Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

quote:

---

An eternal person cannot die. Being dead for just one minute results in an end to someone's claim to eternity. Jesus was dead for three days.

---

Says who??????? Where are these rules for eternal beings????? The supreme being is not human, how do you know what constitutes death for such a being????An eternal being is given human form. To shed the human form, that human form must die. This releases the eternal being from that human form. It doesn't mean the eternal being ceased to exist. Only the human form ceased to exist. The eternal being continues.It's very easy to write a scenario that doesn't interfere with the eternalness of a divine being.

quote:

---

Thomas was imperfect, as are all humans who are offspring of Adam. Your argument is that because Thomas said "My Lord and My God," at John 20:28, the mere fact that his sayings are recorded in the Bible equates to: "Thomas was right."

---

No that's not my argument. My argument is that Thomas was referring to Jesus, who was standing in front of him. My argument is that Thomas did view Jesus as a deity or divine being, but not YHWH. Seriously, he's looking at someone who was dead and is now alive. So he obviously isn't viewing a normal human being.My argument with you is that deeming Thomas incorrect is not supportable through scripture, just your own fiction. Doubting doesn't automatically make his statement wrong. That's why I said we really need to try and understand to the best of our ability what he was actually saying regardless of current dogma and traditions.

quote:

---

Now apply that to Thomas who was so lacking in faith that he would not even believe the other disciples who told them Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. Even if one were to argue that Thomas really thought Jesus was Jehovah, it does not matter what Thomas thought because the context of John 20:28 tells us Jesus could not be in a trinity with Jehovah and that Jesus is not also Jehovah. John 20:1-3 and 9 says Jesus died, while the Trinity dogma says Jesus the Son is CO-ETERNAL with Jehovah.

---

You do realize that my position is that the Bible doesn't support the idea of a 3 in 1 god, don't you?Where's your support that an eternal being who has taken human form, will cease being eternal because the human form died and the eternal being continued?It's very easy to write fiction, but can you support it through scripture?

quote:

---

For someone who claims to not believe in the Trinity, you are sure doing a good demonstration of being a Trinity apologist. Now you have Jesus being the "supreme being." In reality, there are no scriptures in the Bible that describe him as such. The scriptures refer to Jesus Christ as the "Son of God," as the "Messiah," as the "Mediator," etc. But never is Jesus referred to as the supreme being, because the only supreme being in existence is Almighty God Jehovah.

---

Then you aren't paying attention. My contention is that the writers of the Bible did not dismiss the existence of other deities and would have no problem referring to the risen Jesus as a deity or divine being.I did not present Jesus as the supreme being. My argument has been that he is not YHWH. In the sentence you quoted I am talking about YHWH, not Jesus.My problem with you is the fiction you're presenting with no support. The meaning of the word eternal doesn't explain what constitutes death for a deity.You have been told several times that Jesus did not end. Otherwise who was Paul talking to???So I ask again, where are these rules for eternal beings??? What constitutes death for an eternal being???As for taking human form. I didn't say you said it, but in the the Book of John, Jesus is presented as an eternal being taken human form and you're the one saying that Jesus is an eternal being that died.That's why I asked, where's your support that an eternal being who has taken human form, will cease being eternal because the human form died and the eternal being continued?The definition of eternal doesn't tell us what constitutes the end for an eternal being.ABE: We really don't need fictional gymnastics to counter the 3 in 1 idea. The scripture and reality of the time do most of the work, IMO.Edited by purpledawn, : ABE

quote:

---

You have been told several times that an eternal person cannot die aka their life cannot end.

---

But you still haven't shown support for your rules on eternal beings. Talk about the same wash, rinse, and repeat?Our definition of eternal, does not constitute known rules of existence for eternal beings. It's just how we use the word eternal.To answer your question concerning Jesus, you need to answer my question on what constitutes death for an eternal being and provide support? I have asked twice: Message 218 and Message 234Do eternal beings rely on oxygen, blood flow, nutrition, etc. to sustain their life??? We know humans need those things, but do eternal beings??That's why I asked, where's your support that an eternal being who has taken human form, will cease being eternal because the human form died and the eternal being continued?Actually, I've already answered your questions Message 218: An eternal being is given human form. To shed the human form, that human form must die. This releases the eternal being from that human form. It doesn't mean the eternal being ceased to exist. Only the human form ceased to exist. The eternal being continues. Message 234: As for taking human form. I didn't say you said it, but in the the Book of John, Jesus is presented as an eternal being taken human form and you're the one saying that Jesus is an eternal being that died.The human form died and the human form was resurrected to show humans that YHWH can bring humans back to life. (1 Corinthians 15)You concentrate on the death, but by your definition, his birth would eliminate Jesus from being eternal also.Christians look forward to receiving eternal life at some point after they die. They become an eternal being of some sort. They will have a human beginning and end and then another beginning. It doesn't make them YHWH or equal to YHWH though.If one takes the view of the Book of Mark that Jesus was totally human, this makes an even better example of what God can and will do for humans. He can bring humans back to life and make them eternal beings.So really God isn't sticking to your definition of no beginning and no end when he grants eternal life.Eternal is just our perception of God, not necessarily all divine beings. We don't know his beginning if there is one and haven't seen an end yet. It isn't a rule concerning eternal beings and what they can and can't do.

I agree with Faith. To try for an understanding of how we are to understand the Bible in general before proceeding would be fruitless.This is my personal general opinion.When becoming a member of EvC, there are no prerequisite levels of knowledge, experiences, or beliefs. The membership probably covers all the levels.Debating on the internet isn't really geared towards mutual understanding. Some debaters (both sides) are rather hostile to accepting or even considering new ideas.We've seen on EvC that threads do not normally end with opposing sides coming to a mutual understanding.That is why it is important to present the position one is taking concerning the topic of debate and provide support (facts and logic) for that position. Since this is a debate forum there will be counter arguments that one will need to counter with more facts and reasoning.Even among those who study the Bible, there are differences of opinion concerning interpretation and understanding; which is why debaters (both sides) should provide support for how they are interpreting the scriptures so the opposition can understand how their opponent came to their conclusion.With all the varieties of religion out there, it isn't really practical in this setting to try and determine how we are to understand the Bible in general before proceeding with a debate. Each is defending their own position; so odds are, a mutual agreement would not be reached or would quickly disappear in the next debate.The topic is very clearly about Biblical support for the Doctrines of the Trinity and Hell. Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics

quote:

---

OK The problem is though that if you try and understand either hell or the trinity from Faith's perspective it all boils down to picking what appear to be relevant verses and then saying that there is your answer.

---

Yes, she argues from her perspective, you argue from your perspective and I argue from my perspective etc. That's the debate. Each provides support for their perspective and how they see what they do.That's why it is important that we try to show support for our logic with facts or reasoning. Sometimes the reasoning is just because that's the status quo for the belief system and on the religious side, that's acceptable as an answer.

We understand that you are discussing living beings and we understand that you applied the first meaning of the word eternal to living beings. Eternal in the Bible is really about not having an end, not about not having a beginning depending on how it is used. Having neither beginning nor end is usually saved for the Creator.The problem with your argument that the death of Jesus means he isn't an eternal being, is that we don't know what constitutes death for an eternal being or what constitutes living for such a being. Notice that God is everlasting, without body, parts, or passions. The three are of one substance. (What is the Trinity?)This eternal being is without body or parts. He is the maker of all things. According to the story he made a son who could live and die as a human, but then continue to exist with him throughout eternity.Now whether one believes that Jesus was preexistent or just human, the fact of the story is that Jesus exists as an eternal being. We know this because Jesus communicated with Paul. Again, that doesn't mean he is YHWH.The death of Jesus in the story isn't evidence against the Trinity just because he died. The trick is to show that he didn't become part of the One or that the writer's didn't view the risen Jesus as part of the One. IMO, they had no problem with there being separate eternal beings who are godlike without being part of the One.

quote:

---

By definition, an eternal LIVING BEING cannot have a beginning or an end and must exist through all time as a LIVING BEING. Jesus did not exist as a LIVING BEING for three days. Therefore, he did not exist as a LIVING BEING "through all time."

---

You may not like semantics, but you are basing your argument on the meaning of eternal and applying the first meaning to a supernatural being.Notice Article I says there is one living and true God. This is a living deity, not a human being. What constitutes an end for a supernatural being?You're assuming to know rules of existence for supernatural beings not covered by the story. (Message 165, Message 218, Message 234, Message 298)We understand what you are saying and are disagreeing that the story supports the meaning you are applying.As I said before, Christians look forward to eternal life after they die. They then become eternal beings. They will have a beginning.The Bible doesn't support your use of the English meaning of eternal. When used in the New Testament the idea of no beginning and no end is more of a always has been and always will be; not that there can't be a beginning. It's our perspective, not a rule. Eternal in the BibleHaving died as a human and being resurrected doesn't exclude Jesus from being an eternal being. It also doesn't make him YHWH.

quote:

---

ALTER2EGO -to- CATHOLIC SCIENTIST:
I'm sure the people down at Webster's Dictionary, whose definition of "eternal" I used in this thread, would like to hear your take on what eternal beings can do--namely, they can die and come back to life whenever they have a mind to do so. Be sure and tell them that bit about: At no point did it have a beginning or an end of its existence, even though its time as a living being had both a beginning or an end."

---

I'm sure they would tell you that their meaning of eternal, which you attached to being, doesn't constitute the rules of existence for an eternal being. It does not say cannot, Just because we don't know the beginning or end doesn't mean it cannot be. The meaning is generated from our perspective.You the one saying cannot have a beginning and cannot have an end.Not having a beginning or end is only one meaning and as you have been told that meaning usually only applies to the Creator. All birds don't have the same lifespan. Why assume all eternal beings are the same? Eternity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)You need to expand on your argument. The definition of eternal doesn't carry the load for you. It doesn't determine the rules of existence for eternal beings.

quote:

---

Since that is your claim, I am sure you will have no problem quoting scriptures that indicate: "Eternal in the Bible is really about not having an end, not about not having a beginning." I have been reading the Bible for years and never once came across anything remotely suggesting that.

---

Strange since it's all over the NT.Also from Message 349: Also notice I said that it depends on how the word is used, which you didn't bold.Ancient mountains (Deuteronomy 33:15) - Eternal God (Deuteronomy 33:27). Same adjective. qedemAccording to the stories in Genesis, God created everything. This means the mountains had a beginning. Qedem doesn't carry the meaning of without beginning and end.If the Blue Letter site is right, this is the only word translated as eternal in the OT. What does eternity in the Bible mean?In the NT, the word aiōnios is the closest to the meaning you embrace. Notice it says without, not cannot. Without means absence of and cannot basically means unable to. Just because we don't know when or if YHWH had a beginning, doesn't mean he cannot have a beginning.All the occurrences of this word are listed in the link. The majority of the verses are referring to everlasting life, fire, destruction, etc. Once the adjective refers to YHWH in Romans 16:26. The verse before this one uses the same adjective to mean long ago. Everlasting life is something that is promised to Christians after they die. There is a beginning to eternal life. Eternal judgment starts after one's death. More about not having an ending as opposed to not having a beginning. As I said, "Having neither beginning nor end is usually saved for the Creator."Edited by purpledawn, : Changed 33:2 to 33:27

I provided a link in Message 362 which has a list of the verses that use the word aiōnios.Pick any three you want or pick three from NoNukes post.Explain the context we are missing.

I'm working with the Hebrew in the OT. Message 362The examples from Deuteromony use the same Hebrew word, which is qedem . IOW, the God of old. Olam is a synonym of qedem and according to Strong's it isn't translated as eternal in the OT. Further verses using olam or listed in the link for olam. Neither of these words carries the meaning of cannot have a beginning or end. Here the story tells us that man could take from the tree of life and live forever (olam). It didn't matter that the man was created and had a beginning. It was more about the long duration of living or the lack of known ending.Olam is also used in reference to God and translated as Everlasting God. As I said before the word in reference to God carries more of an always has been and always will be idea, not "cannot have a beginning or end". Isaiah 40:28

Message 361

quote:

---

ALTER2EGO -to- PURPLEDAWN:

​

Neither the Hebrew word olam nor the Greek word aiōnios mean eternal. They both refer to time periods that are anything but eternal. You are relying on Bible translations that contain translation errors. This is confirmed by the following source, which I am partially quoting below, followed by the weblink to the source. I encourage to go to the weblink were you will see examples for why the words "olam" and "ainios" could not possibly refer to things that are eternal.

---

Thanks for confirming my position. As we can see the Hebrew and Greek words can describe a distant past or distant future depending on how they are used. In the NT, they are mostly used concerning distant future or unseen end. Those are the words translated as eternal in the Bible.If as you say, the translation is incorrect, then rules for eternal beings are from your own imagination and not from the Bible.In Message 5, you said you considered the Bible to be reliable. But you play the fallible human or bad translation card as support for your position.Dictionaries provide a list of words and how they are used by the population. Language changes over time. A simplistic English definition of an adjective does not define the rules of existence for other beings.Also without beginning, isn't the same as cannot or can never have a beginning. So we are back to the fact that you have no support for your rules of existence concerning eternal beings. The definition does not support your claim that they cannot or can never have a beginning or end.

quote:

---

Actually, we are back to the fact that you refuse to accept that the word "eternal" only applies to someone or something that does not have a beginning or an end.

---

Unfortunately you haven't been able to provide support for your absolutes. The English word eternal is an adjective and as we can see the examples given don't necessarily mean can never have a beginning nor an end. This English adjective does not define the rules of existence for other beings.

quote:

---

In any event, since you are content in believing that every time you see the word "eternal" in the Bible with reference to created beings (humans and angels) and created things (mountains) which clearly had a beginning--but you insist the rendition is correct--go ahead and believe that.

---

It's clear that you don't really understand my position or the arguments I've presented. You're actually talking circles around yourself and aren't really addressing the arguments presented by the opposition.

quote:

---

Do not expect any further response from me as far as the word "eternal" is concerned.

---

I'm glad you've realized that your line of reasoning is flawed.

quote:

---

Neither should you expect any further response from me dealing trinity. In other words, I will not respond to anything else you post in this thread.

---

I understand. I didn't provide you with the standard arguments that would enable you to use your canned responses.That's the fun of debate: Unexpected responses, adventures in dealing with different views.Have a great summer.

Hey Faith,Your link isn't taking us directly to the article.This should take visitors to the article you referenced in Message 20: The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity

quote:

---

Below is a verse of scripture that demonstrates the idiocy of the trinity dogma.

​

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." (Psalms 110:1 -- King James Version)

​

According to that scripture, God is literally talking to himself. During the conversation with himself, Jehovah (the Father) puts himself on his own right hand and refers to the enemy of the son (Jesus) as "your" enemy (indicating the enemy is Jesus' enemy and not Jehovah's), rather than using the possessive "our enemy"

---

Psalm 110 doesn't demonstrate the idiocy of the Trinity Doctrine. It is a song.Article:
‘The Lord Said to My Lord...’
To Whom Was the Lord Speaking in Psalm 110:1?As far as I know, the words lord and master aren't common in the U.S. today outside of religious references. During Bible times they were very common outside of religious references.When looking at the Hebrew, this is probably a more accurate reading of the verse.