Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the biggest bible contradiction?
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 256 of 311 (369528)
12-13-2006 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by ConsequentAtheist
12-13-2006 5:51 AM


Re: History, not theology, best explains the origin of the trinity idea
Equinox writes:
I may not be in the "right" religion, but at least I can respect these various Christianities equally, without saying that one (hey, it just happens to be my own) has the absolute lock on the truth, while in the same breath insulting scriptures and interpretations that have as much authority as the ones I was told to believe.
The above paragraph is what elicited my initial response. I was not sure myself about Equinox' criteria for 'authority' but I understood his meaning clearly enough.
Equinox had the impression that I was insulting interpretations of scriptures which are opposed to my own denominational view. I believe he means to say that all interpretations have equal authority, since they are all nothing more than one possible conjecture among many.
To an extent I agree; it takes an extremely in-depth analysis of scripture to determine which doctrine best reflects the intentions of the whole, and apologetics for any denomination can be greatly convincing.
However, the specific denominations which have been mentioned for their opposition to the Trinity were; Mormon's, Jehova's Witnesses, and the Oneness Pentecostals.
The sole intent of my post was to point out that these denominations have not used the Bible in the way inerrantists do. Instead, they use personal revelation, or 'God showed me what the Bible should have said' or 'God only tells an elite group what the bible means'. Any conclusions reached via this means can not be regarded to be equal in authority to those which are based on what the Bible actually says.
ConsequentAtheist writes:
anastasia, I asked for criteria, not examples. Again: how do you determine that an interpretation has authority worthy of respect or, conversely, has been "proven" to have no authority and is a "purposeful misrepresentation"?
So, criteria;
1. as accurate a translation (contradictions included) as possible
2. a scholarly translation, not a 'revealed' one
3. an interpretation based on accurate translation; even if it were blatantly paraphrased or geared toward a specific population it should reflect the meaning of the original
Hope that answers your question!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-13-2006 5:51 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Brian, posted 12-13-2006 12:45 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 267 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-14-2006 7:46 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 275 by Equinox, posted 12-15-2006 1:35 PM anastasia has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 257 of 311 (369531)
12-13-2006 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by anastasia
12-13-2006 12:17 PM


Re: History, not theology, best explains the origin of the trinity idea
it should reflect the meaning of the original
There are a few huge problems with your criteria, and im sure CA will spell them out to you, but surely you can see a huge problem with the text I quoted from your post?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by anastasia, posted 12-13-2006 12:17 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by anastasia, posted 12-13-2006 1:38 PM Brian has not replied

anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 258 of 311 (369537)
12-13-2006 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Brian
12-13-2006 12:45 PM


Re: History, not theology, best explains the origin of the trinity idea
Brian writes:
There are a few huge problems with your criteria, and im sure CA will spell them out to you, but surely you can see a huge problem with the text I quoted from your post?
Surely you do not think I am so stubborn or dull as to ignore all previous posts and research? I know there are no originals!
This knowledge does not stop people saying 'the original Greek' or the 'original Hebrew' text means this...
So, nevermind the translation part. Let's say you , Nemesis and arach are looking at the same exact Hebrew document. As often happens, you disagree on what the words mean, but not on what they are.
Then, party x comes up with a meaning that can only make sense after you discover that he has added to or changed the words that the rest of you are studying.
Will the interpretation of x carry as much 'authority' as the other three?
Consider further that x has absolutely no source or reason to feel that his changes were part of the intent of the author, other than 'godtoldme'. How would his interpretation be viewed now?
That scenerio is similar to what the JW's have done.
The Pentecoastals are more like; 'this passage says one thing, this one says another, and they contradict, so...let's pick which one we like better and change the other one because obviously the two were meant to agree'.
Mormon's? Well... I guess they don't have to worry about it too much because they have The Book of Mormon to tell them which one is right!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Brian, posted 12-13-2006 12:45 PM Brian has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 311 (369655)
12-13-2006 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by arachnophilia
12-12-2006 4:00 AM


Re: Hmm this may not be what you are looking for
what i'm saying is strictly logical. god can becomes a man if he wishes. but if and when he does, he ceases to be god, by definition. you are either god or man, but not both. they are opposites.
Why can't you be God and man at the same time, by definition? What is God by definition? That's like saying God can't be in more than one place at the same time because its contradictory. I don't follow your logic. It seems like you are limiting God.
every case of the word elohim in the bible, in reference to yahueh, is singular because it is used with a singular verb. because the word ends in -im, it's plural case looks identical.
I was agreeing with you. I don't think Elohim is a good candidate for the Trinity.
because one would not beg themselves for something they could just easily do without the fuss. and anyone who sits around whining for themselves to do something it a fool.
"Do not know that I could, at once, call upon more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" -Matthew 26:53-54
Its not foolish, its genius. God could decimate the wicked right now, especially if he has the foreknowledge of the spiritual demise. He could forgo all of it if He wanted. Is that foolish too? The fact that God would come to us lowly, born in a manger, only to be brutally executed for a peoples who don't deserve it speaks volumes to us His love for humanity. Aside from which, I've already shown you in the Tanakh that Mashiach is God, and God is Mashiach.
this makes jesus as a sacrifice to mankind from god, not a sacrifice from mankind to god. are you ok with that reading?
Don't you know that God has never been interested in animal sacrifice? The sacrifice was only a foreshadowing and only was a temporal covering, a temporary absolution.
For the Torah, having a shadow of the good matters to come, and not the image itself of the matters, was never able to make perfect those who draw near with the same slaughter offerings which they offer continually year by year.
Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered? Because those who served, once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those offerings is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Therefore, coming into the world, He says, “Slaughtering and meal offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. “In burnt offerings and offerings for sin You did not delight. “Then I said, ”See, I come - in the roll of the book it has been written concerning Me - to do Your desire, O Elohim.’, saying above, “Slaughter and meal offering, and burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor delighted in,” which are offered according to the Torah, then He said, “See, I come to do Your desire, O Elohim.”
He takes away the first to establish the second. By that desire we have been set apart through the offering of the body of Yeshua Messiah once for all. And indeed every priest stands day by day doing service, and repeatedly offering the same slaughter offerings which are never able to take away sins. But He, having offered one slaughter offering for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of Elohim, waiting from that time onward until His enemies are made a footstool for His feet.
For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being set apart. And the Ruach HaKodesh also witnesses to us, for after having said before, “This is the covenant that I shall make with them after those days, says Yahweh, giving My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I shall write them,” and, “Their sins and their lawlessnesses I shall remember no more.”
Now, where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer a slaughter offering for sin. So, brothers, having boldness to enter into the Ruach HaKodesh by the blood of Yeshua, by a new and living way which He instituted for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the House of Elohim."
-Hebrews 10:1-21
The acceptable sacrifice must be free from blemish and no broken bones.
"Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.
Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken," and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."
-John 19:31-37
god taking human form and god being born of a human being are very different things. there would be no need for god to impregnant mary -- why couldn't jesus just stroll down from heaven one day, fully formed and adult?
Because being impregnated by the Holy Spirit in Mary ensures that the Davidic lineage is preserved while avoiding the curse of Jehoiachin.
moshe split the red sea and produced water from a rock. those are god-like tricks, aren't they? one can be given power and authority by god without being god. see for instance in job, where satan is given godlike power over job. satan is not god, is he?
So, what probelm do you have that Jesus was granted this as well, and even more so than all other people? Like Jesus said, (paraphrasing) "If you don't want to believe in My testimony, fine, but at least believe the miracles." I mean, even the Sanhedrin records His death as being attributed as "Sorcery," meaning, He was doing some crazy things. They simply thought that He must be doing witchcraft.
any son of his brother, zedekiah, is a rightful heir to the throne of judah. zedekiah, as you recall, was the last king of judah after jehoiakim and his son were removed from power. jehoiakim's claim to the throne ended there, and the line should have continued from zedekiah. (read kings a little more carefully. i have a thread on this somewhere)
Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin is two different people. But avoiding the curse is not the only reason to be born of a virgin. Messiah had to be born of a virgin is because He had to be without sin-- in other words, symbolically "spotless" like the perfect and acceptable sacrifice. The Messiah was to be a priest, according to the Psalms
"The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.'"
Since He is from the family of David, the Messiah cannot be a Levite, but must be a Cohen (priest). The Israelites of His time, were all looking for the Glorious Messiah as a Roman butt-kicking warrior in the order of David. They were looking for a valiant warrior who dethrone the Caesar and set Israel above all other nations.
And who did they get instead? They got a meek man from Nazareth. They were all ready for Mashiac ben David, but got Mashiac ben Yosef instead, but they didn't understand at the time.
One of my favorite messianic prophecies comes from Luke’s gospel. It was only until recently that, I stumbled across this passage. I probably overlooked numerous times, simply because I did not cross-reference the book of Isaiah. When I understood the true meaning of the passage that I had glanced over before, I was awestruck at its messianic significance.
“So Jesus came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:
    Then He closed the book and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
    -Luke 4:16-21
    What in the world does that mean? Why did He pick that particular verse and not finish reading what was written? And what did it mean that ”today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.’ How was it fulfilled? In order to answer that, we should find the place where He was reading in Isaiah.
    “And the day of vengeance of our God . You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory you will boast . And instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion. Therefore, in their land they shall possess double; everlasting joy will be theirs. For I, the Lord, love justice; I hate robbery for burnt offering; I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them . So the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before ALL the nations.” -Isaiah 61
    What does that mean? What is the significance? God, speaking through Isaiah is telling His people, 760 years before Jesus would walk the earth, that the Gentiles would follow Him and that they would prosper, but His own people would be in derision. This is exactly what we have seen for the last 2,000 years.
    Isaiah is describing the church-age and how God would prosper in the hearts of true Christians who obeyed His voice. So, when Jesus stood up to read the first portion of Isaiah, it describes Mashiac ben Yosef, the suffering servant. Jesus, we know from the gospels, would fulfill this time in that generation. Jesus read this portion because His ministry had begun as the suffering servant. He sat down at the exact moment that Isaiah then describes Mashiac ben David, because His time as the Glorious Messiah would come later. So truly, there are not two separate messiahs, but rather, two separate times that He would appear in history in order to fulfill what was written by the prophets.
    mary is irrelevant. women determine cultural heritage. men determine royalty.
    I already explained it. Mary is the bloodline of David and Joseph is Jesus' adopted father, still making eligible for the throne. So, He gets to be physically connected to the line of David through Mary's blood, but gets to inherit the entitlements of the throne while avoiding the curse. Only God could engineer that.
    you're misreading that rather egregiously. the issue is about who's son, not about being god. in hebrew of the hundred and tenth psalm has: naum yahueh l'adonai said yahueh to my lord.
    the two "lords" are NOT the same. one is the name of god, the other is a relatively common title. see for instance how lot addresses the disguised angels in genesis 19:
    quote:Gen 19:2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house...
    same word. and he didn't know they were angels.
    So, you're saying that God said to the angel?
    Even supposing that David was speaking of ONLY his countrymen, this still presents a problem because Scripture was clear on what line, what nationality, and what faith the Mashiach must come from. The Mashiac is Jewish, through and through. So, if no Jew is good, no, not even ONE, then who will the Messiah be?
    How can that be? It says, "Then the LORD, said to MY Lord..." meaning that the "my" is David. He would clearly be talking about God and the Messiah in relation to himself.
    ethiopians are north-eastern african. their claims to judaism might be plausible, but are unverified. (they also claim to be in possession of the ark of the covenant).
    I don't about all that, but I've heard that too. I do know they have the last known remaining translation of the Book of Enoch in Ethiopian.
    oh, and while we're on contradictions.
    quoteeu 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:
    ruth is a late text, and generally not considered authoritative by jews. it fails to mention god in any significant way, and ruth essentially seduces a man if i recall.
    The Book of Rut has always been a book that has alot of controversy surrounding it. I have not conducted a study on it, so I'm going to have to defer to a website. I found an interesting one. I would quote from it, but its in a PDF format.
    the bible is full of people with special relationships with god. and certainly every christian i have ever met claims to have one too.
    I don't have a "special" relationship with God, at least not in the sense that I am privy to some esoteric knowledge. I would say that all of our relationships to God are unique in the sense that our stories are not all the same.
    read more closely. look at specifically:
    quote:When He does wrong, I will punish Him
    and
    quote:But My love will never be taken away from Him,
    and compare that to "my god, my god, why have you abandoned me?"
    Then why would David ask why God had abandoned him if you say that he is perfect also in the sight of God?
    flour and oil are acceptable sacrifices too. the focus on the blood is an entirely unfounded (and morbid!) reading of the text. it is the giving heart that grants forgiveness of sin, not death. don't believe me?
    Burnt offerings, grain offerings, and animal sacrifice are temporary sacrifices. And consider today how Jews are supposed to atone for their sins when there is no Temple remaining.
    quote:
    :Luk 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
    Luk 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
    and nobody died.
    Yes, that's true. God forgave before even the Law was introduced. However, the point is, sins need to be atoned for. God dies not desire sacrifice and concluded that in the New Covenant by making a final covering, which is why Jesus said, "It is finished."
    "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, declares the LORD.
    This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
    -Jeremiah 31:31-34
    he told adam that if he ate from the tree, he'd kill him on the spot. he did not. time after time god forgives man in the old testament. christians just tend not to look for it. but it's there.
    "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." -Genesis 2:16-17
    It doesn't say that He will kill them on the spot. It means they were initially created to live with God forever. Now, they would have to work hard for their food and He would increase pain during child bearing, and now they would die when they were supposed to live.
    one day on the cross? they liked to keep people alive on those things, you know. better punishment that way.
    Yes, prolonged pain was the desired effect, but He was also flogged mercilessly and whip with a flagrum, which is that torture device that looks like a cat of nine tails with metal hooks on the tips. Anyway, if you remember from the story, Pilate was shocked that Jesus died rather quickly.
    "Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph." -Mark 15:43-45
    how is that prophetic? he's asking a question, out of despair and torment.
    Because He is quoting David, or should I say, David is quoting Jesus before the fact.
    "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent. Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the praise of Israel. In you our fathers put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them.
    They cried to you and were saved; in you they trusted and were not disappointed. But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
    "He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him,
    since he delights in him."
    Psalm 22:1-8
    "Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped Him and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit You?"... Then the governor's soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole company of soldiers around him. They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand and knelt in front of him and mocked him. "Hail, king of the Jews!" they said. They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again... Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads... the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.' " In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him." -(various verses from Matthew 26 and 27)
    the story tells us one thing, actually. it tells us that god does not want human sacrifice.
    You're right, which is why God sacrificed Himself.
    "Truth is nowhere to be found, and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey. The LORD looked and was displeased that there was no justice. He saw that there was no one, He was appalled that there was no one to intervene; so His own arm worked salvation for Him, and His own righteousness sustained Him." -Isaiah
    or, you know, actually fulfilled any messianic prophecies. no peace on earth. no return of missing tribes of israel. no king of judah. you kind of have to do those things to be the messiah. that's the definition.
    The only thing Jesus has yet to do is bring peace complete peace during His second coming. Everything else was fulfilled.
    quote:
    And when the last individual comes to Christ, He will return for His bride.
    really? everyone on the earth has to be christian? that's not the way i remember revelation going at all...
    I didn't say everyone. I said His bride-- His elect. Most are going to be judged. And I certainly don't think that includes everyone who claims to be a Christian.
    we went through about 2/3rds of the supposed messianic prophecies, found most of them to not actually be prophetic, and every one that was we look at and found to not possibly be about jesus. perhaps you should find those threads. we only stopped, because people wouldn't shuttup about isaiah 7:14. and please don't even start on that here.
    Who is "we." Was that on EvC or somewhere else? As for the messianic prophecies, they are very obvious and easy to spot. As for Isaiah 7:14 , I won't mention it, though guessing by your answer we probably disagree.
    melchizedek? the preist of yahueh in (jeru)salem, before abraham? i'm not aware of this line sticking around, but it's a detail i may have forgotten. was samuel one?
    Yes, that's the one. Its a really long discourse. I'm gonna just cut to the chase and post some information on it rather than writing it up. This post is really long as it is. I won't blame you if you don't want to read it, though. Melchizedek
    in hebrew, ben adam means "mortal." ben elohim are a class of angels or demigods. ben david were kings. which one was jesus?
    Adam's name means "man." Angels are not demigods, because there is only one God. Which one was Jesus, what? I don;t know what that that means.
    how about we just acknowledge that the scripture is contradictory, instead of supposing contradictory ideas to rectify it?
    What is contradictory about the Scriptures? Its very clear.
    yes, but one cannot be all three at once.
    Why not? We are speaking about Almighty God here. If God can't do that, then He couldn't hear everyone's prayers simultaneously or be ubiquitous either by the same human logic. I think that is really limiting God.
    havaing looked into qabalah (before it was popular) i can confidently say that it is mystical bs, the equivalent of gnosticism in the christian church.
    I would agree. My only reason for mentioning it is that many Jews seem to be a-okay with Kabbalah, but not the Trinity. They seem to grasp the concept that God can manifest Himself in 12 characteristics and still be one God, but for some reason equate the Trinity to polytheism. I don't understand that.
    quote:
    If the gospel of John was the inspiration for some or all of the gnostic texts, then, whatever, I guess.
    more like vice-versa. it's a pet hypothesis of mine, that john was attempting to attract gnostic-minded people back to mainstread early christianity.
    The Ryland Papyrus is the earliest manuscript of John, placed in the first century. The gnostic texts emerged well after the 1st century.
    yes, and to say that a mortal being is god is also blasphemy.
    He isn't mortal. "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." -John 10:18
    first is that while "shet" does mean "appointed," he is given that name because he was "compensation" for abel. it means "appointed in the place of another."
    His name means, "Appointed."
    "enosh" means "man."
    Enosh means mortal, Adam means man.
    mahalalel comes from mi-halal-el. "from light of god" halal, btw, is the same word as hillel, or heylel ("lucifer"). just so you know.
    Mahalalel means, "the blessed God." And Lucifer isnt even Hebrew, so its irrelevant. Satan means, "The Adversary" or "the Accuser."
    And Methuselah means, "His death shall bring," which, interestingly, right after he died, the Flood began.
    it's like a rhyme scheme, but instead of rhyming it repeats. can you see how the lines are parallel? one line will say something, and the next will say the same thing in slightly different terms? sometimes adding something?
    Well, yes, I know the poetic style you are referring to, but I've never heard of a rhyme scheme.

    "With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 202 by arachnophilia, posted 12-12-2006 4:00 AM arachnophilia has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 260 by Brian, posted 12-14-2006 1:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 261 by anastasia, posted 12-14-2006 2:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 268 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2006 1:16 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Brian
    Member (Idle past 4959 days)
    Posts: 4659
    From: Scotland
    Joined: 10-22-2002


    Message 260 of 311 (369740)
    12-14-2006 1:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 259 by Hyroglyphx
    12-13-2006 9:53 PM


    Re: Hmm this may not be what you are looking for
    I already explained it. Mary is the bloodline of David
    You just keep saying this as if it is going to change a few thousand years of a people's beliefs!
    Jews do not take the bloodline through a woman, this is a fact no matter how many times you ignore it.
    Also, if you choose to keep ignoring it then you also have to ignore another fact, namely that the messiah would come from Solomon's bloodline and NOT Nathan's who is supposed to have been Mary's ancestor. So, no matter how you look at it, this desperate move by Christians is just ludicrous when taken in context, and the thing is it isn't even Mary's geneaology!
    and Joseph is Jesus' adopted father, still making eligible for the throne.
    Evidence please?
    So, He gets to be physically connected to the line of David through Mary's blood, but gets to inherit the entitlements of the throne while avoiding the curse. Only God could engineer that.
    If the author of Matthew hadn't boobed by misunderstanding Isaiah 7:14 then Christians wouldn't have to make a fool of themselves trying to link Jesus to David. As it stands, the Bible itself negates Jesus' messiahship.
    I find it difficult to get excited about Jesus' apparent 'sacrifice'. A few hours on a cross, complete with the knowledge that you are going to rise 3 days later is hardly a sacrifice at all! I've made a bigger sacrifice myself when I take the small portion of a cake and leave the larger one for someone else.
    Brian.
    Edited by Brian, : spelling

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 259 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-13-2006 9:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    anastasia
    Member (Idle past 5952 days)
    Posts: 1857
    From: Bucks County, PA
    Joined: 11-05-2006


    Message 261 of 311 (369745)
    12-14-2006 2:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 259 by Hyroglyphx
    12-13-2006 9:53 PM


    Re: Hmm this may not be what you are looking for
    arachnophilia writes:
    what i'm saying is strictly logical. god can becomes a man if he wishes. but if and when he does, he ceases to be god, by definition. you are either god or man, but not both. they are opposites.
    Is an artist the opposite of his masterpiece? Except for the physical stuff which it is made of, a painting is closer to being the artist, than being his opposite.
    Logic tells me that if the most talented artist in history were to painstakingly portay every trait that he considered alien to himself, the result would reveal still more of him than it would obscure.
    In Christian thinking, it appears, man can not possibly be God's opposite, since he is inferior to begin with.
    nemesis_juggernaut writes:
    Why can't you be God and man at the same time, by definition? What is God by definition? That's like saying God can't be in more than one place at the same time because its contradictory. I don't follow your logic. It seems like you are limiting God.
    If pantheism says that God=all of creation, and yet there is One God, it is not so hard to say that God=man and is yet one God.
    Anyway, what I really want to say is; Wow! That was a spine-tingling post there Nemesis! Got me in the Christmas spirit, for sure. Anyone can pick apart a prophecy. The nature of prophecy is such that it can not force belief, so there is no surprise in finding a double-meaning.
    Maybe the best case for the messianic prophecies is that they mean the difference between a pulse-quickening, ongoing understanding, and an antiquated collection of stories on a dusty shelf.
    I know that's just an opinion, but hey, even if it's all a fairy-tale, I like a little magic.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 259 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-13-2006 9:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 262 by ringo, posted 12-14-2006 2:41 PM anastasia has replied

    ringo
    Member (Idle past 412 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 262 of 311 (369752)
    12-14-2006 2:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 261 by anastasia
    12-14-2006 2:11 PM


    Re: Hmm this may not be what you are looking for
    anastasia writes:
    Except for the physical stuff which it is made of, a painting is closer to being the artist, than being his opposite.
    That's a pretty good analogy (and dogmatists are usually so appallingly bad at analogies ).
    The artist (God) may be a work of art in himself (Himself). On the other hand, a painting (man) is not an artist (God) - it can't produce another painting.
    A painting (man) is an "image" of the artist (God) - his (His) personality is reflected in it (him). But an image is just an image - it is forever separate from its creator.
    No painting can be an artist. No man can be a God.

    Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
    Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 261 by anastasia, posted 12-14-2006 2:11 PM anastasia has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 263 by anastasia, posted 12-14-2006 3:21 PM ringo has replied

    anastasia
    Member (Idle past 5952 days)
    Posts: 1857
    From: Bucks County, PA
    Joined: 11-05-2006


    Message 263 of 311 (369760)
    12-14-2006 3:21 PM
    Reply to: Message 262 by ringo
    12-14-2006 2:41 PM


    Ringo writes:
    No painting can be an artist. No man can be a God.
    I like to further my analogy in personal reflection by wondering if the above would be true of a divine painter. Maybe a divine paniter could reproduce himself so perfectly that he actually exists in the new medium.
    But I will refrain from boring you with that.
    You are right, though.
    No man can be a God, and those who try are usually pretty funny. But, hey, God could become a man, which I think is why the Bible says 'the Word became flesh' and not 'flesh became the Word'.
    Btw, my analogy was only meant to show that God and man are not opposites, nothing more.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 262 by ringo, posted 12-14-2006 2:41 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 264 by ringo, posted 12-14-2006 4:18 PM anastasia has replied

    ringo
    Member (Idle past 412 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 264 of 311 (369772)
    12-14-2006 4:18 PM
    Reply to: Message 263 by anastasia
    12-14-2006 3:21 PM


    anastasia writes:
    God could become a man
    Sure, a painter can become a painting. And then he can wash the paint off and cease to be a painting.
    But can he be a painter and a painting at the same time, or is he a painter only while painting? (Puts me in mind of the "writer" whose hasn't written anything in twenty years. Wouldn't "former writer" be a more accurate term?)

    Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
    Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 263 by anastasia, posted 12-14-2006 3:21 PM anastasia has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 265 by anastasia, posted 12-14-2006 5:36 PM ringo has not replied

    anastasia
    Member (Idle past 5952 days)
    Posts: 1857
    From: Bucks County, PA
    Joined: 11-05-2006


    Message 265 of 311 (369779)
    12-14-2006 5:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 264 by ringo
    12-14-2006 4:18 PM


    Ringo writes:
    But can he be a painter and a painting at the same time, or is he a painter only while painting?
    So in other words God is 'The Constant Painter'?
    Just kidding...no analogy of God is perfect! You need a few more pieces of this 'puzzle' to see the whole picture.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 264 by ringo, posted 12-14-2006 4:18 PM ringo has not replied

    Brian
    Member (Idle past 4959 days)
    Posts: 4659
    From: Scotland
    Joined: 10-22-2002


    Message 266 of 311 (369780)
    12-14-2006 5:41 PM


    If God became a man, wouldn't it be impossible for Him to become God again?
    Brian.
    Edited by Brian, : No reason given.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 270 by anastasia, posted 12-15-2006 1:46 AM Brian has replied

    ConsequentAtheist
    Member (Idle past 6238 days)
    Posts: 392
    Joined: 05-28-2003


    Message 267 of 311 (369806)
    12-14-2006 7:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 256 by anastasia
    12-13-2006 12:17 PM


    Re: History, not theology, best explains the origin of the trinity idea
    anastasia writes:
    ConsequentAtheist writes:
    anastasia, I asked for criteria, not examples. Again: how do you determine that an interpretation has authority worthy of respect or, conversely, has been "proven" to have no authority and is a "purposeful misrepresentation"?
    So, criteria;
    1. as accurate a translation (contradictions included) as possible
    2. a scholarly translation, not a 'revealed' one
    3. an interpretation based on accurate translation; even if it were blatantly paraphrased or geared toward a specific population it should reflect the meaning of the original
    Hope that answers your question!
    Yes, thank you.
    So, what you've told us is
    1. the authority of an interpretation is solely a function of the accuracy of the translation, and,
    2. conversely, an interpretation can be branded a "purposeful misrepresentation" solely as the consequence of it being based on an inaccurate translation.
    On the one hand, you bless disparate interpretations of the same translation with coequal respect. On the other, you insist that all interpretation based on errors in translation are disingenuous. This is, of course, absolute rubbish.
    Could you offer an authorative interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 256 by anastasia, posted 12-13-2006 12:17 PM anastasia has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 269 by anastasia, posted 12-15-2006 1:40 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied

    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1343 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 268 of 311 (369856)
    12-15-2006 1:16 AM
    Reply to: Message 259 by Hyroglyphx
    12-13-2006 9:53 PM


    Re: Hmm this may not be what you are looking for
    Why can't you be God and man at the same time, by definition? What is God by definition? That's like saying God can't be in more than one place at the same time because its contradictory. I don't follow your logic. It seems like you are limiting God.
    no, being man limits god. that's the point. god cannot be both infinite and finite.
    Its not foolish, its genius. God could decimate the wicked right now, especially if he has the foreknowledge of the spiritual demise. He could forgo all of it if He wanted. Is that foolish too? The fact that God would come to us lowly, born in a manger, only to be brutally executed for a peoples who don't deserve it speaks volumes to us His love for humanity.
    no, it's foolish to beg to know your own will.
    Aside from which, I've already shown you in the Tanakh that Mashiach is God, and God is Mashiach.
    those texts do not say what you think they do. you presented a lot of texts that say the messiah will be given god-like powers, or blessed by god, or sent from god. but none that actually say "god will take human form" or "the messiah will be god himself."
    Don't you know that God has never been interested in animal sacrifice?
    yes. god does not require sacrifice. that makes your point especially absurd.
    The sacrifice was only a foreshadowing and only was a temporal covering, a temporary absolution.
    no, the repentent, atoning heart is forgiven. the sacrifice is only demonstration of that heart. in the case of jesus, we are not giving up anything, and so his sacrifice of his own life says nothing about our hearts. no one can sacrifice for their neighbor, only for themselves.
    Because being impregnated by the Holy Spirit in Mary ensures that the Davidic lineage is preserved while avoiding the curse of Jehoiachin.
    royalty is patrilineal. and even accepting that adoption works (it does not), the line from david to jospeph goes through jehoiakim, who is cursed. the correct lineage is through zedekiah, his brother. if you are not the son of zedekiah, you are not in the royal line.
    So, what probelm do you have that Jesus was granted this as well, and even more so than all other people? Like Jesus said, (paraphrasing) "If you don't want to believe in My testimony, fine, but at least believe the miracles."
    there is difference between moshe and god. moshe was not god, and no one ever claimed he was. yet he performed miracles.
    I mean, even the Sanhedrin records His death as being attributed as "Sorcery," meaning, He was doing some crazy things. They simply thought that He must be doing witchcraft.
    if you are referring to the entries in the talmud, those do not appear to actually be this jesus.
    Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin is two different people.
    ARE two different people. i think you find that jehoiakim (son of josiah) king of judah is the cursed one, relevant to this discussion, and that jehoiachin/jechoniah/jechonias (his son) is not especially, other than the fact the he breaks the curse of jeremiah. (that's another contradiction for those paying attention)
    But avoiding the curse is not the only reason to be born of a virgin. Messiah had to be born of a virgin is because He had to be without sin-- in other words, symbolically "spotless" like the perfect and acceptable sacrifice.
    the messiah is not a sacrifice. he is a king.
    Since He is from the family of David, the Messiah cannot be a Levite, but must be a Cohen (priest).
    all cohens are levites, because all cohens are sons of aaron, a levite.
    "The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.'"
    melchizedek is not a cohen, nor a levite. in fact, he's not even hebrew, he's around at the time of abraham, well before israel.
    The Israelites of His time, were all looking for the Glorious Messiah as a Roman butt-kicking warrior in the order of David. They were looking for a valiant warrior who dethrone the Caesar and set Israel above all other nations.
    yes. that's the definition of messiah. you don't get to change the definition to suit the case. either it fits, or it does not. and jesus does not.
    What does that mean? What is the significance? God, speaking through Isaiah is telling His people, 760 years before Jesus would walk the earth, that the Gentiles would follow Him and that they would prosper, but His own people would be in derision. This is exactly what we have seen for the last 2,000 years.
    read it again.
    quote:
    Isa 61:6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: [men] shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.
    judah is in exile, beaten by the "gentiles." the verse says that things will reverse, and the jews will take what's theirs.
    quote:
    Isa 61:7 For your shame [ye shall have] double; and [for] confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them.
    and god will confuse them and make them think they have double. it's a day of vengeance, after all. and what has happened after 2000 years? we think we have a covenant with god, just like the verse says we will. we think we have double -- we think we have what the jews have, and they have nothing.
    yes, it's describing things pretty well, isn't it? only forgot that part about god exacting his vengeance.
    I already explained it. Mary is the bloodline of David and Joseph is Jesus' adopted father, still making eligible for the throne.
    no. matrilineal bloodline has no bearing on royalty, and joseph is not in the royal line. you cannot be eligible for the throne unless you are a son of zedekiah, the last king of judah. joseph is not. the issue about not really being his father only complicates things if joseph was indeed in the royal line. but since he's not, it's kind of moot.
    So, He gets to be physically connected to the line of David through Mary's blood, but gets to inherit the entitlements of the throne while avoiding the curse. Only God could engineer that.
    or any creative author who hasn't read the old testament carefully enough. if god had engineered it, jesus would be rightful king, and the line would go through zedekiah, wouldn't it?
    loopholes are for the pharisees. god does what he says, and what he says is straightforward.
    So, you're saying that God said to the angel?
    i'm saying that adonai doesn't mean "god." it's just one thing that people call god.
    How can that be? It says, "Then the LORD, said to MY Lord..." meaning that the "my" is David. He would clearly be talking about God and the Messiah in relation to himself.
    think about this a little more clearly. who says that david is the author? even the traditional addition (not part of the text) says "a psalm of david." does that mean by david or about david? and why assume this is accurate, instead of a tradition?
    Then why would David ask why God had abandoned him if you say that he is perfect also in the sight of God?
    because david is a human being, and there's no reason to assume that god was always physically there by his side making sure he won every little poker game he ever played. david certainly lost wars from time, didn't he? in fact, i can think of at least one instance in the book of samuel and chronicles were god does punish david.
    and again, who says david wrote it?
    Burnt offerings, grain offerings, and animal sacrifice are temporary sacrifices. And consider today how Jews are supposed to atone for their sins when there is no Temple remaining.
    you're missing the point. the point is that there are many forms of sacrifice that do not involve blood. god does not require blood in every circumstance. and as the prophets later tell us, it's not the blood at all.
    Yes, that's true. God forgave before even the Law was introduced. However, the point is, sins need to be atoned for. God dies not desire sacrifice and concluded that in the New Covenant by making a final covering, which is why Jesus said, "It is finished."
    somehow you're getting past the problem with the premise, and jumping right to the conclusion. the premise is that god needs a sacrifice to forgive sins, thus christ. if the first part is not true...
    quote:
    "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, declares the LORD.
    This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." -Jeremiah 31:31-34
    it seems god is talking about a permanent physical presence. one that does not require faith, because god is right there with us. clearly, this is not happened, though i'm sure you will pretend that it is. faith is still required, isn't it? where is god? point to him, and show me. i'd very much like to go and meet him, shake his hand, congratulate him on his creation.
    "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." -Genesis 2:16-17
    It doesn't say that He will kill them on the spot.
    yes, actually it does. "when" (in hebrew) has the implication of causality. when you eat from the tree, you will die. not after, and probably not before.
    Because He is quoting David, or should I say, David is quoting Jesus before the fact.
    congratulations, you are another person guilty of the pre-hoc, propter-hoc fallacy. it's wrong for all the reasons the post-hoc fallacy is, only with the additional reason of being in the wrong causal order.
    and it's still not prophetic, especially not for jesus to say. you wouldn't even have a case for david (who is speaking for himself -- post-hoc fallacy here) but certainly not for the person who quotes him.
    it tells us that god does not want human sacrifice.
    You're right, which is why God sacrificed Himself.
    that doesn't even make sense. one does not follow from the other. why did god sacrifice himself, instead of simply changing his own rules, like your jeremiah passage says?
    The only thing Jesus has yet to do is bring peace complete peace during His second coming. Everything else was fulfilled.
    except returning the lost tribes of israel. we're still missing around 10. and except sitting on the throne of judah. jesus never did that (i'm sure herod would have noticed). and except for destroying the foreigners in judah. the roman empire wouldn't like that very much at all.
    you just have to admit the "world peace" thing because it's so painfully obvious to everyone that it just hasn't happened yet, and you would appear completely dishonest (and possibly delusional) is you said anything else. but even assuming your statement is entirely true -- wouldn't that make jesus number 2 the messiah, instead of jesus number 1?
    I didn't say everyone. I said His bride-- His elect. Most are going to be judged. And I certainly don't think that includes everyone who claims to be a Christian.
    you said when the last individual comes to christ. you mean "that is going to..." or "when the very last person on the planet..." ?
    Who is "we." Was that on EvC or somewhere else? As for the messianic prophecies, they are very obvious and easy to spot.
    apparently too easy, as people seem to be spotting them in all kinds of places that aren't even prophetic, let alone about the messiah. yes it was here.
    As for Isaiah 7:14 , I won't mention it, though guessing by your answer we probably disagree.
    yes, we probably do. this is the problem (with this verse, and others). people take things out of context. not only does this verse not say (in hebrew) what people think it says, but the context firmly indicates that it can only apply to something very, very soon after the prophet says it. not only does the hebrew grammar imply that the woman is in the room, but the prophecy is not the child. it's that ahaz will conquer the assyrian army. the child is the clock on the prophecy. but it's meaningless after ahaz is dead, and the assyrian army has been beaten.
    so what happens is that people take this one verse, ignore what the chapter says, interpret it out of context as prophecy. when faced with the overwhelming evidence from the text itself that it's not about jesus, they are forced to come up with this idea of "double prophecies." meaning, it's talking about that first obvious contextual case, but also about jesus -- out of context and removed from all other parts of the prophecy.
    so when zechariah talks about the messiah coming through the east gate on a donkey, that parts about jesus. but the part of the same prophecy where the messiah conquers the world and forces everyone into peace isn't.
    we call this "intellectual dishonesty" around here.
    Adam's name means "man."
    closer to "mankind." and "son of man(kind)" means "mortal." look at the way god refers to ezekiel: son of man. it's god's way of calling him "lowly mortal."
    Angels are not demigods, because there is only one God.
    i say "demigods" because in other surrounding cultures the same word is used to describe beings that are lesser gods, or half-gods. it's not exactly clear what they are in the hebrew text, other than divine and not god.
    Which one was Jesus, what? I don;t know what that that means.
    was jesus a son of man, a mortal being? or was a son of god, divine and immortal, possibly angelic? or was a son of david, an earthly king? or was he god himself, son of nobody?
    What is contradictory about the Scriptures? Its very clear.
    then i am forced to believe that you do not have a sufficient degree of familiarity with the scriptures.
    Why not? We are speaking about Almighty God here. If God can't do that, then He couldn't hear everyone's prayers simultaneously or be ubiquitous either by the same human logic. I think that is really limiting God.
    no, again, being man limits god. god can limit himself if he wishes, but while he is limited, he cannot be without limits, can he? he either limits himself, or he does not. if he splits off part of himself, and limits that part (so as to be both at the same time), the part that is limited is no longer god, because he is limited.
    it's a definitional thing.
    I would agree. My only reason for mentioning it is that many Jews seem to be a-okay with Kabbalah, but not the Trinity. They seem to grasp the concept that God can manifest Himself in 12 characteristics and still be one God, but for some reason equate the Trinity to polytheism. I don't understand that.
    having problems with contradictory logic? that's ironic.
    The Ryland Papyrus is the earliest manuscript of John, placed in the first century. The gnostic texts emerged well after the 1st century.
    i am unaware of any document of any gospel dating before the second century. rylands 52 dates to 120 ad or later.
    He isn't mortal. "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." -John 10:18
    i'm sorry? he's immortal, but died? this isn't "highlander" you know. you are either immortal, or you can die. mortality can be his choice, but then he is not immortal.
    it's amazing to have to continually argue in tautologies as if they were logical points instead things self-evident.
    His name means, "Appointed."
    if you really want to know, it means "butt." but that's not the usage we're talking about here.
    Enosh means mortal, Adam means man.
    you completely ignored my reasoning. and besides, as i've been trying to explain to you elsewhere in this conversation, the concepts of "mortal" and "man" are related.
    mahalalel comes from mi-halal-el. "from light of god" halal, btw, is the same word as hillel, or heylel ("lucifer"). just so you know.
    Mahalalel means, "the blessed God." And Lucifer isnt even Hebrew, so its irrelevant. Satan means, "The Adversary" or "the Accuser."
    i'm convinced that you're not paying attention now. i know "lucifer" isn't hebrew, that's why it's in quotes and parenthesis. but the word in the hebrew of isaiah 14:12 is "heylel." as in "ma-heylel-el." it means, literally, "bright" or idiomatically "glorious." so mahalalel means "from the glorious god." that mem prefix, "from" is important.
    and besides, if it really does simply mean "the blessed god" isn't that one more name to add to your list of double standards about why "immanuel" has to be god, but other names about god aren't?
    And Methuselah means, "His death shall bring," which, interestingly, right after he died, the Flood began.
    again. no. it's from "mat" (another word for man) and "shelach" which means weapon. i don't know where this idea you're going after comes from.
    Well, yes, I know the poetic style you are referring to, but I've never heard of a rhyme scheme.
    no, i was saying it was like a rhyme scheme. if you've heard of it, why so much trouble of me having to explain it to you?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 259 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-13-2006 9:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    anastasia
    Member (Idle past 5952 days)
    Posts: 1857
    From: Bucks County, PA
    Joined: 11-05-2006


    Message 269 of 311 (369860)
    12-15-2006 1:40 AM
    Reply to: Message 267 by ConsequentAtheist
    12-14-2006 7:46 PM


    Re: History, not theology, best explains the origin of the trinity idea
    ConsequentAtheist writes:
    On the one hand, you bless disparate interpretations of the same translation with coequal respect. On the other, you insist that all interpretation based on errors in translation are disingenuous. This is, of course, absolute rubbish
    I myself do not bless disparate interpretations with coequal respect, but I will respect an honest process of interpretation even if I don't follow the logic of it.
    Please, I prefer to keep the rest of this in context. I don't insist that all interpretations based on errors are disingenuous. I insist that the ones previously mentioned (do I have to mention them again?) are indeed purposeful misrepresentations after the fact.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 267 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-14-2006 7:46 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 271 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-15-2006 6:03 AM anastasia has replied

    anastasia
    Member (Idle past 5952 days)
    Posts: 1857
    From: Bucks County, PA
    Joined: 11-05-2006


    Message 270 of 311 (369861)
    12-15-2006 1:46 AM
    Reply to: Message 266 by Brian
    12-14-2006 5:41 PM


    Brian writes:
    If God became a man, wouldn't it be impossible for Him to become God again?
    Only if he stopped being God also. In the Trinity view, Jesus has never stopped being God. He is both at the same time. That is a good reason why some types of christians can not be said to use sound logic when abandoning the Trinity.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 266 by Brian, posted 12-14-2006 5:41 PM Brian has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 279 by Brian, posted 12-15-2006 3:32 PM anastasia has replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024