets.  I have had many Christians tell me I'm "on a road to hell" too.  They hold up their bibles like a gun and tell me I'm going to hell.  I just tell them their gun isn't loaded.  I have yet to see any bullets.

If you mean that I was responsible for point 3 comment above, that was not my wording. It was another forum member.

I find it interesting that the only response I get from you is from a post that was not even directed to you.  I responded to your claims with two long posts in this thread and you have failed to address even one of my questions.  I know you are getting shot up pretty good in this war zone but I find it interesting that the only response I get from you is from a post that was not even directed towards you.  I was joking around with SCREWTAPE.  This post of mine was directed to SCREWTAPE.  I did not say YOU were responsible for point 3.  If you look carefully at the quotes, you can see this.  I think you are just dodging my #268 reply and #343 reply.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jaimehlers on February 21, 2014, 02:45:48 PM
Clowns get a jokers response.  Questions that are worth giving a decent response to, I reply to as best I can.
I certainly don't think Nam was clowning or joking around.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jaimehlers on February 21, 2014, 03:03:16 PM
The Bible sets forth several characteristics of the true prophet in relationship to the law and the prophets, or the Scriptures as we know them:

1. He / she will exalt the true God (Deuteronomy 13:1-4).

2. He / she will teach obedience to God's law (2 Chronicles 24:19, 20; Deuteronomy 13:4).

3. He / she will believe and teach that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1 John 4:2, 3).

4. He / she will speak as he is inspired by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21).

Source: http://www.whiteestate.org/books/bhp/bhpc06.html
This all assumes that your belief is actually true.  How do you know this without falling into the trap of circular reasoning?  That is to say, what outside the Bible stands as solid evidence to support only your belief and no other?

Second, this is post hoc reasoning even so, because a false (but earnest) prophet can easily meet the conditions you described.  The only way to tell if they are true or false is whether their prophecies come true or not.

Third, it is incredibly easy for a person to interpret prophecy to suit their whim.  A prophecy that seems false could actually be shown to be true much later on, and a prophecy that seems true could actually end up being false (because people tried to manipulate events to make it come true).  So how do you tell whether it's true or false when someone could come along later and show that a seemingly false prophecy was actually true, and a seemingly true prophecy was actually false?

In short, it's practically impossible to tell whether a prophecy was true or false.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Astreja on February 21, 2014, 03:19:01 PM
Because of the tendency to interpret prophetic statements in hindsight, to make virtually any passage fit virtually any situation, I propose two conditions for a genuine prophesy:

Thus, a prediction such as the formation or breakdown of a nation would not be a prophesy, whereas an account of a December 26, 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean would be.

At least until humans figure out how to make tsunamis or time machines; then all bets are off.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 06:07:13 PM

 
I'll just label you a stupid fool who is not only deceived by the devil, but on a road to hell with no chance at all.


The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)


3. Don't quote bible at me.  I'm immune to it.  It is like shooting bullets at Superman.  Only, I quote back:


Interesting! I never thought the bible had bullets.  I have had many Christians tell me I'm "on a road to hell" too.  They hold up their bibles like a gun and tell me I'm going to hell.  I just tell them their gun isn't loaded.  I have yet to see any bullets.

If you mean that I was responsible for point 3 comment above, that was not my wording. It was another forum member.

I find it interesting that the only response I get from you is from a post that was not even directed to you.  I responded to your claims with two long posts in this thread and you have failed to address even one of my questions.  I know you are getting shot up pretty good in this war zone but I find it interesting that the only response I get from you is from a post that was not even directed towards you.  I was joking around with SCREWTAPE.  This post of mine was directed to SCREWTAPE.  I did not say YOU were responsible for point 3.  If you look carefully at the quotes, you can see this.  I think you are just dodging my #268 reply and #343 reply.

I am not dodging your reply.  Please accept my apologies if that's how it came across.  I'm just getting used to this forum thing. Would you mind sending me your post again?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 06:09:58 PM
Clowns get a jokers response.  Questions that are worth giving a decent response to, I reply to as best I can.
I certainly don't think Nam was clowning or joking around.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but since it was me the comments were made to, I'll be the judge of that.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 07:06:12 PM
Quote
This all assumes that your belief is actually true.  How do you know this without falling into the trap of circular reasoning?  That is to say, what outside the Bible stands as solid evidence to support only your belief and no other?


First of all, the problem of circular reasoning is often found among scientists:

A '...geologist who has recognized the circularity problem is Dr. Ronald West, at Kansas State University.'

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
(http://www.icr.org/article/94/)

Anyway, as mentioned, the acid test which verifies a prophet as bone fide, initially comes from the Bible.  All prophets which deviate from this, are false. The Bible sets the standard in the same way western science sets its own standards.   

21 And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?' — 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:21-22; NKJV)

Arguably, using this verse to prove a prophet is true is not circular reasoning.  A is true, so that does not mean that B is true.  B could be true or false. A = the Bible, B being the prophet or prophecy. Circular reasoning says 'A is true because B is true' 'B is true because A is true. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning).  If the prophet is potentially true, it is because he has met the criteria set out in the test, but it must be meaured by external evidence. 

So, here comes the external evidence apart from the bible.  If the prophet fits the criteria on paper so to speak, in line with the full biblical acid test, it is compared with actual world events, not necessarily listed in the bible. The prophecy could be verified by other sources, such as newspapers, tv programs etc.  If the prophecy did not come to pass, then that person has failed.  The external evidence outside the bible is vital if we are to increase our faith and understand the fulfillment of prophecy.  What helps contribute to our faith in Gods prophets, is their track record as well.

Prophecy is not open to interpretation as God meant what He meant and not ten or a hundred other things. The Bible is clear what it means.  When Daniel told the King of Bablylon, "You are the Head of Gold" it was clear what Daniel meat to us.  It means Babylon is represented by the Gold head in the dream of the male image.  When Daniel says another kingdom will come after Babylon and replace it, which was represented by Silver, we know that means the Medo Persians.  In Daniel 5, this is clarified. So it continues. It is very specific. We have used external evidence i.e historical facts, sources and other items to prove that the Medo-Persians did infact take over Babylon, and then Greece, and then the divided kingdom of Rome. 


Quote
Second, this is post hoc reasoning even so, because a false (but earnest) prophet can easily meet the conditions you described.  The only way to tell if they are true or false is whether their prophecies come true or not.

A false prophet can not easilly meet the conditions I described.  For example, how many prophets after Jesus, kept the 7th day Sabbath, kept all 10 commandments, believed Jesus was the Son of God, and all the other criteria within those basic outlines of the acid test, and got all their prophecies right? So, Mormons have a prophet who keeps and taught Sunday observance, therefore on that alone, he is a false prophet, no matter if all his prophesies came to pass.  Prophets have to meet ALL criteria. The way to tell first off, which normally cuts them off straight away, is according to Isaiah 8:20.. To the Law and to the testimony, if the prophet speaks not according to this it is because there is no light in him.  This means, included in the Law is the Sabbath teaching, so if the prophet does not teach and observe this law just as the testimony of the other biblical prophets agree, then we can discard him or her straight away as a false prophet.  Joseph smith never taught the Sabbath, therefore he is a false prophet.  Muhammed never taught the law either, i.e the sabbath, nor did he teach his followers to observe it, therefore he is a false prophet and so on. Thats even before we get to what they actually said.

Quote
Third, it is incredibly easy for a person to interpret prophecy to suit their whim.  A prophecy that seems false could actually be shown to be true much later on, and a prophecy that seems true could actually end up being false (because people tried to manipulate events to make it come true).  So how do you tell whether it's true or false when someone could come along later and show that a seemingly false prophecy was actually true, and a seemingly true prophecy was actually false?

Bearing in mind the above points, there is a whole host of other criteria as well.  Since most christians and other faiths do not keep the Sabbath, which is part of the Moral Law of God, or the Ten Commandments, then prophecy for them will become very confusing and subjective in nature.  If the prophet does not speak according to the law or the testimony (i.e teach what other biblical prophets teach concerning the law) of other biblical prophets, then he or she is no prophet of God.

Quote
In short, it's practically impossible to tell whether a prophecy was true or false.

I would disagree.  Start by objectively looking at the biblical criteria, teach the law, teach what other biblical prophets teach, etc.. then we can build or close a prophets portfolio based on that... taking into consideration external evidence such as world events.


PS.  A false prophet in terms of Christianity does not have to mean that he got all his prophesies wrong so he's a false prophet, as some false prophets have arguably made predictions which have come true.  However, they never get all right, and often truth is mixed in with error.  Thats why we have to conduct the full test and ask questions such as 'do they teach the law and observe the sabbath?'  Most so-called prophets, fail this test.  Psychics and mediums etc can get things right, but they often get things wrong as well. The key here is fulfilling Biblical criteria.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 21, 2014, 07:41:28 PM
Clowns get a jokers response.  Questions that are worth giving a decent response to, I reply to as best I can.
I certainly don't think Nam was clowning or joking around.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but since it was me the comments were made to, I'll be the judge of that.

Garbage. You couldn't answer the questions without the Bible which in of itself proves how unscientific it is because if it's scientific, or true then you can prove everything in it without the Bible.

-Nam

Minor typo invisibly corrected
GB Mod
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 08:41:01 PM
Clowns get a jokers response.  Questions that are worth giving a decent response to, I reply to as best I can.
I certainly don't think Nam was clowning or joking around.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but since it was me the comments were made to, I'll be the judge of that.

Garbage. You couldn't answer the questions without the Bible which in of itself proves how unscientific it is because if it's scientific, or true then you can prove everything in it without the Bible.

-Nam

As above
GB Mod


Nam...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW2LJYDbNFk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW2LJYDbNFk)





Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Graybeard on February 21, 2014, 08:57:18 PM
Quote
This all assumes that your belief is actually true.  How do you know this without falling into the trap of circular reasoning?  That is to say, what outside the Bible stands as solid evidence to support only your belief and no other?


First of all, the problem of circular reasoning is often found among scientists: [text displaying a lack of critical thinking deleted]

The standard reply to the above is:

“Science knows it doesn’t know everything, otherwise, it would stop. Just because science doesn’t know everything, it doesn’t mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairytale most appeals to you.” Dara O'Briain

“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”

Penn Jillette, God, No!: Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: screwtape on February 21, 2014, 09:47:37 PM
A '...geologist who has recognized the circularity problem is Dr. Ronald West, at Kansas State University.'

Sorry, I'm not finding any such person.  The only Dr Ronald West I find is a dentist in Nevada.  Are you sure he's real?  It is quite common for creationists to fabricate or invent such quotes out of thin air and attribute them it fictitious people.  Which is weird, because that would in fact be bearing false witness.  And yet it happens all the time. 

Xians.  Go figure.

Edit: nevermind.  The link you gave quotes him from 1968.  1968, dude!  Do you think your dig up something more recent, from a journal that still exists, from a guy who is quoted from saying something - anything - else?  Jeez. 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Backspace on February 21, 2014, 10:02:15 PM
The Bible sets forth several characteristics of the true prophet in relationship to the law and the prophets, or the Scriptures as we know them:

1. He / she will exalt the true God (Deuteronomy 13:1-4).

2. He / she will teach obedience to God's law (2 Chronicles 24:19, 20; Deuteronomy 13:4).

3. He / she will believe and teach that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1 John 4:2, 3).

4. He / she will speak as he is inspired by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21).

I would think knowing the characteristics of a true prophet would be of some importance to your religion.  Curious why your god thought it best spread those characteristics out individually across the expanse of the old and new testaments rather than in a concise list in its own book or chapter. 


Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: screwtape on February 21, 2014, 10:06:00 PM
A '...geologist who has recognized the circularity problem is Dr. Ronald West, at Kansas State University.'

Sorry, I'm not finding any such person.  The only Dr Ronald West I find is a dentist in Nevada.  Are you sure he's real?  It is quite common for creationists to fabricate or invent such quotes out of thin air and attribute them it fictitious people.  Which is weird, because that would in fact be bearing false witness.  And yet it happens all the time. 

Xians.  Go figure.

Edit: nevermind.  The link you gave quotes him from 1968.  1968, dude!  Do you think your dig up something more recent, from a journal that still exists, from a guy who is quoted from saying something - anything - else?  Jeez.

Edit 2:  more to come.  I was right that creationists lied about this.  SOG, are you prepared to accept this little nugget is wrong?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 10:24:26 PM
Screwtape...

Thanks for your points. Perhaps some of my remarks on post 359 may help answer some of your own concerns below..

Quote
Have you considered that the tests the bible proposes might be... sub-optimal?  That is, they may yield false positives and negatives.  Or what tests might be used from the point of view of a rationalist?
 

I would argue for example, that Adventist theology and by extension, the testing of a prophet, is rationalist, rather than empiricist.  For example, the Mormon Church teaches one can gain knowledge that someone is a true prophet by simply asking God for it and feeling its true in your heart; whats called in Mormon theology a 'Burning in the Bosom' ...literally.  To back this up, they quote James 1:5 that says:

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

Of course, one has to read the bible in its whole context, i.e using the other tests of prophet hood, such as Isaiah 8:20.  The problem is that some church denominations, ignore this to "prove" their prophet. Pentecostalism is the same.  For example, they would say, he [the alleged prophet coming to the service that day] has such a powerful message that you can feel the power of God in the room. His message is so 'anointed' they say, that people will experience the power of God and be healed in his presence... which is totally false. i.e the famous Benny Hinn, the modern day Billy Graham. The experiences are subjective, as these same experiences as argued by Adventists, can be experienced by other spiritual religious movements outside of Christianity.

Adventists on the other hand, would say, we focus on all the tests of a prophet in the bible, which is therefore objective because we are not basing our decision on feeling something is true, but weighing up the facts, text with text, including non-Biblical texts and sources to verify everything is meeting the criteria.  This is why even Catholics, who strongly dislike Adventist theology, call Seventh-day Adventists "...The only consistent Protestant' (http://www.sabbathtruth.com/sabbath-history/denominational-statements-on-the-sabbath/id/982/catholic.aspx)


Quote
I ask because the bible was written long before anyone understood how the brain worked, or biases, or anything about epistemology.  Here is the thing: there are 33,000+ sects of xianity.  Many of them have very different interpretations as to what prophesies mean, how they were "fulfilled", whether the were fulfilled, etc. And they all pretty much claim to use the bible as a guide to know real prophets and prophesies from fake ones. 

I would agree with you 100%. I felt the same way as you do.  You can walk into a Christian bookshop and find 101 answers for the same question, with everyone of them telling them 'God told me it was so'   So, even I as an Adventist, will ask the same questions as you.  Thats because I want solid, certain and rational answers to things. Seventh-day Adventism is, in my view, has the most logical concept of knowing and understanding the Bible. I dont mean to be rude to other denominations when i say that they complicate it. For them it IS complicated because they let their emotions decide for them what is true.  For example, they dont want to keep the Sabbath, so they dont use that test of a prophet.  If you take one piece out, it skews all the other answers, just like in maths.  When you get the formula right, it makes perfect sence.  See our timeline as an example, attached.


(http://understanding-daniel-revelation.com/images/2300_Days.jpg)

Source: http://understanding-daniel-revelation.com/images/2300_Days.jpg

Quote
To me, all this confusion indicates that the methods laid out in the bible are...not very good. The results are not reproduceable, as we would say in quality jargon.  That is, you have a process that varies widely when use by different people.  That is a poor process.

The foundations are the tests of a prophet looked at objectively.  For instance, perhaps the best way for a prophet to be tested, is by asking an Atheist to do the tests objectively, based on measurable facts, i.e, did that prophet teach that we must keep the commandment Law?  (i.e, Do not kill, keep the Sabbath day love your neighbor etc), Did he teach what other prophets taught? Did the prophet point out sin? etc etc.. Does the prophet, if it was after Jesus, teach the incarnation of God as it is in the Gospels?  is there any evidence for or against these claims?   That's how we look at it.

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 10:27:49 PM
A '...geologist who has recognized the circularity problem is Dr. Ronald West, at Kansas State University.'

Sorry, I'm not finding any such person.  The only Dr Ronald West I find is a dentist in Nevada.  Are you sure he's real?  It is quite common for creationists to fabricate or invent such quotes out of thin air and attribute them it fictitious people.  Which is weird, because that would in fact be bearing false witness.  And yet it happens all the time. 

Xians.  Go figure.

Edit: nevermind.  The link you gave quotes him from 1968.  1968, dude!  Do you think your dig up something more recent, from a journal that still exists, from a guy who is quoted from saying something - anything - else?  Jeez.

Edit 2:  more to come.  I was right that creationists lied about this.  SOG, are you prepared to accept this little nugget is wrong?



OK... Just for you screwtape... Im prepared to accept it.. lol BUT Im sure I could find some scientific equivalents for you.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 11:06:58 PM
Quote
This all assumes that your belief is actually true.  How do you know this without falling into the trap of circular reasoning?  That is to say, what outside the Bible stands as solid evidence to support only your belief and no other?


First of all, the problem of circular reasoning is often found among scientists: [text displaying a lack of critical thinking deleted]

The standard reply to the above is:

“Science knows it doesn’t know everything, otherwise, it would stop. Just because science doesn’t know everything, it doesn’t mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairytale most appeals to you.” Dara O'Briain

“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”

Penn Jillette, God, No!: Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales


Your quotes have as much value as;

"Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall... Humpty Dumpty had a great fall" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty)

Science itself has no knowledge of anything. Scientists, differ on who knows what and who can explain this or that. Science is an 'activity', not a knowing entity. God knows everything, including all of science, for he is the source and giver of all we know.

The study of science compliments theological study, but it in no way replaces it, no more than theology replaces science. Objectively studied, both work hand in hand to help us see life as we know it, more clearly.

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on February 21, 2014, 11:17:38 PM


I am not dodging your reply.  Please accept my apologies if that's how it came across.  I'm just getting used to this forum thing. Would you mind sending me your post again?

Thanks.

It is not often I am "in awe" of a four sentence post on this forum.  This was such an amazing post I immediately went to the thumbs up button to give you a "darwin".  I was not surprised to find that you already achieved 2 "karm's" for this post.  Simply amazing! 

All joking aside, I do not want to re-post my previous posts because I want to save the other members from boredom by reading my posts two times.  The two posts you did not respond to were post #268 (page 10) and post #343 (page 12).  The page counter is either on top of the thread page or on the bottom of the thread page.  Every post is numbered.

I know you have a lot going here and I am no big hurry to get a response.  I just thought it was strange that the only time you responded to me was in response to a post that wasn't even directed at you.  I'm patient though.  No need to apologize and I look forward to your response whenever. 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 11:22:54 PM
A '...geologist who has recognized the circularity problem is Dr. Ronald West, at Kansas State University.'

Quote
Sorry, I'm not finding any such person.  The only Dr Ronald West I find is a dentist in Nevada.  Are you sure he's real?  It is quite common for creationists to fabricate or invent such quotes out of thin air and attribute them it fictitious people.  Which is weird, because that would in fact be bearing false witness.  And yet it happens all the time. 

Screwtape... I got a little present for you...

Im afraid Dr Ronald West is a real person lol... you can email him at his university address and verify his quote in person..

 rrwest@k-state.edu

And he is towards the bottom of the university website page.. seeing is believing..  ;D

Source:  http://www.k-state.edu/geology/faculty-staff/

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 11:26:09 PM


I am not dodging your reply.  Please accept my apologies if that's how it came across.  I'm just getting used to this forum thing. Would you mind sending me your post again?

Thanks.

It is not often I am "in awe" of a four sentence post on this forum.  This was such an amazing post I immediately went to the thumbs up button to give you a "darwin".  I was not surprised to find that you already achieved 2 "karm's" for this post.  Simply amazing! 

All joking aside, I do not want to re-post my previous posts because I want to save the other members from boredom by reading my posts two times.  The two posts you did not respond to were post #268 (page 10) and post #343 (page 12).  The page counter is either on top of the thread page or on the bottom of the thread page.  Every post is numbered.

I know you have a lot going here and I am no big hurry to get a response.  I just thought it was strange that the only time you responded to me was in response to a post that wasn't even directed at you.  I'm patient though.  No need to apologize and I look forward to your response whenever.


No problemo... I worked out how to navigate around here a bit better now, so seen the post numbering etc, so I will take a look soon and get back to you.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on February 21, 2014, 11:36:59 PM
God knows everything, including all of science, for he is the source and giver of all we know.

I'm going to call BS on this.  Leviticus 11:20-23 states:

20 ‘All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. 21 Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth. 22 These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds. 23 But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.

God does not know everything including all of science.  Science requires observation.  I observe winged insects to be six-footed, not "four-footed" like your alleged omniscient god told humans in his holy book.  If he is the "source and giver of all we know" then why do I know winged insects have six legs and not four. 

In addition, If your god is Jesus, then he does not know everything like you claim.  He was ignorant of the timing of his second coming (Mark 13:32).  Even in his resurrected body in heaven he had to be GIVEN "the Revelation" by his daddy so this implies he does not "know everything".
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 21, 2014, 11:41:21 PM
The Bible sets forth several characteristics of the true prophet in relationship to the law and the prophets, or the Scriptures as we know them:

1. He / she will exalt the true God (Deuteronomy 13:1-4).

2. He / she will teach obedience to God's law (2 Chronicles 24:19, 20; Deuteronomy 13:4).

3. He / she will believe and teach that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1 John 4:2, 3).

4. He / she will speak as he is inspired by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21).

I would think knowing the characteristics of a true prophet would be of some importance to your religion.  Curious why your god thought it best spread those characteristics out individually across the expanse of the old and new testaments rather than in a concise list in its own book or chapter.

If you look carefully, the first two are in Deuteronomy, the book of the Law.  Other books have reference to this as well which serve as reminders to that. All prophets should teach the law (Is 8:20), then, as the messiah had come, true prophets now had to teach that in the NT to be consistent with the continued revelation and fulfilled prophecy of that time, ie, such as Isaiah 53, concerning the Messiah.  Revelation is progressive as stated before.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 22, 2014, 12:25:59 AM
Quote
I'm going to call BS on this.  Leviticus 11:20-23 states:

20 ‘All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. 21 Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth. 22 These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds. 23 But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.


Lets look at the original Hebrew and what it actually says in Leviticus 11:20 - the key verse here:

 The hebrew Translated is:

All winged swarming things that go upon all fours are a detestable thing unto you.

Source: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0311.htm Hebrew Bible

Taking the class of all creatures which fly, but which walk on four legs, we understand that God isn't talking about birds (they fly, but have two legs), so He is discussing what we call "insects" today. Yes, insects have six legs, but flying insects have four legs for walking and two other legs which are specialized. A fly, when it walks, uses its back four legs and the front legs are used to bring things up to its head. A grasshopper walks on its front four legs and the back legs are specialized for leaping -- they aren't generally used for walking. The Israelites were allowed to eat leaping, flying insects which were identified by their rear legs being much larger than the four walking legs. (http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2011/08-15c.html)


Quote
God does not know everything including all of science.  Science requires observation.  I observe winged insects to be six-footed, not "four-footed" like your alleged omniscient god told humans in his holy book.  If he is the "source and giver of all we know" then why do I know winged insects have six legs and not four. 

....because you make no distinction as to what legs are used for. The passage in Leviticus does (see v 21 & 22 above). Therefore God is correct here and you have not known this fact, as is evident from your incomplete response. This is an example of when religion fills in the gaps human so-called 'common sense' conveniently forgets.  It is also an example of when religion compliments science with facts.

Quote
In addition, If your god is Jesus, then he does not know everything like you claim.  He was ignorant of the timing of his second coming (Mark 13:32).  Even in his resurrected body in heaven he had to be GIVEN "the Revelation" by his daddy so this implies he does not "know everything".

Its called the Hypostatic Union. During His earthly ministry He moved in the power of the Holy Spirit and did His miracles by the Holy Spirit and not by His own divine power.  This is because He was made for a little while lower than the angels (Heb. 2:9) and had emptied Himself and taken on the form of a man (Phil. 2:7).  This would explain why in Matt. 12:22-32, when the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of the devil, Jesus said that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would never be forgiven?  Why?  Because Jesus, as a man who was ministering completely as a man under the Law (Gal. 4:4-5), did His miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit.  This demonstrates that Christ was completely human and dependent upon God and that He was cooperating with the limitations of being human.  That is why He said He didn't know the day or hour of His return.

However, we see that after the resurrection of Christ it is said of Him that He knows all things (John 21:17) and that He is omnipresent (Matt. 28:20).  Therefore, after His resurrection and glorification, the Lord Jesus did know all things.


Source: http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/if-jesus-god-why-did-he-not-know-hour-his-return

Our Father God in heaven knows all.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 22, 2014, 01:55:02 AM
Andy,

I'm still waiting on him to answer questions. Instead he gives "Fail" videos. I'm not asking for much. Just for him to prove anything he's stated about the Bible, including things he's listed, as being scientific and to prove that any of the people or situations in it actually happened without using the Bible as evidence, or books that use the Bible as their main evidence.

If the Bible is a book of science it should be easy to prove. Apparently only "fail" videos is his proof.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on February 22, 2014, 02:21:30 AM
A grasshopper walks on its front four legs and the back legs are specialized for leaping -- they aren't generally used for walking.

Funny.  Your god, not science, has given us humans this great tool called Youtube to prove to a christian on an atheist forum that the christian is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izMx9dVlgxA 


I'll get back to you on your other claims later.  I'm going away for a one day/night vacation.  I'm going to read the whole bible again cover to cover and try to find the phrase "Hypostatic Union".  It seems to be an important doctrine so I'm sure I'll find these words in the bible right?  You know -- like the word "Trinity" which is such an essential doctrine to the Christian faith.  Anyway, I'm going to meditate on every verse that has the phrase "Hypostatic Union" in it and I will get back to you.   
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Graybeard on February 22, 2014, 06:17:22 AM

First of all, the problem of circular reasoning is often found among scientists:

A '...geologist who has recognized the circularity problem is Dr. Ronald West, at Kansas State University.'

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." (http://www.icr.org/article/94/)


I will continue to point out the grossly deceptive use of language (some might say, "lies") used by fundamentalist Christians. What  Dr. Ronald West said[1] does not stand up to examination.

If we look at Darwin's work, it was based upon his grandfather's general observations of living creatures. In Darwin's Theory too, we see that it is based upon on living species. It was from these living creatures that Darwin established the scientific truth of evolution. Read the book: it is enlightening.

Now if we look at Newton's discovery of gravitational laws, he too studied gravity in real time and, in real time, he reached his conclusion, but the Law of Gravity can be shown to be true at all times, obviously, including the past.

It was then left to others to have a look at Darwin's Theory and they found that it held true for the fossil evidence. So, Darwin's theory held true for fossils -> it is not "supported by fossils."

So Dawin's Theory is not supported by the fossil record, Darwin's Theory actually does the supporting. And now with recoverable DNA, we can show that this use of Dawin's Theory is valid

Can you explain why you come here and give us such deceptions? What is there to gain by cheating people? Is this what your God tells you to do?




 1. if indeed he said this because fundamentalist Christians stoop to what is known as "quote mining".
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Keko-in-the-box on February 22, 2014, 06:46:04 AM
If he is a lesser god why Christians commit the idolatry of worshiping Jesus?

If they're the same God why pray to himself?

They must be two different people, (if we're not actually talking about whether he exists in the first place anyway!) I doubt god would have created himself to put himself on a cross and be killed... though thinking about all the other contradictory stuff in the bible.. I now have to wonder if he would do that for kicks. Also, would god even be able to die if he was Jesus? Wouldn't he instead just be able to summon something powerful to defend himself from harm? If he were Jesus, then that just opens up a whole other can of contradictions. Does that mean he pretended to be dead for a few days just for emphasis? :)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 22, 2014, 06:47:19 AM
It's what his sect tells him to do.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on February 22, 2014, 08:57:53 AM

Can you explain why you come here and give us such deceptions? What is there to gain by cheating people? Is this what your God tells you to do?

Giving us such deceptions is possibly what his god is telling him to do.  His god seems to be deceptive himself.  In Ezekiel 20:25 we find evidence of his god being deceptive by saying, "I also gave them statutes what were not good and ordinances by which they could not live".  So, god might be telling him to be deceptive or he just might be following the example of his deceptive god.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on February 22, 2014, 09:13:59 AM
It's what his sect tells him to do.

-Nam

As far as the charge of plagiarism earlier on in this thread, you could be right in that being deceptive is what his sect is telling S.O.G. to do.  I don't know if they teach how-to plagiarize as a Saturday school lesson but there is evidence that the "founder" of SDA (according to S.O.G.), Ellen White was a plagiarist.

Link:    http://www.isitso.org/guide/sdaplag.html

Another link states, "The ultimate source of Seventh-day Adventist theology is not God inspiring new truths to White, but plagiarizing (copying) J. N. Andrews".  Check out the "comparison exhibits" of "The Great Controversy" to "Life Incidents".  Kind of looks like what S.O.G. deceptively did huh?

Link:    http://www.bible.ca/7-WL-exhibits-Great-Contro.htm 

Conclusion:  Being deceptive and giving us such deceptions might not be S.O.G's fault.  He has possibly fallen victim to the brainwashing that is going on within his sect.  However, maybe it's not even brainwashing that is going on within the sect. Maybe there is a supernatural explanation to all of this.  Maybe the spirit of plagiarism is prevalent within the SDA denomination.

Gotta run.  I'll be back on the Lord's day......errrrr......Sunday.  Have a good weekend! 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 22, 2014, 09:17:30 AM
Andy S

Quote
A grasshopper walks on its front four legs and the back legs are specialized for leaping -- they aren't generally used for walking. (SwordofGod quote)


Funny.  Your god, not science, has given us humans this great tool called Youtube to prove to a christian on an atheist forum that the christian is wrong.

Have you not studied the Anatomy of a Grasshopper from a Scientific perspective?  Dont answer that because I know the answer. Its NO, you haven't. So, while youre away, you'd also be better off studying a bit of high school biology as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNO72aCnVr0

http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/grasshopper_teacher.html.  Please see in this teachers guide, under the heading "Pre-Lab Questions" the title "Anatomy of the Grasshopper" question 9, which clearly says there are 1 pair of jumping legs and 2 pair of walking legs.


You have again failed to quote scientific fact.  God of the Bible in Leviticus already knew this, hence the distinction in the verses below which you so kindly provided for this forum of knowledge.

Leviticus 11:20-23 states:

20 ‘All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. 21 Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth. 22 These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds. 23 But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.

Thats biological fact. Its also happens to be the voice of God.

Quote
I'll get back to you on your other claims later.  I'm going away for a one day/night vacation.  I'm going to read the whole bible again cover to cover and try to find the phrase "Hypostatic Union".  It seems to be an important doctrine so I'm sure I'll find these words in the bible right?  You know -- like the word "Trinity" which is such an essential doctrine to the Christian faith.  Anyway, I'm going to meditate on every verse that has the phrase "Hypostatic Union" in it and I will get back to you.

Well, firstly, if you cant read and understand your own biology textbooks that clearly stipulate 1 pair of jumping legs, and 2 pair of walking legs, then how can you understand the more deeper questions in life?  First of all learn to drink milk before attempting more solid foods. That makes sense doesn't it?

Grasshoppers have 2 pair of walking legs (Leviticus 11:20)  http://www.biologyjunction.com/grasshopper_dissection.htm
Grasshoppers have 1 pair of jumping legs (Leviticus 11:21) http://www.biologyjunction.com/grasshopper_dissection.htm

Grasshoppers have 2 pair of walking legs (Leviticus 11:20) See Part 5 at http://hluke.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/2/8/13288821/5-10_grasshopper_dissection.pdf
Grasshoppers have 1 pair of jumping legs (Leviticus 11:21) See Part 5 at  http://hluke.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/2/8/13288821/5-10_grasshopper_dissection.pdf

As for the Trinity, the concept of the trinity is in the Bible.  The word trinity isnt. Thats because in order to teach a certain doctrine, we identify it in simple terms, i.e, such as one all encompassing word.  You see, theology is more logical than you think.  The same is with the Hypostatic Union, it is a word to label and identify a doctrine which we believe the bible teaches. This is a perfect example of where silence in the bible does not equal non existence because the concept is there to be seen.

This is why I love the Bible.  Thank you for taking the time to challenge it so objectively.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 22, 2014, 09:30:03 AM

First of all, the problem of circular reasoning is often found among scientists:

A '...geologist who has recognized the circularity problem is Dr. Ronald West, at Kansas State University.'

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." (http://www.icr.org/article/94/)


I will continue to point out the grossly deceptive use of language (some might say, "lies") used by fundamentalist Christians. What  Dr. Ronald West said[1] does not stand up to examination.

If we look at Darwin's work, it was based upon his grandfather's general observations of living creatures. In Darwin's Theory too, we see that it is based upon on living species. It was from these living creatures that Darwin established the scientific truth of evolution. Read the book: it is enlightening.

Now if we look at Newton's discovery of gravitational laws, he too studied gravity in real time and, in real time, he reached his conclusion, but the Law of Gravity can be shown to be true at all times, obviously, including the past.

It was then left to others to have a look at Darwin's Theory and they found that it held true for the fossil evidence. So, Darwin's theory held true for fossils -> it is not "supported by fossils."

So Dawin's Theory is not supported by the fossil record, Darwin's Theory actually does the supporting. And now with recoverable DNA, we can show that this use of Dawin's Theory is valid

Can you explain why you come here and give us such deceptions? What is there to gain by cheating people? Is this what your God tells you to do?
 1. if indeed he said this because fundamentalist Christians stoop to what is known as "quote mining".

The only deceptions here are your very subjective opinions presented in Humpty Dumpty fashion.  They are not based on factual evidence. Could you ask any more subjectively loaded questions in your post?  That way we will know Atheism is certainly false.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 22, 2014, 09:45:13 AM
SOG,

You're a joke. I get this from your defensive nature in anyone who contradicts anything you say. You seem worse than skeptic, and from me: that's saying something.

There's no need for any of us to answer questions you ask us because you do it for us. And it's pointless to ask you questions because you'll only answer those who stroke your ego. By the way, those who are doing that are only doing that to get you to answer their questions which you're not actually doing as evident by your replies.

It seems your only purpose here is to preach, evangelize, and mock--which I really have no problem with but if you think you're better at this game than some of us are, you'll find out that you're not.

We're not as stupid as you look.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 22, 2014, 11:20:31 AM
Sword

I just read up on Seventh Day adventist eschatology, and this is something I say to every theist who comes here claiming that the end is near. Even if only sort of.

(This is a repeat, so yes, regulars, you've read this before, in one form or another. Because Sword is not our first visitor big on the end times...)

Sword, I hope you live a long and fruitful life. But when you are lying on your death bed, you will notice that JC did not return in your lifetime. I, an atheist, am telling you that it won't happen. So when you are dying, remember, an atheist told you that it wouldn't happen.

Now your job now is to go tell your kids about the silly atheist who thinks that JC isn't returning soon. Everyone needs to laugh about this. However, after your children have lived a long and fruitful life, and as it is time for them to die, they too will notice that Jesus did not return.

As will your grandchildren, your great grandchildren, ad infinitum.

It ain't gonna happen. Because none of it is true.

There is no need for you to respond to this. Just don't forget it.

And don't ever say that you weren't told.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 22, 2014, 11:45:38 AM
SOG,

You're a joke. I get this from your defensive nature in anyone who contradicts anything you say. You seem worse than skeptic, and from me: that's saying something.

There's no need for any of us to answer questions you ask us because you do it for us. And it's pointless to ask you questions because you'll only answer those who stroke your ego. By the way, those who are doing that are only doing that to get you to answer their questions which you're not actually doing as evident by your replies.

It seems your only purpose here is to preach, evangelize, and mock--which I really have no problem with but if you think you're better at this game than some of us are, you'll find out that you're not.

We're not as stupid as you look.

-Nam

Nambo...

(http://www.coolfreeimages.net/images/insult/insult_01.gif)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 22, 2014, 12:00:00 PM
You're proving my point every time you do that.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 22, 2014, 12:27:34 PM
You're proving my point every time you do that.

-Nam

Nam

1. Ive used external evidence outside of Christianity (Biological science teaching manuals and website links)

2. And internal evidence from Christianity (Verses from the Holy Bible which an atheist quoted in their argument to me).

3. Ive used both objective and subjective arguments to prove my points. 

4. If that makes my replies so funny, how much more funny are yours than mine?

5. Where is your objectivity or external evidence and the objectively constructed point by point arguments to prove you belief is correct?

6. Why the swearing and personal insults and name calling? 

When you stop taking things so personally, and realize its just a forum discussion with diverse views, then maybe you will enjoy it more. In the meantime, take a chill pill.

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 22, 2014, 01:02:52 PM
1. Ive used external evidence outside of Christianity (Biological science teaching manuals and website links)

Links you've used:

Religious

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/god/son/
http://archives.adventistreview.org/2004-1538/story1.htmlhttp://www.sabbathtruth.com/sabbath-history/denominational-statements-on-the-sabbath/id/982/catholic.aspx
http://www.little-book.org
http://www.adventist.org/
http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/
http://adventist-defense-league.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/uncomfortable-questions-posed-to.html
http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/america-bible-prophecy.html
http://www.adventistonline.com/group/chineseadventistsaroundtheworld/forum/topics/china-in-bible-prophecy
http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-473-False-prophecy-today.htm
http://holybible.com
http://www.danielbibleprophecy.org/ten_divisions_of_rome.htm
http://www.remnantofgod.org/Trueprophets.htm
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/bhp/bhpc06.html
http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/if-jesus-god-why-did-he-not-know-hour-his-return
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0311.htm Hebrew Bible

In rfrc To Religion

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28398-2005Apr5.html

Non Religious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Coates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Roman_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101002081655AAqEY6A
http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/grasshopper_teacher.html

Wow! Look at that: 5 not (technically) links dealing with religion, all the rest RELIGION!

You lost that one.

Quote
2. And internal evidence from Christianity (Verses from the Holy Bible which an atheist quoted in their argument to me).

The Bible can't be evidence of itself--it's retarded to use a book to prove itself.

Quote
3. Ive used both objective and subjective arguments to prove my points.

No, you haven't. If you had we'd treat you more like old Church Guy than every other Christian that comes here.

Quote
4. If that makes my replies so funny, how much more funny are yours than mine?

At least mine are relevant and honest.

Quote
5. Where is your objectivity or external evidence and the objectively constructed point by point arguments to prove you belief is correct?

See, that's the difference: I don't claim it is. I may adhere to it but I don't make claims about it.

Quote
6. Why the swearing and personal insults and name calling?

I'm an asshole. Accept it, I do, and others here do.

Quote
When you stop taking things so personally, and realize its just a forum discussion with diverse views, then maybe you will enjoy it more. In the meantime, take a chill pill.

I haven't taken anything personally, you wouldn't know the first thing about what is personal for me. You're just something to play with.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: voodoo child on February 22, 2014, 01:32:46 PM
End of times predictions get very old after a while. maybe you should take up a new hobby.
Like what to do with the money the SDA rakes in every year.  Oh I don't know, feed the poor open a lab,  find the cure for cancer, teach your offspring to think for themselves. 

Short list of failed predictions.
 http://michaelsherlockauthor.blogspot.ca/2013/10/the-armageddon-self-fulfilling-prophecy.html

Quote
These eschatological beliefs rely on vague and ambiguous language, as a kind of passive component for survival, whilst they are combined with the active component, belief, or more accurately, the rationalizations, adaptational strategies and distorted cognitive processes, which accompany belief in order to protect it.  With these active and passive components combined, such eschatological beliefs are real in the mind of the believer; at least until they fail and even then, some believers will not be deterred by the obvious failure of a believed prophecy.

Although, some YouTube vids, about end times are quite funny. It would probably take about a month, watching 24 hours a day to watch them all. 

pay close attention at 22seconds


http://youtu.be/j1wjvP-raOI

Since then, I think there have been dozens of predictions every year from various cultures all over the planet.  These fear tactics do not bring more converts; they sound more like the ramblings of bullies.
As far as I am concerned the future is unwritten.

Do you actually sit across from your family and belch this stuff out SOG?

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 22, 2014, 05:13:11 PM
1. Ive used external evidence outside of Christianity (Biological science teaching manuals and website links)

Links you've used:

Religious

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/god/son/
http://archives.adventistreview.org/2004-1538/story1.htmlhttp://www.sabbathtruth.com/sabbath-history/denominational-statements-on-the-sabbath/id/982/catholic.aspx
http://www.little-book.org
http://www.adventist.org/
http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/
http://adventist-defense-league.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/uncomfortable-questions-posed-to.html
http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/america-bible-prophecy.html
http://www.adventistonline.com/group/chineseadventistsaroundtheworld/forum/topics/china-in-bible-prophecy
http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-473-False-prophecy-today.htm
http://holybible.com
http://www.danielbibleprophecy.org/ten_divisions_of_rome.htm
http://www.remnantofgod.org/Trueprophets.htm
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/bhp/bhpc06.html
http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/if-jesus-god-why-did-he-not-know-hour-his-return
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0311.htm Hebrew Bible

In rfrc To Religion

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28398-2005Apr5.html

Non Religious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Coates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Roman_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101002081655AAqEY6A
http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/grasshopper_teacher.html

Wow! Look at that: 5 not (technically) links dealing with religion, all the rest RELIGION!

You lost that one.

Quote
2. And internal evidence from Christianity (Verses from the Holy Bible which an atheist quoted in their argument to me).

The Bible can't be evidence of itself--it's retarded to use a book to prove itself.

Quote
3. Ive used both objective and subjective arguments to prove my points.

No, you haven't. If you had we'd treat you more like old Church Guy than every other Christian that comes here.

Quote
4. If that makes my replies so funny, how much more funny are yours than mine?

At least mine are relevant and honest.

Quote
5. Where is your objectivity or external evidence and the objectively constructed point by point arguments to prove you belief is correct?

See, that's the difference: I don't claim it is. I may adhere to it but I don't make claims about it.

Quote
6. Why the swearing and personal insults and name calling?

I'm an asshole. Accept it, I do, and others here do.

Quote
When you stop taking things so personally, and realize its just a forum discussion with diverse views, then maybe you will enjoy it more. In the meantime, take a chill pill.

I haven't taken anything personally, you wouldn't know the first thing about what is personal for me. You're just something to play with.

-Nam



Nam, the only self confessed asshole Im dealing with, is a clown who cant count.

More to the point, external evidence for my argument with Andy S about the Grasshopper having 1 Pair of Jumping Legs and 2 Pair of Walking Legs, was conducted using 3 (THREE) sources of external evidence outside of Christianity, compared with only 1 (ONE) Christian source which I had used, the Bible.  Here they are below.

Fact that I Proved Against Andy S:  "Grasshoppers have 1 Pair of Jumping Legs and 2 Pair of Walking Legs As Described in the Holy Bible"

External Source 1. http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/grasshopper_teacher.html
External Source 2. http://www.biologyjunction.com/grasshopper_dissection.htm
External Source 3. http://hluke.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/2/8/13288821/5-10_grasshopper_dissection.pdf

Here are just 2 (TWO) of my External Sources you have deliberately not listed in the so-called 'non-religious' section.  Totalling 7 sources alltogether for your 'count' if you can call it that, thus far.

External Source 2. http://www.biologyjunction.com/grasshopper_dissection.htm
External Source 3. http://hluke.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/2/8/13288821/5-10_grasshopper_dissection.pdf

THESES SOURCES ARE MISSING... NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN YOUR ARGUMENT. 

Therefore, like most Atheist arguments, your ridiculous and incorrect fallacious argument lacks evidence and thus any power of reason. 

I dont have to insult you or call you an idiot as you like doing to me because its so easy to make you look like a complete pink Darth Vaders helmet.  All I do is just pull your very weak arguments apart and expose the error of your ways.

Rethink your approach.. its simply not working with me.  Not all the strategies of self proclaimed assholes work on everyone... Infact I notice it when you get annoyed, because then I know what Ive said is the truth and that my arguments have had an impact on you. Sooner or later your asshole bad boy thing is going to backfire.  So just be nice, be cool and relax.

However, for the record, your posts... since you have selectively and subjectively left my non-Christian External Sources out, it makes me wonder what other facts you have selectively left out as well in all your other ramblings of utter twaddle.  It only proves one thing.. that even in your so-called objective analysis of the sources Ive used, you still couldnt use that same supposed objectivity for my External Sources.  Now THATS funny! You dug your own hole... maybe thats why you call yourself asshole? Moron.



Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on February 22, 2014, 05:28:16 PM
The video of the grasshopper with six legs, clearly using them all to walk, will not convince the religious believers that the bible is wrong. They will either ignore it, like Sword here, or will say it is faked, or that it is only one mutant grasshopper and no other grasshopper in the world walks with their back legs. Nothing will convince them, not even seeing the evidence with their own eyes. Remember that the bible is always right. No matter what.

When the real world, historical records, common sense, biological facts, geological evidence, medical science, museum collections, crime scene investigations, the fossil record and your own eyeballs all disagree with the bible, the bible is still true. And you cannot expect rationality to penetrate the powerful need for the believer to be right.

Scary, because if that is so, then religious believers can convince themselves of any number of crazy things, and even act on them, which we have seen--Jim Jones, Rastafarians, Israeli Zionists, Mormons, Christian Identity, the Taliban, snake handlers, that Texas cult guy,[1] Hale Bopp, Nation of Islam, Scientology, anyone who cuts into children's genitals for religious reasons, JW's, SDA.

My grandfather was SDA. We lived with him when I was a teen, so I know what we are dealing with here. Narrow-minded judgmental conservatism, Loma Linda food products, church on Saturday, and lots of irrational thinking.  :P
 1.  the one with the arsenal who got killed in his compound by government agents--I know, but still, which one?  &)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 22, 2014, 07:20:43 PM
The video of the grasshopper with six legs, clearly using them all to walk, will not convince the religious believers that the bible is wrong. They will either ignore it, like Sword here, or will say it is faked, or that it is only one mutant grasshopper and no other grasshopper in the world walks with their back legs. Nothing will convince them, not even seeing the evidence with their own eyes. Remember that the bible is always right. No matter what.

When the real world, historical records, common sense, biological facts, geological evidence, medical science, museum collections, crime scene investigations, the fossil record and your own eyeballs all disagree with the bible, the bible is still true. And you cannot expect rationality to penetrate the powerful need for the believer to be right.

Scary, because if that is so, then religious believers can convince themselves of any number of crazy things, and even act on them, which we have seen--Jim Jones, Rastafarians, Israeli Zionists, Mormons, Christian Identity, the Taliban, snake handlers, that Texas cult guy,[1] Hale Bopp, Nation of Islam, Scientology, anyone who cuts into children's genitals for religious reasons, JW's, SDA.

My grandfather was SDA. We lived with him when I was a teen, so I know what we are dealing with here. Narrow-minded judgmental conservatism, Loma Linda food products, church on Saturday, and lots of irrational thinking.  :P
 1.  the one with the arsenal who got killed in his compound by government agents--I know, but still, which one?  &)
W

Theists have to deal with A-Theists who deny science, yet proclaim science when it suits them as their justification of no god, when in reality, science shows that God is the Creator and the All-Knowing Supreme King of Kings who is to be Worshiped and Adored by all mankind.

Leviticus 11:20-23 shows just how wrong A-Theists are in their analysis of the biological facts presented. Just as a reminder,  the Anatomy of the Grasshopper clearly states that there are 2 (TWO) Pair of Walking Legs, and 1 (ONE) Jumping Pair of Legs.  How the grasshopper uses those legs is defined by biological science, not by a non-scientific YouTube video that explains nothing in human language, but which is re-interpreted by fools who claim "there is no god" Psalm 14:1.  As a Seventh-day Adventist, I adhere to known scientific fact when it comes to the study of Anatomy, because science has its place in theological study, but not evolution, which is nothing but a weak hypothesis. 

Again, here is the evidence.  Fig.1 shows very clearly that the grasshopper has exactly 2 pair of walking legs, and 1 pair of jumping legs.


Fig.1
(http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/mj02/images/grasshopperdiagram.jpg)

Now thats what I call science. Notice how above, the biological anatomy diagram of the grasshopper also makes the distinction, exactly as the bible does between 'walking legs' and 'jumping legs'  Isn't that interesting! The Bible is therefore right and all others opposing this are not only wrong, but in grave biological error.

Source: (http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/mj02/images/grasshopperdiagram.jpg)

Just for humour sake, I wll also add another source.

http://www.ehow.com/about_6757677_structure-grasshoppers.html

It says clearly here "The thorax, or midsection, is where the wings and legs of the grasshopper are situated. The two front pairs of jointed legs are smaller than the third pair of hind legs, and these two sets of front legs are used for holding food and for walking. The hind legs are used for hopping and jumping"

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_6757677_structure-grasshoppers.html#ixzz2u6EStnbT

There you have it... Every objective external source I look at, backs the Bible up as correct.

A-Theists love to convince themselves their is no god, so they come up with weak arguments like this only to be crucified by the very discipline they claim to support them.  If you cannot see these clear proofs, then you are blinded by spiritual darkness. 

Seventh-day Adventism is the most objective form of thought, unlike A-Theism.  I prove this by using external sources and aback it up with facts. Is there no one who can challenge me here?


PS: Is this comment about Adventists considered judgmental or not?  Notice I do not (need to) apply a loaded question. There are too many double standards in A-Theism for it to be objective enough as a viable way of thinking. Talk about ironic.

 "Narrow-minded judgmental conservatism, Loma Linda food products, church on Saturday, and lots of irrational thinking.  :P"

Imagine if everybody thought like that, the planet would be full of bigots.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on February 22, 2014, 07:30:06 PM
Why the hell are we talking about grasshoppers legs?

They only hop when they are threatened, otherwise (here at least) they walk everywhere (or fly)...
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 22, 2014, 08:11:36 PM
I think Sword got us on this one. The bible must be right. Here, for instance, is a YouTube video showing a grasshopper faking using his rear legs to walk because he is an atheist. But otherwise, it never happens.

Realizing that he might be being watched by a theist, he thinks about it for about 12 seconds, and then fakes it as he starts walking about, pretending to use his rear legs. He's one smart atheist grasshopper.

He tried. But Sword is clearly right, because of, you know, what the bible says.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVAVn95UH5g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVAVn95UH5g)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 22, 2014, 08:27:50 PM
Seventh-day Adventism is the most objective form of thought, unlike A-Theism.  I prove this by using external sources and aback it up with facts. Is there no one who can challenge me here?

Nope, we can't. As long as you're the one making up all the assumptions and claiming them to be true, there isn't a thing we can do to ward off your total lack of rational thoughts. You, as a S-e-v-e-n-t-h D-a-y-A-d-v-e-n-t-i-s-t, thinking that you have all the answers, are not here to discuss anything. Rather, you are here to tell us what to think, because it is important that we be just like you, otherwise your world will be fragile and suspect. So you're working on that by trying to convince us via typical S-e-v-e-n-t-h D-a-y-A-d-v-e-n-t-i-s-t non-thought that you are right about everything, and that, conversely, we are wrong about everything.

Of course, that you're bugging us with bugs shows that you ain't got much, but hey, go with your strong points. Because you weak ones are pathetic.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 22, 2014, 08:29:54 PM
By the way, my grandfather was a S-e-v-e-n-t-h D-a-y-A-d-v-e-n-t-i-s-t, who died of a heart attack while arguing the bible with a Jehovah's Witness who had the temerity to ring his doorbell.

Kind of makes you wonder whose side god is on.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: G-Roll on February 22, 2014, 09:01:59 PM
I think Sword got us on this one. The bible must be right. Here, for instance, is a YouTube video showing a grasshopper faking using his rear legs to walk because he is an atheist. But otherwise, it never happens.

Realizing that he might be being watched by a theist, he thinks about it for about 12 seconds, and then fakes it as he starts walking about, pretending to use his rear legs. He's one smart atheist grasshopper.

He tried. But Sword is clearly right, because of, you know, what the bible says.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVAVn95UH5g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVAVn95UH5g)

WTF kind of bug is that!?

Quote
  This giant, slow moving grasshopper’s bright orange, yellow and red colors are a warning that it contains toxins and will make any potential predator sick.   If for any reason, you fail to heed the color warning and pick it up, the grasshopper makes a loud hissing noise and secretes an irritating foul-smelling foamy spray.
 

Venomous giant grass hoppers in Florida? The world aint safe no more.

Quote
Lubbers seem to be unaffected by most insecticides, and according to experts at the University of Florida, if they become a garden pest, the best way to get rid of them is to stamp on them, or ‘hand pick’ them and drown them in a bucket of soapy water.

Is this a new thing? A giant orange venomous grasshopper that is immune to insecticides? I don’t recall hearing about them or anything like that in the US. I thought scary bugs like that only existed in Africa and Australia!

http://www.wildflorida.com/articles/Floridas_Giant_Orange_Grasshoppers.php
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 22, 2014, 09:07:11 PM
^^^ Those little buggers are Nam's favorite breakfast food. Why else would a guy live in that state if there were not any culinary advantages.  ;D

I decided to stay out of the south as much as possible after seeing a caterpillar that was literally the size of a hot dog. Yes, it was more nutritious, but wowsers, was it ugly.  And, coincidentally, it didn't walk on its rear legs either.

Just kidding about all those things. God made it, Adam named it. We don't need to know anything else. That would make our brains hurt.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 22, 2014, 09:42:45 PM
I think Sword got us on this one. The bible must be right. Here, for instance, is a YouTube video showing a grasshopper faking using his rear legs to walk because he is an atheist. But otherwise, it never happens.

Realizing that he might be being watched by a theist, he thinks about it for about 12 seconds, and then fakes it as he starts walking about, pretending to use his rear legs. He's one smart atheist grasshopper.

He tried. But Sword is clearly right, because of, you know, what the bible says.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVAVn95UH5g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVAVn95UH5g)


No matter how many videos you show, Biology is always correct. Here is a video of a grasshopper walking on 4 legs.. so to get a conclusive answer for all, we must turn to science and the Bible, but since youre not objective, I'll just quote from science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZQ7n9DoWdA&feature=related

It is clearly stated in the International Journal of Latest Research in Science and Technology that grasshoppers are characterized by long hind legs designed for locomotion by jumping. No matter how many external scientific sources that read the same as the bible, you cant show me one scientific text to back your position, only a video which has not got any scientific credentials. The video you have shown is inadmissible as evidence without objective scientific interpretation. So here we have a situation.. I have an even stronger argument than you.  Not only do I have the texts on my side, both scientific and biblical, but I now have a video just like yours which can be used rightly or wrongly, for the opposing argument.  You however, only have a video interpreted subjectively, whereas I have a nice selection of objective evidence backing up my claims with the video I havent tried to interpret myself in a subjective way.  I let the External Objective Evidence interpret the video for me.  Here I go again... using those Adventist thought processes which ensure external evidence interprets things which could be interpreted incorrectly by human vanity and prejudice. Hence why I am a Seventh-day Adventist.  In the same way, we use the same principles to test everything fairly, such as "who is a prophet" as seen in my earlier posts.

http://www.mnkjournals.com/ijlrst_files/Download/Vol%202%20Issue%203/2-7003-Khalid%20Anwar.pdf


(http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/mj02/images/grasshopperdiagram.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: jynnan tonnix on February 22, 2014, 10:15:52 PM
I'm not going to argue the point. Yes, a grasshopper's hind set of legs is clearly evolved as specialized jumping appendages. Even if they might use them when they are walking.

However, looking at these past videos, I can't help but notice that while the grasshoppers which are, indeed, using their hind legs in an ambulatory manner seem to be getting along quite smoothly and comfortably, the one in the last video seems to be wobbling about and dragging his hind legs almost as though they had been injured or something. It is definitely looking a but rough, and taking much longer about getting from point a to point b than the grasshoppers in the first couple of clips.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Sketchiii on February 22, 2014, 10:25:13 PM
Ok, why are we arguing about how grasshoppers walk when Lev 11:23 clearly says they have four feet regardless  :-\?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 23, 2014, 12:03:18 AM
You are absolutely right, Sword. The bible is, indeed, partially right. That one time.

Don't be so impressed.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 23, 2014, 12:05:54 AM
Oh, by the way, snakes do eat dirt too. Whenever they eat a dirty grasshopper that doesn't' even frickin' know how to walk, that dirt is what the bible is talking about. It doesn't say that they don't eat food too. It is only mentioning the dirt thing because that is more important to bring up than any other factor in all of reality at that moment. Literary license and all that crap.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: voodoo child on February 23, 2014, 12:06:09 AM
what came before the grasshopper?   
 
 &)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 23, 2014, 12:09:22 AM
And the goats getting it on in front of a stripped stick to make stripped baby goats. If you just wait long enough, they'll evolve. The bible didn't mean right away. Don't bring that one up either. And besides, goats love eating grasshoppers too. No matter how many legs they have. As long as the grasshoppers have been converted into tin can labels.. And aren't dirty.

Cause goats ain't frickin' snakes
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: voodoo child on February 23, 2014, 12:10:06 AM
since we are splitting hairs and all.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 23, 2014, 12:11:16 AM
And the recent thing about no camels in the middle east when he bible says there were. That we know that because we can't find any camel bones that old. Don't you idiots realize that early camels had no bones. What more proof do you want!
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 23, 2014, 12:12:41 AM
God I love good science!

Oops, I appear to be posting too fast. How is that possible. Didn't the bible say something about not needing to adhere to forum rules?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: voodoo child on February 23, 2014, 12:15:10 AM
God I love good science!

Oops, I appear to be posting too fast. How is that possible. Didn't the bible say something about not needing to adhere to forum rules?

oh well  :)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 23, 2014, 12:30:58 AM
Sword, I need your help. The bible, that paragon of scientific literacy is, sadly, poorly indexed. Since god took the time to accurately describe the specifics of grasshoppers and the heritage of bats, I assume he only got into the trivia after covering the more important aspects of reality. So where, exactly, did he cover germ theory?
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Astreja on February 23, 2014, 01:31:52 AM
Don't you idiots realize that early camels had no bones. What more proof do you want!

No bones?  Did they just kind of ooze from one caravanserai to the next?  ;D
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 23, 2014, 01:35:15 AM
Nam, the only self confessed asshole Im dealing with, is a clown who cant count.

More to the point, external evidence for my argument with Andy S about the Grasshopper having 1 Pair of Jumping Legs and 2 Pair of Walking Legs, was conducted using 3 (THREE) sources of external evidence outside of Christianity, compared with only 1 (ONE) Christian source which I had used, the Bible.  Here they are below.

Most of the links you had in the grasshopper discussion were basically the same link, so, I only counted one of those. And, I didn't count links that were used for mocking purposes, and any of your blatant plagiarism where sources weren't used.

Quote
Fact that I Proved Against Andy S:  "Grasshoppers have 1 Pair of Jumping Legs and 2 Pair of Walking Legs As Described in the Holy Bible"

External Source 1. http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/grasshopper_teacher.html
External Source 2. http://www.biologyjunction.com/grasshopper_dissection.htm
External Source 3. http://hluke.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/2/8/13288821/5-10_grasshopper_dissection.pdf

Here are just 2 (TWO) of my External Sources you have deliberately not listed in the so-called 'non-religious' section.  Totalling 7 sources alltogether for your 'count' if you can call it that, thus far.

External Source 2. http://www.biologyjunction.com/grasshopper_dissection.htm
External Source 3. http://hluke.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/2/8/13288821/5-10_grasshopper_dissection.pdf

Again: basically the same links.

Quote
THESES SOURCES ARE MISSING... NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN YOUR ARGUMENT. 

My comment isn't an "argument" you twit.

Quote
Therefore, like most Atheist arguments, your ridiculous and incorrect fallacious argument lacks evidence and thus any power of reason.

Oh, so in your mind it's everything or nothing? Well, you provide nothing all the time.

Quote
I dont have to insult you or call you an idiot as you like doing to me because its so easy to make you look like a complete pink Darth Vaders helmet.  All I do is just pull your very weak arguments apart and expose the error of your ways.

You haven't done that. I've asked you several questions and you turn around and reply with sarcasm. You never answered any of them, and when others inquire you say I'm not being serious because you say so.

Quote
Rethink your approach.. its simply not working with me.  Not all the strategies of self proclaimed assholes work on everyone... Infact I notice it when you get annoyed, because then I know what Ive said is the truth and that my arguments have had an impact on you.

You have never had an impact on me. What an ego you have.

Quote
Sooner or later your asshole bad boy thing is going to backfire.  So just be nice, be cool and relax.

I'm always like this. People like you come and go but I'll still be here.

Quote
However, for the record, your posts... since you have selectively and subjectively left my non-Christian External Sources out, it makes me wonder what other facts you have selectively left out as well in all your other ramblings of utter twaddle.

Minus the repetitious grasshopper links and the mocking links, i left out nothing. I went comment to comment that you made, on a phone no less, and posted every one you made.

Quote
It only proves one thing.. that even in your so-called objective analysis of the sources Ive used, you still couldnt use that same supposed objectivity for my External Sources.  Now THATS funny! You dug your own hole... maybe thats why you call yourself asshole? Moron.

Point this at you, not me.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Astreja on February 23, 2014, 01:36:21 AM
If he were Jesus, then that just opens up a whole other can of contradictions. Does that mean he pretended to be dead for a few days just for emphasis? :)

I'd like to think that the message Jesus was trying to get out was "Guys, you can't fix your bad behaviour by sacrificing stuff.  Now put down that dove and back away slow... Hey!  Ow!  Quit it!"
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 23, 2014, 01:43:56 AM
I'm not going to argue the point. Yes, a grasshopper's hind set of legs is clearly evolved as specialized jumping appendages. Even if they might use them when they are walking.

However, looking at these past videos, I can't help but notice that while the grasshoppers which are, indeed, using their hind legs in an ambulatory manner seem to be getting along quite smoothly and comfortably, the one in the last video seems to be wobbling about and dragging his hind legs almost as though they had been injured or something. It is definitely looking a but rough, and taking much longer about getting from point a to point b than the grasshoppers in the first couple of clips.

I bet the person taking the video, injured the grasshopper and then made the video. Grasshoppers are everywhere where I live, and I've only seen injured grasshoppers move like that.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 23, 2014, 02:01:07 AM
Don't you idiots realize that early camels had no bones. What more proof do you want!

No bones?  Did they just kind of ooze from one caravanserai to the next?  ;D

No, they were just one big hump. Except the Bacterian, which were two humps. The bones came later.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 23, 2014, 02:05:38 AM
Maybe the Bible confuses grasshoppers with crickets or locusts since they look similar to each other?

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 23, 2014, 02:33:57 AM
Maybe the Bible confuses grasshoppers with crickets or locusts since they look similar to each other?

-Nam

No, in the old testament, in the book of Audubon, each is correctly described and illustrated, and their associated territories and distribution is discussed in great detail. There are colored photos and everything. How we dared challenge such complete documentation, I don't know.

Of course, I've always wondered how a god who so painstakingly describes grasshoppers can let his people run around lost for 40 years. But I guess we all have our strengths and weaknesses. I'm thinking that if only he'd provided them with a wireless connection and an iPad, along with Google Earth, they would have made it out of the wilderness in a year. Two tops. But no, half a million people walking around for 40 years, stepping on grasshoppers and stuff. That was all he could do.

But who am I to complain. He couldn't help them find their way home, I can't play golf for sh*t. We all have our weaknesses.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 23, 2014, 07:25:57 AM
I'm not going to argue the point. Yes, a grasshopper's hind set of legs is clearly evolved as specialized jumping appendages. Even if they might use them when they are walking.

However, looking at these past videos, I can't help but notice that while the grasshoppers which are, indeed, using their hind legs in an ambulatory manner seem to be getting along quite smoothly and comfortably, the one in the last video seems to be wobbling about and dragging his hind legs almost as though they had been injured or something. It is definitely looking a but rough, and taking much longer about getting from point a to point b than the grasshoppers in the first couple of clips.

Again... all subjective.  Where is your actual scientific evidence like that I have presented? Its only fair to request the same.  It is clear thus far, that we have 2 videos, one showing 4 legs in operation and one showing a grasshopper using 4 legs and the extra 2 as some sort of locomotive projection aid in addition to the 4 walking legs.  The issue is, what does science say the legs are used for and what does the bible indicate? If one is honest, and at least attempting be be objective, like ParkingPlaces, then and only then can science prevail in the minds of men... along side scripture that is.

PS.  ParkingPlaces.. well done sir.. finally someone here is not being so biased. This is a victory for both science and the Bible.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 23, 2014, 08:04:29 AM
Nam...

(http://www.helpland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/columbo-v3.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on February 23, 2014, 08:39:27 AM
*snip*

Now i really want a komodo dragon...
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 23, 2014, 09:02:08 AM
*snip*

Now i really want a komodo dragon...

ha ha ha...

Here you are Angus and Alexis..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Komodo_dragon_with_tongue.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Komodo_dragon_with_tongue.jpg)

Just for you..

edit: hotlink to image changed to url
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Willie on February 23, 2014, 09:32:59 AM
Don't you idiots realize that early camels had no bones. What more proof do you want!

No bones?  Did they just kind of ooze from one caravanserai to the next?  ;D

The early boneless camels were much like octopi. That's why they could pass through the eye of a needle.

http://youtu.be/N6L82iJ_NTI

Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 23, 2014, 10:15:14 AM
Hey SOGGY,

You may smite me for bringing up your plagiarism but you're the one who did it and then denied it afterward. That makes you the loser, not me.

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 23, 2014, 10:38:27 AM
Hey SOGGY,

You may smite me for bringing up your plagiarism but you're the one who did it and then denied it afterward. That makes you the loser, not me.

-Nam

Namsy Baby..

(http://50.87.144.97/~tresnic/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Stop-Talking-About-Yourself.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 23, 2014, 11:00:49 AM
Don't you idiots realize that early camels had no bones. What more proof do you want!

No bones?  Did they just kind of ooze from one caravanserai to the next?  ;D

No, they were just one big hump. Except the Bacterian, which were two humps. The bones came later.

Hi ParkingPlaces,

I thought I would highlight an Athiests Darwin compassion between you and Nam, forgive me if its presumptuous to do so... but. I find it worth noting, you seem to have a whopping 590+ Green Darwins for over 5600 quality posts, yet Nam has nearly 11000 (arguably nonsensical) posts and not even half the amount of cool Green Darwins youve got, and 67 smites more than you.

Then I realize, "hang on a minute", that's because ParkingPlaces seems such a cool guy! And Nam, well... a self confessed "asshole" yes, that was in his own words.

 ;D



 
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on February 23, 2014, 11:07:01 AM

WHAT IS THIS!  I get back from a nice little mini-vacation and I find a negative darwin???  WHAT IS IT FOR?  WHO IS IT FROM?........YOU........THE GUY I WAS SO NICE TO AND WELCOMED TO THE FORUM AND GAVE A THUMBS UP TO FOR AN AMAZING POST??? ;D  Why do you give me a thumbs down?  Here is your reasoning-- "Ha ha ha ha... I just had to do it because you had 0 there".  You sure put the ASS in grASShopper!!!

Darn it, my hope is ruined!  I wanted to go my whole lifetime without a negative darwin.  That was my hope Sword.  You took away my hope and crushed my dreams of always obtaining a perfect "darwin" record.  Now you might be in danger.  Since you took away my hope and gave me a negative darwin for no good reason, your god might take away your hope of an eternal afterlife in heaven.  He might give you the thumbs down on judgement day because you take part in the wrong Christianity.

Its called the Hypostatic Union.

Your brand of theology calls it Hypostatic Union and my brand of theology calls this doctrine "developed and contradictory".  The Hypostatic Union is a term that is used to describe the union of Jesus' humanity and divinity in one hypostasis.  It attempts to explain how Jesus can be fully god and fully man.  This doctrine is pulled from Phil. 2:7 as you pointed out.  But check out how dumb and contradictory this is.  Let's take a look at the following verse.  Phil. 2:8 states, "Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming OBEDIENT to the point of death, even death on a cross".  If Jesus is fully god can god OBEY himself?       

Jesus said that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would never be forgiven?

I wonder if god called himself a dumbass after he said this.

Matt. 12:32 says, “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

I don't think the doctrines of the Trinity or Hypostatic Union bear any sort of truth whatsoever.  Well, maybe I'm wrong.  I could see that these doctrines are true if after Jesus made this comment, the Holy Spirit says, "Pssssst, hey Jesus, whoever blasphemes against me also blasphemes against you because we are the same being dumbass"!

Why?  Because Jesus, as a man who was ministering completely as a man under the Law (Gal. 4:4-5), did His miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit.  This demonstrates that Christ was completely human and dependent upon God and that He was cooperating with the limitations of being human.  That is why He said He didn't know the day or hour of His return.

You do realize that the doctrine of the Trinity states that Jesus and his daddy are "one being" (con-substantial) don't you?  If Jesus and his daddy are "one being" then Jesus would have to know the timing of his second coming if his daddy knows. 

However, we see that after the resurrection of Christ it is said of Him that He knows all things (John 21:17) and that He is omnipresent (Matt. 28:20).  Therefore, after His resurrection and glorification, the Lord Jesus did know all things.[/i]

Okay, if John 21:17 says that Jesus knows all things then why does Revelation 1:1 say that Jesus had to be GIVEN "the Revelation" by his daddy?  Just like I didn't have to ponder over your grasshopper youtube video because I KNOW grasshoppers use six feet to walk, Jesus wouldn't have to be GIVEN the Revelation if he already "KNOWS all things".  This implies Jesus does NOT "know all things" after his resurrection and glorification.  I see this as a contradiction.  Ready.....Set.....Scramble and Harmonize.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on February 23, 2014, 11:17:48 AM
I'm not going to argue the point. Yes, a grasshopper's hind set of legs is clearly evolved as specialized jumping appendages. Even if they might use them when they are walking.

However, looking at these past videos, I can't help but notice that while the grasshoppers which are, indeed, using their hind legs in an ambulatory manner seem to be getting along quite smoothly and comfortably, the one in the last video seems to be wobbling about and dragging his hind legs almost as though they had been injured or something. It is definitely looking a but rough, and taking much longer about getting from point a to point b than the grasshoppers in the first couple of clips.

I bet the person taking the video, injured the grasshopper and then made the video. Grasshoppers are everywhere where I live, and I've only seen injured grasshoppers move like that.

-Nam

Yes Jynnan tonix and Nam, the grasshopper that Sword posted was injured.  Maybe Sword had the volume to his computer turned down and he could not hear the grasshopper screaming in agony.  Turn your computer up and listen at the 29th second.  The grasshopper is clearly in a lot of pain judging from his scream.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZQ7n9DoWdA&feature=related


Did anyone notice the atheist grasshopper that ParkingPlaces posted was a lot faster than the one Sword posted?  I wonder if there is a direct correlation with the rate of the grasshopper's speed to the rate of intelligence?  "Woe Woe Woe there Andy" (says Andy's subconscience), "gullibility does not equal stupidity"!  Okay okay, I take it back.

Hey, maybe we are in the third Woe Sword.  A still small voice in my head (my subconscience) had me write "Woe Woe Woe".  You can use this evidence as a piece of the puzzle in attempting to crack the code of the second coming.

Come to think of it.  It's quite possible that the founding father of SDA's, William Miller, had the date of the second coming spot on.  The reason why Jesus didn't come back on October 22, 1844 is because Jesus was pissed that Miller cracked the code. ;D
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Nam on February 23, 2014, 11:38:35 AM
I bet SOGGY injured the grasshopper just to prove himself right. What a Christian!

-Nam
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: Andy S. on February 23, 2014, 12:04:22 PM
Nogodsforme, you are right.  "The video of the grasshopper with six legs, clearly using them all to walk, will not convince the religious believers that the bible is wrong."  I mean, in post #376 Sword makes the ridiculous claim: "A grasshopper walks on its front four legs and the back legs are specialized for leaping -- they aren't generally used for walking."  I then show him through the means of youtube that grasshoppers generally do use their hind legs for walking.  I mean, does the guy want me to catch a grasshopper and drive it over to his house and show him that grasshoppers use all six legs to walk???  I bet this would not convince Sword either.

To play off of Sword's signature, "For those who believe that grasshoppers use all six legs to walk, SEE THE EVIDENCE. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible". :laugh:

A wise man once said, "AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES" (Matt. 13:15).

I can't believe the conversation about grasshoppers went on for so long.  As Sketchiii said, "why are we arguing about how grasshoppers walk when Lev 11:23 clearly says they have four feet regardless"?

In additon, I don't mean to derail this thread but I would also like to question the benevolence of this all-powerful deity.  I mean, he says in his holy book that eating grasshoppers is okay but eating pork is an abomination.  This god is a jerk.  I have eaten a grasshopper before and trust me, it does not taste as good as pork. 

And what does god have against pigs.  Sure they are "filthy" animals in the minds of many but look at who created them according to Christians.  I mean, does it make sense to create an animal and then call them an abomination.  Why would you create 2000 pigs and then murder them (Mark 5:13)?  What has a pig ever done to Yahweh/Jesus?  It almost makes just as much since as god creating people with defects and then god telling these people with defects that they will profane his sanctuary if they approach the veil or altar with the defect that god created these people with. &)

Anyway Sword, pork is good.  I don't know if your denomination allows you to watch rated R movies so I am warning you up front that this is a clip from a rated R movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA_Tl1kvlQU     
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: nogodsforme on February 23, 2014, 04:56:56 PM
God loves pigs. That's why he does not want people to kill and eat them, even though they can convert just about any organic material into meat that tastes delicious.

God clearly hates grasshoppers, no matter how many feet they have or which feet they use for what.

The bible is always right, even when the parts based on fallible humans observing the world and like, counting grasshopper legs, are not accurate. And the parts about how to cure leprosy (bird's blood, works like a charm) or about what to do with a rapist and a rape victim (hey, just make them get married! :-*) are also true, you just have to interpret them correctly.

Now, these parts were going to be included in later editions of the bible: how to prevent infectious disease (wash hands and boil water to kill germs; develop vaccines) or how to find petroleum (by studying fossils and rock formations) or how to build an airplane (by studying physics and aerodynamics). Future editions of the bible would be even more right!  God would reveal all when we were ready to receive the information.....

BTW, I watched my SDA grandfather lose the family business because he would not open on Saturdays. The business? A Laundromat. Closed. On. Saturdays. The one day a week when a laundry makes most of its money. So, yes, I think SDA folks are a bit irrational. And I say this as a former JW, so I know irrational.
Title: Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
Post by: SwordOfGod on February 23, 2014, 07:21:14 PM