Christian but I don’t celebrate Christmas or Easter!

[Its 2 Hot]

If someone told you I am a Christian but I don’t celebrate Christmas or Easter! what would you say to that person ?

[scrogdog]

I would say "Its to hot... please meet RoBoTeq"

[tonys]

is this poll an attempt to bring about Fundie Attacks?

...'cause, there com'n.

[Its 2 Hot]

I would say "Its to hot... please meet RoBoTech."

what wrong question?

[Its 2 Hot]

is this poll an attempt to bring about Fundie Attacks?

...'cause, there com'n.

nope i just want to see what most believe.

[scrogdog]

what wrong question?

No, as far as I remember, Robo also has no use for Easter and Christmas. There is also no doubt that he is a Christian.

As for me, I'm not religous but have no problem with the holidays.

[Plates5]

First off, Why would you not celebrate those sacred times if you say your a Christian????

If you say your a Christian but will not celebrate the birth and resurrection of the Savior, Then what makes you a Christian? To believe? Believing alone is not enough. Even Lucifer himself believes there is a Lord God. :confused: How you live and interact with Christ and your fellow humans is more of the measurement of what you are. If you've walked away for your Christianity for whatever reason, or have not asked him in to your heart. He will be waiting for you with open arms. Ask and you shall receive.
I don't think you need a poll to tell you what you already know in your own heart.

[tonys]

holidays = deep discounts at the electronics stores.

[tonys]

First off, Why would you not celebrate those sacred times if you say your a Christian????

If you say your a Christian but will not celebrate the birth and resurrection of the Savior, Then what makes you a Christian? To believe? Believing alone is not enough. Even Lucifer himself believes there is a Lord God. :confused: How you live and interact with Christ and your fellow humans is more of the measurement of what you are. If you've walked away for your Christianity for whatever reason, or have not asked him in to your heart. He will be waiting for you with open arms. Ask and you shall receive.
I don't think you need a poll to tell you what you already know in your own heart.


...we have our first fundie-spotting.

[chillbilly]

There's a reason this thread is dominated by tonys.

Here's a poll for ya'....

Do you know the reason??

[mark beiser]

Christmas and Easter = hostile takeover of perfectly good pagan holidays. :(

The symbols and rituals surrounding each holiday were barely even changed, mostly just dropped/modified the really fun parts...

Virtually all of the symbolism and tradition of "Christmas" come directly from pagan holidays that had already been going on at that time of year for centuries. Almost nothing about it has anything to do with Christ's birth, not even the time of year the holiday is celebrated.
In the almost 1800 years since it became a "Christian" holiday, even more traditions with various pagan roots have been added from various cultures.

The holiday now known as Easter was pagan many centuries before there was a such thing as a Christian. Some of the fertility symbols are still associated with the holiday.
We all know what activity rabbits are known for.;)

[k-fridge]

The dates of these holidays are somewhat controversial. Some Biblical scholars claim the actual birth of Jesus is sometime in the summer. Even the date of Easter is being debated.

To me the actual date is not so important. I celebrate the event, not necessarily he day.

[BigJon3475]

Unfortunetly Christmas has turned into how much can I afford to spend day and has lost it's meaning to a vast majority they only seem to remember the gifts the wise man brought instead of the meaning behind them. Easter has turned into a ??egg hunt?? and candy central. My family celebrates these events making sure that the real meaning is remembered and understood. During Christmas we sit around as a whole family and the grandparents (formerly parents I only have one left this year) and talk about God and what he means and how much he gave for us.

[makinmoney]

My question would be define "Celebrate"? Do you mean going to Church? Buying gifts for everybody and their brothers? Easter egg hunt? Never read about that in the bible.

It has become a economy thing the celebration was dismantled and re-mangled into what we now have......spend, spend, spend!

[k-fridge]

Unfortunetly Christmas has turned into how much can I afford to spend day and has lost it's meaning to a vast majority they only seem to remember the gifts the wise man brought instead of the meaning behind them. Easter has turned into a ??egg hunt?? and candy central. My family celebrates these events making sure that the real meaning is remembered and understood. During Christmas we sit around as a whole family and the grandparents (formerly parents I only have one left this year) and talk about God and what he means and how much he gave for us.
Good post! These holidays have definitely been hijacked by those who would profit from them.

[mark beiser]

To learn more about the true roots of Christmas, so some research on Saturnalia and Sol Invictus.

Easter has origins in more pagan cultures, that had similar meanings and symbolism, than you can shack a stick at!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm

[Its 2 Hot]

First off, Why would you not celebrate those sacred times if you say your a Christian????

If you say your a Christian but will not celebrate the birth and resurrection of the Savior, Then what makes you a Christian? To believe? Believing alone is not enough. Even Lucifer himself believes there is a Lord God. :confused: How you live and interact with Christ and your fellow humans is more of the measurement of what you are. If you've walked away for your Christianity for whatever reason, or have not asked him in to your heart. He will be waiting for you with open arms. Ask and you shall receive.
I don't think you need a poll to tell you what you already know in your own heart.

so you r saying because someone does not celebrate Xmas and easter they r lost! am i reading u right ? were in the bible did Christ r any of his followers celebrate Xmas

[chaard]

You're still a Christian even if you don't celebrate Easter and Christmas.

I think Christians should actually celebrate Passover, for the mere fact Jesus was the sacrificial Lamb. Otherwise celebrate resurrection Sunday.

As for Christmas, we are not telling our kids about Santa Claus. And we aren't shoving Christ down their throats either. We tell them why we celebrate Christmas( for Jesus' birth).
And you know what. They don't care that Santa wasn't the one that gave them presents.

[glennac]

so you r saying because someone does not celebrate Xmas and easter they r lost! am i reading u right ? were in the bible did Christ r any of his followers celebrate Xmas

His birthday wasn't celebrated till after Jesus left the earth and ascended into heaven. Now who cares if we do not know the exact date of the birth of Jesus or resurrection of Jesus from the dead on Easter Sunday. They are important events and should be celebrated without a bunch of nitpickers attacking them. Cut us some slack here. Go fight the Muslims or whatever and stop trying to create dissention in the Christian community.

[oloenneker]

I would vote in this little fun poll, but there is not a "who really cares" option.:rolleyes:

[Its 2 Hot]

Christmas and Easter = hostile takeover of perfectly good pagan holidays. :(


hostile takeover by who Christian?

[mark beiser]

hostile takeover by who Christian?

Yeap

[wolfstrike]

the fact is these holidays are pagan holidays.

but i don't think it's a good idea to tell kids they can't celebrate them. i don't feel these holidays teach paganism
...well maybe easter does

[bustawrench1]

hostile takeover by who Christian?

The Holy Roman Empire to be exact.

[chillbilly]

The specific day that Christ was born is unimportant.
The fact that he was born is of paramount importance.

[oloenneker]

Is it possible that the OP is pushing the Jehovah's Witness angle on things...

[scrogdog]

I say we burn chocolate bunnies and santas in the streets in protest of the abuse of these false pagan holidays.

[mark beiser]

I say we burn chocolate bunnies and santas in the streets in protest of the abuse of these false pagan holidays.

For Easter, I'm more in favor of dispensing with the childish symbolism and going back to celebrating the fertility festival in the appropriate manner. ;)

There were also some entertaining traditions for celebrating the rebirth/triumph of the sun god on the Sol Invictus(now Christmas), in some pagan cultures.

Them pagans sure were horny! :D

[gruntly]

My question would be define "Celebrate"?

Yus, Yus!

Before I cast my vote, this is the correct question. Define celebrate. There is a world of difference between "celebrate", "recognize" and "ignore". What are we talking here?

[Its 2 Hot]

(K Fridge) The dates of these event are not in question by me. Just the celebration of them and if u don’t than r u a Christian?

(Makinmoney)
Definition:
celebrate =To observe (a day or event) with ceremonies of respect, festivity, or rejoicing
Observe = To keep in anyway

(Glennac8) Go fight the Muslims or whatever and stop trying to create dissention in the Christian community.

How can I create what’s already done
Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Conservative, Mainline, Liberal, Adventist, Baptist, Lutheran, Reform, ,Arminianism, British Israelism, Calvinism, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism ……

(Oloenneker) The OP was and is not pushing any group

[DocHVAC]

I'm an non practicing Catholic and I celebrate these as part of our culture.

[RoBoTeq]

No, as far as I remember, Robo also has no use for Easter and Christmas. There is also no doubt that he is a Christian.

As for me, I'm not religous but have no problem with the holidays.

I have given myself to Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour and no, I do not celebrate Christmas or Easter for all of the reasons that have been correctly given.

I have no problems with having annual celebrations for nature's virtues of providing for us through the winter and reviving itself in Spring's rebirth of nature. I don't even have an issue with acknowledging the Pagan beliefs in these matters. For that matter, I don't consider Paganism to be against God in many aspects such as their celebrations of nature.

What I do have issues with is putting Jesus Christ's name to Pagan rituals. The only reason Christmas and Easter exist is because the Roman Catholic Church under the rule of Pagan leadership was forced to make Christianity more palatible to Pagans by allowing Pagans to keep their annual ritualistic celebrations.

Christmas and Easter are not about Jesus Christ. Jesus was injected into Pagan rituals so that Pagans would be more accepting of Jesus. This is about the worst thing that could happen to us. Instead of teaching the Good News to Pagans and allowing those Pagans to accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour by the means that Jesus Christ teaches us, we have basically tricked Pagans to claim to be Christians.

This is exactly the bastardization of Christ's teachings that has led to the so called Christian attacks on the peoples of the world. The Crusades were about as Christ like as Hitler's Germany was.

Easter and Christmas are lies. These rituals must be abolished by all Christian organizations just as Muslims must renounce the killings of infidels. There is absolutely no room for Christmas or Easter in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

[RoBoTeq]

I'm an non practicing Catholic and I celebrate these as part of our culture.

A non practicing Catholic? If there were such a thing, then I am a non practicing gigilo.

By your admission, you are not Catholic. In my opinion, that is a good thing. I do not mean to offend Catholics with my commentary, only to state that if you are a Catholic who believes entirely in the myths, legends and Pagan dogma of Catholisism, then you are not following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

[Tool-Slinger]

If someone told you I am a Christian but I don’t celebrate Christmas or Easter! what would you say to that person ?
You can thank God for the greatest gift of all during your prayers [I do] , Jesus Christ. God gave us the worldly Jesus, and Jesus us His worldly self. Which is pretty much the christian attachment to those holidays. Holidays come once a year, prayers may be weekly or several times in a day even. I voted yes.

Of course, I hope you are not being a total grinch about it either. If you have kids of nephews or nieces you can still buy a few presents from santa[wal-mart]clause and paint a few bunny-eggs. I know you gotta have relatives who would like you to come visit.

[RoBoTeq]

You can thank God for the greatest gift of all during your prayers [I do] , Jesus Christ. God gave us the worldly Jesus, and Jesus us His worldly self. Which is pretty much the christian attachment to those holidays. Holidays come once a year, prayers may be weekly or several times in a day even. I voted yes.

Of course, I hope you are not being a total grinch about it either. If you have kids of nephews or nieces you can still buy a few presents from santa[wal-mart]clause and paint a few bunny-eggs. I know you gotta have relatives who would like you to come visit.

While my boys were growing up I gave the gifts and I painted the eggs. I also made certain that they knew that those things came from those who loved them and not from some other fat guy that dresses funny. My boys were also taught the Christian realities as they pertain to these holidays and that the holidays themselves were not actually Christian.

[refer guy]

"Christian but I dont celebrate christmas or easter"

I would have to say i feel sorry for your kids for denying them the right to be normal and have fun, I hope you dont have kids, is it not like slavery to force your believes on others.

[RoBoTeq]

"Christian but I dont celebrate christmas or easter"

I would have to say i feel sorry for your kids for denying them the right to be normal and have fun, I hope you dont have kids, is it not like slavery to force your believes on others.

Yes, it is like slavery to force your beliefs on others. This is precisely why I told my children the truth about Easter and Christmas as well as the truth about what is actually communicated through the writtings of the Bible books and letters. In this way, my boys have been given the oportunity to make informed choices for themselves.

Just what choice do children who are deceived by the lies that permeate Christmas and Easter have? No matter how you slice it, twist it or sugar coat it; the factors that make up Easter and Christmas are downright lies and deceit. Most of us grow up being told at some time that the adults we trusted our very lives and souls to.....lied to and deceived us.

If lying and deceiving is normal, we are in serious trouble. If the only way we can have fun is to buy into untruths...just what does this say about us?

[forged alloy]

Must there always be a dark underside to things? I've got enough things on my plate to worry about right now without adding christmas and easter to the mix.

[scrogdog]

This is exactly the bastardization of Christ's teachings that has led to the so called Christian attacks on the peoples of the world. The Crusades were about as Christ like as Hitler's Germany was.

But Christians were not on the attack (strategically speaking) during the Crusades. The Crusades, from a Christian standpoint, were a rush to the defense of *already Christian lands* that had been invaded by Muslims.

That's not to say that everything that was done was "nice". But it is a common misconception that the Crusades were some sort of "wars of conversion", from a Christian standpoint anyway.

Do I always have to rush to the defense of Christians? :D

[bootlen]

Do I always have to rush to the defense of Christians? :D

Well, it helps to have someone who does not appear to be biased towards Christianity. YOU certainly fit the bill.

[icchvac]

I didn't vote in the poll because I've seen people say they were Christian but didn't think that Jesus was the Saviour. How they are Christian without Jesus being the Saviour I haven't figured out yet. The Christmas and Easter thing is optional.

[RoBoTeq]

Must there always be a dark underside to things? I've got enough things on my plate to worry about right now without adding christmas and easter to the mix.

No dark underside. The lies that go along with Christmas and Easter are very much right up front and blatantly accepted. If you believe that lying and deceiving are appropriate, then continue participating in the Paganistic inspired holidays so everyone can feel "normal". If however you feel that lying and deceiving are not very good things to do, simply stop lying and deceiving and tell the truth during the holidays.


Oh! I guess being truthful isn't as fun, eh?

[RoBoTeq]

But Christians were not on the attack (strategically speaking) during the Crusades. The Crusades, from a Christian standpoint, were a rush to the defense of *already Christian lands* that had been invaded by Muslims.

That's not to say that everything that was done was "nice". But it is a common misconception that the Crusades were some sort of "wars of conversion", from a Christian standpoint anyway.

Do I always have to rush to the defense of Christians? :D

Justification does not make wrong doing right. The Crusades were just out and out wrong from every standpoint.

[RoBoTeq]

I didn't vote in the poll because I've seen people say they were Christian but didn't think that Jesus was the Saviour. How they are Christian without Jesus being the Saviour I haven't figured out yet. The Christmas and Easter thing is optional.

Those who do not accept Christ as their Saviour cannot be considered Christian. Easter and Christmas are not options, they simply have nothing to do with Jesus Christ other then having Jesus's name tagged onto Pagan holidays chock full of Pagan rituals.

The three who voted that a person who does not participate in Christmas or Easter cannot be a Christian simply do not have a true understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ or the writings of the New Testament along with no knowledge of Pagan holidays and rituals.

[gruntly]

So halloween candy is out of the question...

...and I don't mean just from the "commercial" point of view, since halloween is a heathen/pagan celtic ritual.

Lord. Save your ancestors. You'll never see them again since they're burning in the hell-fire of damnation.

Some say you can not be a Christian without believing Christ to be the Saviour... You can certainly be a follower of Christ's teachings though. A true to form Christian also understands that Christ is the Son of God, not just the Saviour.

Besides... With my family spreading out across the globe, Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving are good enough excuses for me to get them all together again. Isn't that what really counts? I'll keep these celebrations close by.

[glennac]

Justification does not make wrong doing right. The Crusades were just out and out wrong from every standpoint.


Robo, good buddy, the crusaders were fighting the advance of Islam. Nothing wrong with that other than the fact they they weren't successful. Also when to you celebrate the Birth of Jesus or the Resurrection? Never I presume. Since no one can be sure what the exact date is who cares as long as it is celebrated.

[bootlen]

Some say you can not be a Christian without believing Christ to be the Saviour...


Actually, God Himself said it first. I try to not argue with God. And I recommend the same for you.

[RoBoTeq]

So halloween candy is out of the question...

...and I don't mean just from the "commercial" point of view, since halloween is a heathen/pagan celtic ritual.

Lord. Save your ancestors. You'll never see them again since they're burning in the hell-fire of damnation.

Some say you can not be a Christian without believing Christ to be the Saviour... You can certainly be a follower of Christ's teachings though. A true to form Christian also understands that Christ is the Son of God, not just the Saviour.

Besides... With my family spreading out across the globe, Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving are good enough excuses for me to get them all together again. Isn't that what really counts? I'll keep these celebrations close by.

I have nothing against Halloween other then it seems to be a bit odd to teach your children to beg for candy, but hey, to each their own. It does not matter to me that Halloween has Pagan roots because I have nothing against Pagan rituals being used as entertainment. No one has injected Jesus Christ into Halloween, so there is no issue.

A Christian accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. A person who follows Jesus's teachings and tries to adhere to them but does not accept Jesus as God incarnate is a student of Jesus and not a Christian. Faith makes the Christian.

I'm happy for all of the people who like the holidays because they bring the family together, but no, that is not what really counts. Keep the holidays and keep having family get togethers over the holidays, just stop lying about Jesus and all of the Pagan icons during the holidays. Is there some special ingredient in deceit and lies that brings families together? If you prefer to not be a deceiver and a liar, just stop deceiving and lying. The holidays are a great time to stop being liars.

[RoBoTeq]

Robo, good buddy, the crusaders were fighting the advance of Islam. Nothing wrong with that other than the fact they they weren't successful. Also when to you celebrate the Birth of Jesus or the Resurrection? Never I presume. Since no one can be sure what the exact date is who cares as long as it is celebrated.

Sorry Glenn, but you are stuck in a web of lies. The Crusades were about mortal power. Once the European Crusaders got to the Middle East and saw that the Christians there that they went to free from Muslim oppression looked more like the Muslims then they did European Christians, the Crusaders executed the Middle Eastern Christians right along with the Muslims. It was all about European expansion, not Christianity.

I celebrate the birth of Jesus of Nazareth daily. If the mortal Jesus's birthday were important, the books of the New Testament would have instructed us to do so. The fact is that birthdays are a relatively new celebratory event. Tell me where Jesus is ever mentioned celebrating a day of birth. I believe that my Christian faith needs to dwell on what Jesus taught, not what is popular among the masses at the moment.

Passover is the day that should be celebrated by Christians because that is the day that Jesus celebrated. With Jesus, eternal death will "Pass over" the believer just as mortal death passed over the Jews in Eqypt.

[sysint]

.....I think Christians should actually celebrate Passover, for the mere fact Jesus was the sacrificial Lamb. Otherwise celebrate resurrection Sunday...
Passover is the only commanded celebration to Christians by Christ himself.

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." NIV
The same point is made in 1 Corinthians.

You can't prove what day Jesus was born, but you can absolutely figure out what day passover is every year. Actually, Jesus changed what passover was and made a new covenant with people as the old ways were ended. So it's not even passover, but commemorating Jesus sacrifice.

Jesus subsequent resurrection is a given so there wouldn't be a need to celebrate that. Afterwards, Jesus didn't say "celebrate my resurrection" as that was merely the promised result of his death.

[Its 2 Hot]

You can thank God for the greatest gift of all during your prayers [I do] , Jesus Christ. God gave us the worldly Jesus, and Jesus us His worldly self. Which is pretty much the christian attachment to those holidays. Holidays come once a year, prayers may be weekly or several times in a day even. I voted yes.

Of course, I hope you are not being a total grinch about it either. If you have kids of nephews or nieces you can still buy a few presents from santa[wal-mart]clause and paint a few bunny-eggs. I know you gotta have relatives who would like you to come visit.

yes I have a 3 three year old son and a about 20 nephews and nieces. I will not teach my son about Xmas or Easters. when he is old enough 2 ask about them ill tell him why i don’t.

[Tool-Slinger]

yes I have a 3 three year old son and a about 20 nephews and nieces. I will not teach my son about Xmas or Easters. when he is old enough 2 ask about them ill tell him why i don’t.
TWENTY NEPHEWS AND NIECES! HOLY COW, MAN!

You CANNOT celibrate Christmas, you would be bankrupt!!!!:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[TB]

If someone told you I am a Christian but I don’t celebrate Christmas or Easter! what would you say to that person ?

"That's his choice."

[TB]

As for the poll Q. It depends on the reason Christmas and Easter are not celebrated. First off, I gotta throw in with the others that said define "Celebrate". I can think of a lot of reasons why a christian would not celebrate in the traditional manner.

Didn't Paul say, 1 Corinthians 10:25
25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience,

He said this about meat sacraficed to idols, and said it to Christians. If there is nothing wrong with eating meat that was sacraficed to an idol, then what's wrong with celebrating Jesus on a day that was once sacraficed to idols as well?

Here lies the problem. Is Jesus celebrated / worshipped in spirit and truth? (Jn. 4), or in rites and rituals?

Colossians 2:16
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

A new moon celebration was a rite of witchcraft, and occult practices--still is, or can be--but in Christ, we have freedom to celebrate any day we choose--or not. The focus of the Christian should be on Jesus, not the day or origin of it, but the purpose of a celebration.

[The Doctor]

As for the poll Q. It depends on the reason Christmas and Easter are not celebrated. First off, I gotta throw in with the others that said define "Celebrate". I can think of a lot of reasons why a christian would not celebrate in the traditional manner.

Didn't Paul say, 1 Corinthians 10:25
25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience,

He said this about meat sacraficed to idols, and said it to Christians. If there is nothing wrong with eating meat that was sacraficed to an idol, then what's wrong with celebrating Jesus on a day that was once sacraficed to idols as well?

Here lies the problem. Is Jesus celebrated / worshipped in spirit and truth? (Jn. 4), or in rites and rituals?

Colossians 2:16
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

A new moon celebration was a rite of witchcraft, and occult practices--still is, or can be--but in Christ, we have freedom to celebrate any day we choose--or not. The focus of the Christian should be on Jesus, not the day or origin of it, but the purpose of a celebration.

Another pivotal text in matters of Christian liberty is I Corinthians 8. This then moves into another chapter (9 of course), which goes further in laying out our goal in all of this--to preach the gospel of Christ without (our conduct) making the preaching void.

So I celebrate these days with family, not for the sake of the cultural aspect , but rather to remember that Christ has made us free.

Our family already thinks we're weird, because they're always asking us if we know how come we keep getting pregnant. I think those holidays would bankrupt us if we spent money at the retail rate.

But we take the opportunity to remember that it's all about the Way, the Truth, and the Life
our Lord Jesus Christ. The rest is just details...:D

[chas]

"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." —John 1:12 (NIV)


Christmas and Easter are there to entertain the flesh.......

[bootlen]

"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." —John 1:12 (NIV)


Christmas and Easter are there to entertain the flesh.......


Maybe those holidays entertain YOUR flesh, but Christmas reminds me that the God of Creation humbled Himself to become a man, was born in a stall for farm animals, lay in a feed trough, but was in fact, the Promise...the Messiah. And "Easter, reminds me that the aforementioned God of Creation was despised and rejected, hailed one Friday and nailed the next Friday, was beaten beyond human recognition, hung on a shameful cross, died on that cross after 6 hours of excrutiating pain, was buried in a tomb loaned to Him, BUT WAS RESURRECTED ON THE THIRD DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES. And my friend, those little tidbits bring immeasurable joy to me to think He did all that out of love for this horrible wretch. And I will celebrate those 2 incredible events each year in His memory and in thankfulness.

BTW, Robo. I am reminded of His resurrection each and every Sunday by our gathering together to worship Him...Jesus Christ. And my Bible study each morning reminds me daily of His ressurection. (Just thought you'd like to know I agree with you on that point.)

[sysint]

Colossians 2:16
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

A new moon celebration was a rite of witchcraft, and occult practices--still is, or can be--but in Christ, we have freedom to celebrate any day we choose--or not. The focus of the Christian should be on Jesus, not the day or origin of it, but the purpose of a celebration.

I think the reference here is to the existing Jewish festivals if you read vs 17 too, especially since vs 16 is only part of the complete sentence.

[sysint]

Maybe those holidays entertain YOUR flesh, but Christmas reminds me that the God of Creation humbled Himself to become a man, was born in a stall for farm animals, lay in a feed trough, but was in fact, the Promise...the Messiah. And "Easter, reminds me that the aforementioned God of Creation was despised and rejected, hailed one Friday and nailed the next Friday, was beaten beyond human recognition, hung on a shameful cross, died on that cross after 6 hours of excrutiating pain, was buried in a tomb loaned to Him, BUT WAS RESURRECTED ON THE THIRD DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES. And my friend, those little tidbits bring immeasurable joy to me to think He did all that out of love for this horrible wretch. And I will celebrate those 2 incredible events each year in His memory and in thankfulness....Who resurrected Jesus?

[bootlen]

Who resurrected Jesus?

Jesus did. Proof that He is God...in the Person of the Son.

[chas]

LOST SHEEP ...........


Keep herding them BOOT,Lord Knows they need a Shepard:)

[TB]

Our family already thinks we're weird, because they're always asking us if we know how come we keep getting pregnant.



me too, friends kept asking if we know why that happens... till I started answering with Ps. 127

[RoBoTeq]

LOST SHEEP ...........


Keep herding them BOOT,Lord Knows they need a Shepard:)

I think booty would be the first to state that he is not the shepard. I guees those of us who evangelize could be thought of as sheepdogs though. Unfortunately there are some wolves in sheepskins in the herds.

[TB]

I think booty would be the first to state that he is not the shepard. I guees those of us who evangelize could be thought of as sheepdogs though. Unfortunately there are some wolves in sheepskins in the herds.

(sorry man, but I cant help myself...)



sheep flock, if you're in a herd you're in the wrong group :D

[sysint]

Jesus did. Proof that He is God...in the Person of the Son.

If you say that Jesus resurrected himself, then he didn't really die at all. That would mean there was no sacrifice.

[bootlen]

If you say that Jesus resurrected himself, then he didn't really die at all. That would mean there was no sacrifice.

Not true at all. His body died, as documented by Roman records. His spirit was separated from God the Father, which is the definition of spiritual death and was confirmed by His call from the cross, "Eloi, Eloi. Lema sabachthani?", which means, "My God, My God. Why has Thou forsaken me?".

So you see, Sys. He died physically and spiritually. Sacrifice was perfect and complete. As He said in His dying breath, "Tetelestai." "It is finished" or more accurately, "Paid in full."

[bootlen]

I think booty would be the first to state that he is not the shepard.

Spot on, Robo. I do not qualify as a shepherd. Not even close to it.

But we all "qualify" for grace, salvation, and mercy. It's just a matter of submitting ourselves to collect on that bounty.

[sysint]

Not true at all. His body died, as documented by Roman records. His spirit was separated from God the Father, which is the definition of spiritual death and was confirmed by His call from the cross, "Eloi, Eloi. Lema sabachthani?", which means, "My God, My God. Why has Thou forsaken me?".

So you see, Sys. He died physically and spiritually. Sacrifice was perfect and complete. As He said in His dying breath, "Tetelestai." "It is finished" or more accurately, "Paid in full."I believe Jesus died.
However, God cannot die. He is eternal. Are you trying to say Jesus is not eternal? Perhaps you can clarify his "spirit was separated from God the Father". In what way was he separated?

[bootlen]

I believe Jesus died.
However, God cannot die. He is eternal. Are you trying to say Jesus is not eternal? Perhaps you can clarify his "spirit was separated from God the Father". In what way was he separated?

Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of "to die". And neither do you understand God's capabilities.

God, in all 3 Persons is spiritual in nature. However, God the Son became a man in the fleshly sense. His body died (physical death) but His spirit continued to exist. However, to die spiritually means to be where God is not. Christ died spiritually...went where God the Father is not. (And naturally you think you have me where you want me. But the fact is, I freely admit I have a hard time getting my head around the Eternal God in His 3 Persons. But truth does not require one's understanding to be truth.)

Clarifying certain aspects of God defies human language. But we know enough about Him to gain citizenship in His Kingdom.

Hell was created specifically for Lucifer (renamed satan). It was created because God was everywhere and satan had to be put in a place where God was not.

[RoBoTeq]

(sorry man, but I cant help myself...)



sheep flock, if you're in a herd you're in the wrong group :D

Good catch. That was my little test to see who was really Christian:rolleyes:

Either that or I have been quite tired since mrbill forced me to drink so much tequila in Texas.

[RoBoTeq]

If you say that Jesus resurrected himself, then he didn't really die at all. That would mean there was no sacrifice.

The resurrection was of the mortal body not the spiritual soul. Trying to pull these cheesy parlor tricks on those of faith is really pretty pathetic.

[RoBoTeq]

I believe Jesus died.
However, God cannot die. He is eternal. Are you trying to say Jesus is not eternal? Perhaps you can clarify his "spirit was separated from God the Father". In what way was he separated?

We are all spiritual beings on a temporary mortal journey. Just as all of us are spiritual so was Jesus of Nazareth. Along with being a mortal being, Jesus of Nazareth was spiritually God.

[bootlen]

The resurrection was of the mortal body not the spiritual soul. Trying to pull these cheesy parlor tricks on those of faith is really pretty pathetic.

You make a great point, Robo. But I am compelled to point out that Christ was resurrected spiritually as well as physically. And He is the ONLY Person to be resurrected spiritually after a physical death.

[chillbilly]

Not true at all. His body died, as documented by Roman records. His spirit was separated from God the Father, which is the definition of spiritual death and was confirmed by His call from the cross, "Eloi, Eloi. Lema sabachthani?", which means, "My God, My God. Why has Thou forsaken me?".
Christ did not feel abandoned by God. He felt heartbreak because he had been with him his entire life and then had to endure detachment from God briefly.



So you see, Sys. He died physically and spiritually. Sacrifice was perfect and complete. As He said in His dying breath, "Tetelestai." "It is finished" or more accurately, "Paid in full."
He said "it is finished" meaning that he had fulfilled God's purpose for him on Earth. You can interpret it to mean he paid a debt, but that's not what he said.

[bootlen]

Christ did not feel abandoned by God. He felt heartbreak because he had been with him his entire life and then had to endure detachment from God briefly.



He said "it is finished" meaning that he had fulfilled God's purpose for him on Earth. You can interpret it to mean he paid a debt, but that's not what he said.

Did someone say He felt abandoned?

"Tetelestai" is a word stamped on debts in 1st century Jerusalem which meant the debt had been paid in full.

[sysint]

Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of "to die". And neither do you understand God's capabilities.

God, in all 3 Persons is spiritual in nature. However, God the Son became a man in the fleshly sense. His body died (physical death) but His spirit continued to exist. However, to die spiritually means to be where God is not. Christ died spiritually...went where God the Father is not. (And naturally you think you have me where you want me. But the fact is, I freely admit I have a hard time getting my head around the Eternal God in His 3 Persons. But truth does not require one's understanding to be truth.)

Clarifying certain aspects of God defies human language. But we know enough about Him to gain citizenship in His Kingdom.

Hell was created specifically for Lucifer (renamed satan). It was created because God was everywhere and satan had to be put in a place where God was not.
I'm going to save your commentary on Satan for another thread....

Jesus died. God is eternal. Anyone who dies is not eternal by definition. Doesn't matter if it's in an instant of time or a long time. Death means you are not eternal. Jesus' death was also a sacrifice, something given up.

If you say to die "spiritually" means he simply WENT where God is not, that means he didn't die, he simply went somewhere. How do you go somewhere where God (the Father?) is not? If God (the Father) wasn't there, how did Jesus get out of there? Wouldn't God (the Father) by definition be there as he is God too?

As long as you brought it up, explain the nature of Jesus. How does it differ from the Father?

[bootlen]

Jesus died. God is eternal. Anyone who dies is not eternal by definition. Doesn't matter if it's in an instant of time or a long time. Death means you are not eternal. Jesus' death was also a sacrifice, something given up.

If you say to die "spiritually" means he simply WENT where God is not, that means he didn't die, he simply went somewhere. How do you go somewhere where God (the Father?) is not? If God (the Father) wasn't there, how did Jesus get out of there? Wouldn't God (the Father) by definition be there as he is God too?

As long as you brought it up, explain the nature of Jesus. How does it differ from the Father?

Spiritual death is to be outside the presence of the Father. Jesus became sin on our behalf and therefore could not be in the Father's presence.

Hmmm. You do make a great point. Since death could not hold its Prey, Christ never really died as we understand death. He never sinned so corruption could not touch Him. That is precisely why He could resurrect. Hmm. Great food for thought.

And, thanks, Sys. You have brought up a great discussion for our next little "confab" at church. I don't know that the bottom line to this discussion can be found in Scripture so we may end up remaining silent since we believe where Scripture is silent, so should we be.

They are exactly alike in nature but they hold different offices. Christ is Prophet, Priest, and King. I'll have to search to find what the Father's office is. The Holy Spirit is Comforter, Helper, and Teacher. Maybe some of my brothers here know the offices of the Father off the top of their heads.

Of course, Christ is unique in that He "became flesh and dwelt among us". The Spirit is unique in that He dwells WITHIN us (believers).

[sysint]

"They are exactly alike in nature"--

Actually, I'd say not. The Holy Ghost has never existed as a person. The Father has never existed as a person. They are ontologically different. You would have to agree with that as you stated that Jesus could be away from the presence of where God the father was located. That also means God isn't omnipresent to you.

[bootlen]

"They are exactly alike in nature"--

Actually, I'd say not. The Holy Ghost has never existed as a person. The Father has never existed as a person. They are ontologically different. You would have to agree with that as you stated that Jesus could be away from the presence of where God the father was located. That also means God isn't omnipresent to you.

You're sorta repeating what I said about Christ's uniqueness.

They are each separate identities but still one God...the Triune God.

I'm sure at this point that you want a fleshly explanation of how this is possible. Sorry to disappoint you. There is none. You see, He is God. God in 3 Persons but still one God. He defies fleshly, worldly explanation. If you cannot understand that, I cannot help you.

[TB]

Jesus' eternal nature means He had no beginning, and no end. He died both spiritually and physically, but he didn't cease to exist, His body did not see decay, and His spirit was rejoined with it 3 days later. Similarily, we too will die, but we will not cease to exist, we will all spend eternity somewhere.

[sysint]

Jesus was begotten. That means he had a beginning. The scriptures state begotten.

Definition beget \Be*get"\, v. t. [OE.
bigiten, bigeten, to get, beget, AS. begitan to get; pref.
be- + gitan. See Get, v. t. ]
1. To procreate, as a father or sire; to generate; --
commonly said of the father.
[1913 Webster]

Yet they a beauteous offspring shall beget.
--Milton.
[1913 Webster]

2. To get (with child.) [Obs.] --Shak.
[1913 Webster]

3. To produce as an effect; to cause to exist.
[1913 Webster]


[I]"Similarily, we too will die, but we will not cease to exist, we will all spend eternity somewhere."So the ransom of Christ is for what purpose?

Boot, an "explanation" of the dilemma of the nature of Christ in the Trinity is something you admitted having trouble with. The Catholics struggled with this early and came up with another doctrine to supplement the Trinity regarding called the hypostatic union. Let me know if you agree with that or not.

[bootlen]

Jesus was begotten. That means he had a beginning. The scriptures state begotten.

Definition beget \Be*get"\, v. t. [OE.
bigiten, bigeten, to get, beget, AS. begitan to get; pref.
be- + gitan. See Get, v. t. ]
1. To procreate, as a father or sire; to generate; --
commonly said of the father.
[1913 Webster]

Yet they a beauteous offspring shall beget.
--Milton.
[1913 Webster]

2. To get (with child.) [Obs.] --Shak.
[1913 Webster]

3. To produce as an effect; to cause to exist.
[1913 Webster]


[I]"Similarily, we too will die, but we will not cease to exist, we will all spend eternity somewhere."So the ransom of Christ is for what purpose?

Boot, an "explanation" of the dilemma of the nature of Christ in the Trinity is something you admitted having trouble with. The Catholics struggled with this early and came up with another doctrine to supplement the Trinity regarding called the hypostatic union. Let me know if you agree with that or not.


Yes. Begotten is correct when you speak of water birth. Christ was God water-born to a human. That was God's choice to do it that way so we cannot say, "Jesus does not understand. He has never been there." Well, Jesus is God and has experienced everything we have experienced (in the general sense...not the specific sense) and never sinned so we are without excuse.

The ransom Christ paid was so we can spend eternity WITH the Father, rather than WITHOUT the Father.

No, I have absolutley NO trouble with the Trinity. Can I explain it in fleshly terms? No. But you don't have to be able to explain in ANY terms how an escalator works to ride one, now do you?

I am not Catholic. Naver have been. I am unfamiliar with the "hypostatic union". But I'll Google and get back.

[bootlen]

Boot, an "explanation" of the dilemma of the nature of Christ in the Trinity is something you admitted having trouble with. The Catholics struggled with this early and came up with another doctrine to supplement the Trinity regarding called the hypostatic union. Let me know if you agree with that or not.

Ah. Okay. "Hypostasis". A word used to "explain" the 3 in 1. I think it takes a good shot at the target but still misses.

What difference does it make whether there is another word for Trinity? Either one believes or does not believe.

[sysint]

"Yes. Begotten is correct when you speak of water birth. Christ was God water-born to a human. That was God's choice to do it that way so we cannot say, "Jesus does not understand. He has never been there." Well, Jesus is God and has experienced everything we have experienced (in the general sense...not the specific sense) and never sinned so we are without excuse.

The ransom Christ paid was so we can spend eternity WITH the Father, rather than WITHOUT the Father."

The scriptures state Jesus is the firstborn of creation, God's only begotten son. He calls Jesus his only-begotten son. This makes sense because 1 Cor 8:6 says that every other thing is created through Jesus.

On the doctrine of the hypostatic union it really has to do with the attempted explanation of how Jesus could be god and man. Again, have you looked at it and do you agree with it?

[bootlen]

"Yes. Begotten is correct when you speak of water birth. Christ was God water-born to a human. That was God's choice to do it that way so we cannot say, "Jesus does not understand. He has never been there." Well, Jesus is God and has experienced everything we have experienced (in the general sense...not the specific sense) and never sinned so we are without excuse.

The ransom Christ paid was so we can spend eternity WITH the Father, rather than WITHOUT the Father."

The scriptures state Jesus is the firstborn of creation, God's only begotten son. He calls Jesus his only-begotten son. This makes sense because 1 Cor 8:6 says that every other thing is created through Jesus.

On the doctrine of the hypostatic union it really has to do with the attempted explanation of how Jesus could be god and man. Again, have you looked at it and do you agree with it?

John 1

"In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and God was the Word."

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Whether I agree with Catholic doctrine is not the issue. The issue is,"Do you or I agree with God? Do you or I believe His Word?"

Eternal life does hinge on Catholic doctrine. Therefore, it means absolutely nothing to me. You might as well ask if I agree with Paula Abdul's assessment of that guy named Hung. It means nothing to me.

[sysint]

John 1

"In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and God was the Word."

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Whether I agree with Catholic doctrine is not the issue. The issue is,"Do you or I agree with God? Do you or I believe His Word?"

Eternal life does hinge on Catholic doctrine. Therefore, it means absolutely nothing to me. ...

Catholic doctrine explains your position better than you can. What I'm saying is you really don't have an explanation.

So, your basic Trinity scripture is John 1:1 of which you really have no understanding grammatically.

Moffatt says "and the Word was divine" as there is the realization of not being able to call the Word god as the Father is definitively named god in the first part of the verse.

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

The literal Greek text reads: “In beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the word.” There are no capitals, and thus the translator must supply them. It is clearly proper to capitalize “God” in translating the phrase “the god,” since this must identify the Almighty God with whom the Word, or Logos, was. However, capitalizing the second instance of the word “god” cannot be justified in the same way.[citation needed] As noted below, some translations say "the Word was God", while others say "the Word was a god". While it is true that there is no indefinite article ('a', or 'an') in the original Greek text, this is because Koine Greek had no indefinite article in the language. Thus, translators are required to use the indefinite article, or not, based on their understanding of the text.

There is good reason for utilizing the indefinite article in translation of this text.[citation needed] Note first that the Word was "with" God, and hence could not "be" Almighty God, although this could be describing the often unclear relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son, and their equality. Additionally, the word for "god' in it's second occurrence is significantly without the definite article "the". Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of John (chapters 1-6), stated: “[the·os′] and [ho the·os′] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ ([ho the·os′]; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities.”—John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110. This may , however, contradict the assertion in many parts of both the New and Old Testament that there is only one God. In Christianity, the concept of the Trinity is used to describe a God of three Persons. The Gospel of John can be seen to confirm that God can be a God of multiple Persons while remaining at the same time One God.

After giving as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb ‘was’ ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os′] is not the same thing as [ho the·os′] (‘divine’ is not the same thing as ‘God’).” Other scholars, such as Philip B. Harner elaborate on the grammatical construction found here. (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87)

[bootlen]

In the original transcripts, there is NO article in the places you claim them to be. God is used as a name rather than a title.

"Moffatt produced his translation of the New Testament while he was serving as Professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Oxford, and its reception was so favorable (in the more liberal churches) that he undertook the Old Testament in order to produce a complete Bible. The version is highly colloquial, and allows the reader to quickly follow the progress of thought in many passages (especially in the Epistles) where a more literal rendering makes for difficult going. But Moffatt's version was controversial in several respects. His preface put forth skeptical views concerning the truthfulness of the Bible. In the Old Testament he indicated by the use of different type fonts the hypothetical source documents of the Pentateuch (J, E, P, D), and frequently rearranged passages according to his idea of how they might have originally stood. For the New Testament he used the Greek text of Hermann von Soden, which was generally regarded as an eccentric text, and he often substituted conjectural emendations for the text of both Testaments. In the New Testament alone he adopts some thirty conjectures which have no support at all in the manuscripts. The translation throughout was highly readable, but often embodied interpretations that were objectionable to some. Roman Catholics and Lutherans were especially offended with Matthew 26:26, "Take and eat this, it means my body." Moffatt later served as executive secretary of the committee of translators for the Revised Standard Version."

F.F. Bruce, The English Bible, A History of Translations (Oxord, 1961), chapter 13.

[sysint]

"In the original transcripts, there is NO article in the places you claim them to be. God is used as a name rather than a title."

You don't get it. I'm not claiming, but people with degrees who study this are telling you the following:

There is a definite article, the word "THE" for the first theos mentioned. That is quite literally, "THE GOD". Where the word is called god, there is no definite article. Therefore, it is the opposite or indefinite. In english, the indefinite article would be "a" or "an". Concerning definite articles in english pronunciation, people may say something like "get a book over there". You may inquire "which book?" However, you could say get "the book over there". Definite vs indefinite. Further people may even say it different. Instead of "the book" they say it like "THEE book" for emphasis, making it even more definite.

Greek didn't have an indefinite article. So, if it wasn't declared definite, it is indefinite. So the word was indefinitely named "a" god as the word wasn't specifcally "THEEEE God".

Besides the grammar issues, the scripture states the Word was WITH "THE GOD". Just another point why he isn't Almighty God.

[maggio]

"In the original transcripts, there is NO article in the places you claim them to be. God is used as a name rather than a title."

You don't get it. I'm not claiming, but people with degrees who study this are telling you the following:

There is a definite article, the word "THE" for the first theos mentioned. That is quite literally, "THE GOD". Where the word is called god, there is no definite article. Therefore, it is the opposite or indefinite. In english, the indefinite article would be "a" or "an". Concerning definite articles in english pronunciation, people may say something like "get a book over there". You may inquire "which book?" However, you could say get "the book over there". Definite vs indefinite. Further people may even say it different. Instead of "the book" they say it like "THEE book" for emphasis, making it even more definite.

Greek didn't have an indefinite article. So, if it wasn't declared definite, it is indefinite. So the word was indefinitely named "a" god as the word wasn't specifcally "THEEEE God".

Besides the grammar issues, the scripture states the Word was WITH "THE GOD". Just another point why he isn't Almighty God.

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

[bootlen]

"In the original transcripts, there is NO article in the places you claim them to be. God is used as a name rather than a title."

You don't get it. I'm not claiming, but people with degrees who study this are telling you the following:

There is a definite article, the word "THE" for the first theos mentioned. That is quite literally, "THE GOD". Where the word is called god, there is no definite article. Therefore, it is the opposite or indefinite. In english, the indefinite article would be "a" or "an". Concerning definite articles in english pronunciation, people may say something like "get a book over there". You may inquire "which book?" However, you could say get "the book over there". Definite vs indefinite. Further people may even say it different. Instead of "the book" they say it like "THEE book" for emphasis, making it even more definite.

Greek didn't have an indefinite article. So, if it wasn't declared definite, it is indefinite. So the word was indefinitely named "a" god as the word wasn't specifcally "THEEEE God".

Besides the grammar issues, the scripture states the Word was WITH "THE GOD". Just another point why he isn't Almighty God.

And those who say this to be true are either mistaken or they are liars.

The article "the" is not there. Never has been. Never will be...except in versions that were hatched in the fires of hell.

[wolfdog]

And those who say this to be true are either mistaken or they are liars.

The article "the" is not there. Never has been. Never will be...except in versions that were hatched in the fires of hell.


Another astounding rebuttal. Your logic is, well, entertaining.

[TB]

You forget about
Isaiah 9:6
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty
God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Jesus Is not only "Mighty God" but also "Everlasting Father"

So If Jesus was "Everlasting Father", Who was it He called "Father"?

[icchvac]

You guys are debating something that humans are not capable of explaining or fully understanding in our present form. We are just asked to accept God's word because it is true.

[sysint]

You forget about
Isaiah 9:6
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty
God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Jesus Is not only "Mighty God" but also "Everlasting Father"

So If Jesus was "Everlasting Father", Who was it He called "Father"?

Isaiah 9:6 states "mighty god". Not Almighty God. There is a difference. Part of the problem with you guys is you utilize the word "god" like a name. It's not a name. Isaiah knew the difference between a "mighty one" and the "almighty one". Almighty is never attributed to Jesus.

[sysint]

You guys are debating something that humans are not capable of explaining or fully understanding in our present form. We are just asked to accept God's word because it is true.That is an unreasonable conclusion. God made it abundantly clear who he was. Rather it's people going around using words like "Lord" and "god" and ripping out his actual name in the Bible thousands of times. Think about that. Your average Bible contains thousands of intentional errors massaged by doctrine wielding "christians". That's what clouds the nature of what God is.

Similar to the way people introduce eggs and bunnies into Easter to cloud over what Jesus death actually meant to people.

[TB]

Isaiah 9:6 states "mighty god". Not Almighty God. There is a difference. Part of the problem with you guys is you utilize the word "god" like a name. It's not a name. Isaiah knew the difference between a "mighty one" and the "almighty one". Almighty is never attributed to Jesus.

IF the correct translation of Jn. 1:1 should read as, "...and the word was a god", and IF the correct interperative understanding of Isa. 9:6 is that Jesus is being referred to here as, "Mighty God", thereby differentiating Him from the, "Almighty God" referred to as Jehovah, then it must be true that the rest of the Bible supports this understanding.

Exodus 20:3-5
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me,

Deuteronomy 5:7
7 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 44:6,8 Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God. 8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have I not declared unto thee of old, and showed it? and ye are my witnesses. Is there a God besides me? yea, there is no Rock; I know not any.

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else.

Isaiah 42:8 I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images.

1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.


Now if Jesus is only "a" god, and not Jehovah God, then there must be at least two gods. If Jesus is only "mighty God" and not also, "almighty God" then there must be at least two gods. The three verses from Isaiah listed above declare only one God exists. Jehovah Himself declares that He is the only God. This contradicts the interpretation of Isa. 9:6 that suggest that more than one God exists, therefore that interpretation of Isa. 9:6, cannot even be supported by the same book and author of it. If the passage under speculation cannot agree with passages in the same book even that make clear declarations that contradict the speculations, then the speculations are false. The references in Isa 9:6 of "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" must be referring to Jesus as being Jehovah God.

Paul says in 1 Tim. 1:1 that God commanded Him to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. In 2 Tim. 1:1 Paul says that it is Gods will that he be an apostle of Jesus.

1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Saviour, and Christ Jesus our hope;

2 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, according to the promise of the life which is in Christ Jesus,
Isaiah 44:17 And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image; he falleth down unto it and worshippeth, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.

Why would Paul be commanded, by God, to be an apostle of Jesus, giving honor and glory to Jesus, when God commands in Exodus 20:3-5, Deuteronomy 5:7, and Isaiah 42:8, that all glory and honor is to go to God alone, unless Jesus is God..


Now in 1Tim. 1:1, Paul credits Jehovah God as being our Savior, yet in 2 Tim. 1:10, he credits Jesus as our Savior, and in 1 Tim. 1:17 Paul says there is only one God, and the context of the passage reveals he was referring to Jesus as that one God, upon whom we are to rest total faith for everlasting life, an action condemned in Isa.44:17 if they are not the same God. Clearly, Paul believed Jehovah God and Jesus are the same God. In Jn. 20:28 Thomas recognized Jesus is God, and was not corrected by Jesus.

Scripture does not support the supposition made in the JW doctrine and the NWT version of the Bible that Jn.1:1 refers to Jesus as only "a" God, nor does it support the supposition that Isa. 9:6 refers to someone other than Almighty God, by the words "Mighty God", and, "Everlasting Father".

Furthermore, by rendering Jn. 1:1 as saying, "...and the word was a god", the NWT, and JW doctrine reduce Jesus to a god other than Jehovah God, which Jehovah God says is a false god, promoted by demons. Regardless of the name used to identify him with, the jesus the JW's and NWT seek to honor, is a demon.

The Bible teaches us there is only one God. The occult, witchcraft and satanism, seek to convince us that there is more than one God, and so does the NWT and JW doctrine.

[mark beiser]

Similar to the way people introduce eggs and bunnies into Easter to cloud over what Jesus death actually meant to people.

The reality is that Jesus's supposed death and resurection were introduced into Easter, and the meaning of the eggs and bunnies has been forgotten, lol.

Just another Christian usurpation of a perfectly good pagan holiday. :p

[sysint]

IF the correct translation of Jn. 1:1 should read as, "...and the word was a god", and IF the correct interperative understanding of Isa. 9:6 is that Jesus is being referred to here as, "Mighty God", thereby differentiating Him from the, "Almighty God" referred to as Jehovah, then it must be true that the rest of the Bible supports this understanding.... And it does.

As I've already indicated to you before, you have a hard time using the word "god". Look it up.

Angels are called gods in the Bible.

Jesus doesn't usurp anything with God. Jesus supports God in everything just as God wants him to do. Therefore, God can require anyone else to do as he says in regards to Jesus. That doesn't make Jesus Almighty God. That doesn't make Jesus the Creator. 1 Cor 8:6 rightly says things were created by God and through Jesus for a reason. Col 1:15 rightly states Jesus is the firstborn of creation, the image of God. Phil 2:5-9 rightly asserts Jesus thought it raven to consider himself equal to God. As John 1:1 states Jesus was WITH God. Nobody is closer to God than Jesus. That's why in John 17:3 the taking of information of Jesus the one GOD SENT FORTH means life to people. He has God's approval.

The NWT translation is not the only one to correctly attribute an indefinite position of the Word being "a god." Some say "the Word was divine". I'm fine with either because what they convey is more correct than slipping into some English that doesn't exist to promote an agenda. Most other translations make this verse half literal and half not. They need to make up their minds.

Anyway, get off the JW rants with me. I could care less about it. They have a better translation than the KJV and many others on John 1:1. Personally I think Moffatt or Goodspeed has a better one for this verse than the NWT.
Maybe you should read "Truth in Translation" by BeDuhn and learn something before you spout off with ridiculous conclusions on John 1:1 and the JW's.

Your conclusions are false as your premise is weak.

[sysint]

The reality is that Jesus's supposed death and resurection were introduced into Easter, and the meaning of the eggs and bunnies has been forgotten, lol.

Just another Christian usurpation of a perfectly good pagan holiday. :p

Great point. Trinities existed for quite some time before it was adopted into Christianity too. That and also the Egyptian, Babylonian and Platonic views of the immortality of the soul and hell.

[TB]

Have it your way sysint, you still reduce your understanding of the Bible to self-contradictions. Either there is one God, as Jehovah has said, or, He is a liar and there is more than one god, as you and the occult say.


You did not attempt to defeat my argument. You merely supply passages that support your view if they are seen a certain way, yet they do not conflict with my argument either. From that foundation you launch the claim that my argument is false.


I don't think so.

[maggio]

Great point. Trinities existed for quite some time before it was adopted into Christianity too. That and also the Egyptian, Babylonian and Platonic views of the immortality of the soul and hell.

Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blastphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blastphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. Case closed.

[maggio]

IF the correct translation of Jn. 1:1 should read as, "...and the word was a god", and IF the correct interperative understanding of Isa. 9:6 is that Jesus is being referred to here as, "Mighty God", thereby differentiating Him from the, "Almighty God" referred to as Jehovah, then it must be true that the rest of the Bible supports this understanding.

Exodus 20:3-5
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me,

Deuteronomy 5:7
7 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 44:6,8 Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God. 8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have I not declared unto thee of old, and showed it? and ye are my witnesses. Is there a God besides me? yea, there is no Rock; I know not any.

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else.

Isaiah 42:8 I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images.

1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.


Now if Jesus is only "a" god, and not Jehovah God, then there must be at least two gods. If Jesus is only "mighty God" and not also, "almighty God" then there must be at least two gods. The three verses from Isaiah listed above declare only one God exists. Jehovah Himself declares that He is the only God. This contradicts the interpretation of Isa. 9:6 that suggest that more than one God exists, therefore that interpretation of Isa. 9:6, cannot even be supported by the same book and author of it. If the passage under speculation cannot agree with passages in the same book even that make clear declarations that contradict the speculations, then the speculations are false. The references in Isa 9:6 of "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" must be referring to Jesus as being Jehovah God.

Paul says in 1 Tim. 1:1 that God commanded Him to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. In 2 Tim. 1:1 Paul says that it is Gods will that he be an apostle of Jesus.

1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Saviour, and Christ Jesus our hope;

2 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, according to the promise of the life which is in Christ Jesus,
Isaiah 44:17 And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image; he falleth down unto it and worshippeth, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.

Why would Paul be commanded, by God, to be an apostle of Jesus, giving honor and glory to Jesus, when God commands in Exodus 20:3-5, Deuteronomy 5:7, and Isaiah 42:8, that all glory and honor is to go to God alone, unless Jesus is God..


Now in 1Tim. 1:1, Paul credits Jehovah God as being our Savior, yet in 2 Tim. 1:10, he credits Jesus as our Savior, and in 1 Tim. 1:17 Paul says there is only one God, and the context of the passage reveals he was referring to Jesus as that one God, upon whom we are to rest total faith for everlasting life, an action condemned in Isa.44:17 if they are not the same God. Clearly, Paul believed Jehovah God and Jesus are the same God. In Jn. 20:28 Thomas recognized Jesus is God, and was not corrected by Jesus.

Scripture does not support the supposition made in the JW doctrine and the NWT version of the Bible that Jn.1:1 refers to Jesus as only "a" God, nor does it support the supposition that Isa. 9:6 refers to someone other than Almighty God, by the words "Mighty God", and, "Everlasting Father".

Furthermore, by rendering Jn. 1:1 as saying, "...and the word was a god", the NWT, and JW doctrine reduce Jesus to a god other than Jehovah God, which Jehovah God says is a false god, promoted by demons. Regardless of the name used to identify him with, the jesus the JW's and NWT seek to honor, is a demon.

The Bible teaches us there is only one God. The occult, witchcraft and satanism, seek to convince us that there is more than one God, and so does the NWT and JW doctrine.

Nice spot!

[TB]

Angels are called gods in the Bible.
Sure they are. The devil and his angels are referred to with many names: Chemosh, Ashtoreth, Baal, Moloch, Dagon, Ashera, Diana, Mammon...






Jesus doesn't usurp anything with God. Jesus supports God in everything just as God wants him to do. Therefore, God can require anyone else to do as he says in regards to Jesus. That doesn't make Jesus Almighty God. That doesn't make Jesus the Creator. 1 Cor 8:6 rightly says things were created by God and through Jesus for a reason.
True, there is a reason, but it is not guaranteed to be that the two are seperate Gods, the statement would also be true if they were the same God as well




Col 1:15 rightly states Jesus is the firstborn of creation, the image of God.
True again, but it does not imply He is a second god. Verse 16 says Jesus created all things, Isa 45:18 says Jehovah did the creating. If both verses are true, then both creators are the same God. Verse 18 clarifies vs. 15, saying that Jesus was the firstborn, from the dead Jn. 1:3 says that nothing was made that has been made without Jesus doing it, therefore Jesus couldn't have been made himself, or it would not be true that all things that were made, were made by Him


Phil 2:5-9 rightly asserts Jesus thought it raven to consider himself equal to God.
So what? That does not guarantee that Jesus was considering it out of His reach to be equal to God, because that is not the only possible meaning of the comment. It can also mean that Jesus was not grasping at equality with God, because He already was equal with God, and in fact is God. Think about it, when was the last time Sysint made a conscious decision to become equal with Sysint?



As John 1:1 states Jesus was WITH God. Nobody is closer to God than Jesus. That's why in John 17:3 the taking of information of Jesus the one GOD SENT FORTH means life to people. He has God's approval.
Yes, and any time I volunteer for something willingly, I also am the one I sent forth, and I have my own approval too


The NWT translation is not the only one to correctly attribute an indefinite position of the Word being "a god." Some say "the Word was divine". I'm fine with either because what they convey is more correct than slipping into some English that doesn't exist to promote an agenda. Most other translations make this verse half literal and half not. They need to make up their minds.
Then the NWT is not the only self-contradictory, and therefore unreliable translation out there. My bad.



Anyway, get off the JW rants with me. I could care less about it. They have a better translation than the KJV and many others on John 1:1. Personally I think Moffatt or Goodspeed has a better one for this verse than the NWT.
Maybe you should read "Truth in Translation" by BeDuhn and learn something before you spout off with ridiculous conclusions on John 1:1 and the JW's.

Your conclusions are false as your premise is weak.

If you don't want to be associated with JW's then don't believe their doctrine. There is a simple axiom in logic, that if the premises are true, and the conclusion follows from them, then the conclusion is also true. My premises are only as week as the Bible is, and you haven't shown the conclusion to be false.

Where is the wisdom in believing a mans opinion, (when it is unknown if he should even qualify as a reliable authority), about the truth value of the NWT when I can read it for myself and pick out the self-contradictions in it. I didn't even have to look very far, they're obvious. I might as well go follow people like Jim Jones, or David Koresh, if I'm just going to believe what someone tells me to without thinking about it.

[sysint]

Have it your way sysint, you still reduce your understanding of the Bible to self-contradictions. Either there is one God, as Jehovah has said, or, He is a liar and there is more than one god, as you and the occult say.


You did not attempt to defeat my argument. You merely supply passages that support your view if they are seen a certain way, yet they do not conflict with my argument either. From that foundation you launch the claim that my argument is false.


I don't think so.God basically means "mighty one". There is one ALMIGHTY one, and that is the Father, Yahweh or Jehovah. What has happened is that this name is attempted to be erased by supposed Christians who take it out of the Bible thousands of times. Your Bible you read has thousands of intentional errors. As BeDuhn shows in his book "Truth in Translation", that NWT you guys slam with no basis is actually a very accurate translation. I don't care who did it, it speaks for itself. Not that it's the only one. However, you have to give JW's credit, they aren't bold enough to lie thousands of times and remove god's actual name from the Bible.

Angels, (not the demon kind) are called gods in the Bible.
Moses was called a god.
Even Jesus was called a god.

From that standpoint you can measure the mightiness of those and easily determine in most true sense, there is one Almighty God and Jesus doesn't measure up to those standards as he is less than Almighty, was the firstborn of creation.

Here's a statement you cannot disprove in the Bible:
Jehovah is Almighty God.
Here's another:
Jesus is a mighty god.
Here's yet one more:
Exodus 7:1And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh -KJV

*note how the KJV has the intentional error by removing God's name. Here's God making a god. Moses is a false god? Compared to Yahweh, that's true. Compared to pharaoh, that's not true. To Pharaoh Almighty God himself said Moses would be a god to Pharaoh.

This is the basis of your misunderstanding. You really don't know what "god" means in the Bible and want to make all mention of the word "god" in the bible comparitive to the same rank. False premise.

[sysint]

True again, but it does not imply He is a second god. Verse 16 says Jesus created all things, Isa 45:18 says Jehovah did the creating. If both verses are true, then both creators are the same God. Verse 18 clarifies vs. 15, saying that Jesus was the firstborn, from the dead Jn. 1:3 says that nothing was made that has been made without Jesus doing it, therefore Jesus couldn't have been made himself, or it would not be true that all things that were made, were made by Him The verse says not of the dead, it says firstborn of creation. Your reasoning is false if you can't deal with what the scripture states. 1 Cor. 8:6 talks about creation and says that God is "of whom" all things were created, and Jesus was "through whom" all things were created.

"So what? That does not guarantee that Jesus was considering it out of His reach to be equal to God, because that is not the only possible meaning of the comment. It can also mean that Jesus was not grasping at equality with God, because He already was equal with God, and in fact is God. Think about it, when was the last time Sysint made a conscious decision to become equal with Sysint?"
I used the translation with the word "raven" for a reason. The scripture basically means that if Jesus was claiming equality to god he was stealing or seizing something that wasn't his. What would there be to understand about being equal to yourself? To bring it up would be illogical. It was brought up to signify the difference.


"If you don't want to be associated with JW's then don't believe their doctrine." -- My point is that there are other Christian religious groups that do not believe in the Trinity. To say it's only JW's is a false statement by you. You are simply trying to provide a personal attack that doesn't sit well with me. Clean up your stage act.


"...about the truth value of the NWT when I can read it for myself and pick out the self-contradictions in it. I didn't even have to look very far, they're obvious. ..."

You will lose your premise about the accuracy of the NWT miserably. I'd take that challenge in a minute. Start a thread. The NWT has over a 7,000 instances of accuracy over most other Bible translations right out of the gate.
Go ahead, start a thread comparing whatever Bible you like over the NWT.

[numbawunfela]

I need to dust off my ninja suit and get the katana out since you guys are chopping this topic to bits!!!

[numbawunfela]

I really try hard to have the utmost respect for my fellow professionals and always assume the best until poroven wrong. I will assume that the purpose of the current discussion is to
1)use the bible as a guide to accurately establish truth as god has revealed to us.
2) Not to call anybody names (poopoo head and fart mouth being exceptions :D ).
3) to help joe tech who may wander by and wonder about easter, and may find something helpfull about the trinity that may move him to take his relationship with god more seriously.
If any of you claim to be conveying truth from God's word, Remember: (James 3:17)But the wisdom from above is first of all chaste, then peaceable, reasonable, ready to obey, full of mercy and good fruits, not making partial distinctions, not hypocritical.
- So what you say should be peaceable, reasonable and full of good fruits, what fruits? (Galatians 5:22-23) On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 mildness, self-control... - If you have the spirit, what you do should be marked by mildness, self-control, peace.
TB said it well:

The Christian perspective should be that scripture is right, and seek to line up their own opinion with it. With that perspective, there is no offense in being "wrong", merely gratitude at the opportunity to become "right", and therefore, no desire to avoid being accused of being wrong.
That means we should see a reply saying 'good point' from time to time, boot did it, will you be civil enough to follow suit?

.....then it must be true that the rest of the Bible supports this understanding.
THe Bible CANNOT contradict itself, if you are of a different opinion, that is fine, but we are frying different fish at the moment, we'll get to that later.
That being the case, the explainations offered should allow for the entire bible to be harmonious in their message, not ignoring anything.

So - Be NICE!!! Be Reasonable! Be Open! No shame in making an honest mistake.

I love scriptural gymnastics. :)

[bootlen]

Isaiah 9:6 states "mighty god". Not Almighty God. There is a difference. Part of the problem with you guys is you utilize the word "god" like a name. It's not a name. Isaiah knew the difference between a "mighty one" and the "almighty one". Almighty is never attributed to Jesus.

Hmm. No mention in your post of referring Jesus as being the "Everlasting Father" spoken of in Isaiah. But I can understand why you avoid it...it totally destroys your point.

[bootlen]

I really try hard to have the utmost respect for my fellow professionals and always assume the best until poroven wrong. I will assume that the purpose of the current discussion is to
1)use the bible as a guide to accurately establish truth as god has revealed to us.
2) Not to call anybody names (poopoo head and fart mouth being exceptions :D ).
3) to help joe tech who may wander by and wonder about easter, and may find something helpfull about the trinity that may move him to take his relationship with god more seriously.
If any of you claim to be conveying truth from God's word, Remember: (James 3:17)But the wisdom from above is first of all chaste, then peaceable, reasonable, ready to obey, full of mercy and good fruits, not making partial distinctions, not hypocritical.
- So what you say should be peaceable, reasonable and full of good fruits, what fruits? (Galatians 5:22-23) On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 mildness, self-control... - If you have the spirit, what you do should be marked by mildness, self-control, peace.
TB said it well:

That means we should see a reply saying 'good point' from time to time, boot did it, will you be civil enough to follow suit?

THe Bible CANNOT contradict itself, if you are of a different opinion, that is fine, but we are frying different fish at the moment, we'll get to that later.
That being the case, the explainations offered should allow for the entire bible to be harmonious in their message, not ignoring anything.

So - Be NICE!!! Be Reasonable! Be Open! No shame in making an honest mistake.

I love scriptural gymnastics. :)

#1, I am the LAST person to point out being polite omn this site. I am usually very "curt" and and without tact. But I DO LOVE truth, regardless of pain or lack of tact when it is being expressed.

Additionally, I don't recommend correcting TB. He knows more about JW doctrine than MOST JW's. And the same can be said of his knowledge of Mormonism. And that knowledge gives him a definite advantage with Christian apologetics that he expresses so well.

On top of that, TB is a heck of a lot more polite than I am.

[wolfdog]

....Additionally, I don't recommend correcting TB. He knows more about JW doctrine than MOST JW's. And the same can be said of his knowledge of Mormonism. And that knowledge gives him a definite advantage with Christian apologetics that he expresses so well.

On top of that, TB is a heck of a lot more polite than I am.

I will agree that TB manages to stay civil most of the time. However he shares the same problem you have bootlen. You guys run around hyperventilating while purporting to expose someone and have not bothered to research the origins and basis of the doctrines you hold dear. Simple historical, Biblical research.

Quit the "shoot the messenger stuff" and just support your arguments with the Bible and even accepted scholarly references. Then accept that those reading may be intelligent enough to see a logical argument laid out.

[numbawunfela]

#1, I am the LAST person to point out being polite on this site. I am usually very "curt" and and without tact. But I DO LOVE truth, regardless of pain or lack of tact when it is being expressed.

I feel like I'm only looking out for your best interests Bootlen. Like I've said repeatedly, you have some good things to say but as an ambassador...(2 Corinthians 5:20) We are therefore ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making entreaty through us. As substitutes for Christ we beg: “Become reconciled to God.”
If people turn away from what good you have to say because of your style, it is reprehensable if there is anything you can do about it. If I have medically diagnosed halitosis, God will use me all the same, and it provides an opportunity for others to show what is in their heart if they turn away (from the message ;) ). But if I'm a slob who doesn't want to brush his teeth it is another story. God would expect me to clean up my act before i begin spreading the word.

Besides, the time may come when you post and all you get is the reply 'It's just another boot-bomb, ignore it fellas, he does this from time to time.' That would certainly suck.


Additionally, I don't recommend correcting TB. He knows more about JW doctrine than MOST JW's. And the same can be said of his knowledge of Mormonism. And that knowledge gives him a definite advantage with Christian apologetics that he expresses so well.

On top of that, TB is a heck of a lot more polite than I am.

That is why I quoted him. He seems to have thought about what he has to say and, well, as he put it, we should have no desire to avoid being accused of being wrong, since it only gives you the opportunity to be made right.

[bootlen]

I will agree that TB manages to stay civil most of the time. However he shares the same problem you have bootlen. You guys run around hyperventilating while purporting to expose someone and have not bothered to research the origins and basis of the doctrines you hold dear. Simple historical, Biblical research.

Quit the "shoot the messenger stuff" and just support your arguments with the Bible and even accepted scholarly references. Then accept that those reading may be intelligent enough to see a logical argument laid out.

This is for you, too, #1.

TB and I both post truth as found in the Word of God, you guys come along and post stuff by those with absolutley NO education in those studies and have dreamt up their ideas within the last 200 years after 2000 years of agreement by those who HAVE been educated and agree on the accuracy of Scripture as presented by OTHER THAN the New World junk.

Yes, my friend. I am going to attack within the confines of forum rules and the attacks will be relentless. You will not enjoy them, I can assure you...but only because the truth is offensive and without respect to man.

Deal with it.

Now, ya wanna get back to the issue at hand or continue to critique my methods? Because, my methods are not the issue of this thread. The real issue is MUCH more important.

BTW, your wolf's fur is showing through the sheep's disguise.

[wolfdog]

... after 2000 years of agreement by those who HAVE been educated and agree on the accuracy of Scripture as presented by OTHER THAN the New World junk.......


BTW, your wolf's fur is showing through the sheep's disguise.



You are funny bootlen.

If you would do some research YOU would see that there has been agreement on the origins of the doctrines of chritianity in the last 2000 years. Those who have been educated and have researched admit that there has been an apostasy of christian doctrine and a melding of pagan worship into christian religion.

The Apostle Paul warned that after the last of the apostles died off 'oppressive wolves would enter the flock' and 'speak twisted things'. Acts 20:28-30
Apparently it was already at work within the congregation before Paul died.
He spoke of 'every unrighteous deception' 2 Thessalonians 2:9,10

By the 4th century the triune god concepts of ancient pagan religions were already well along in corrupting christianity and the Athenasian Creed established the term "trinity".

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). ... The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. ..... By the end of the 4th century .... the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”

....If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians ..... was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity.... --Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity

Just one of many things.

You should be willing to check and see if those things that you hold dear really make any sense. Even more, do these things please God?

Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites and said their worship was in vain because of the traditions of men mixed in with their worship. Mark 7:6,7

You keep trying to make this personal with your little insults. Stop trying to shoot the messenger and check for yourself.

[sysint]

Hmm. No mention in your post of referring Jesus as being the "Everlasting Father" spoken of in Isaiah. But I can understand why you avoid it...it totally destroys your point.

Hmmm. Here you are again not taking up my point on "mighty god" in deference to "almighty god". However, you are after this point. Tell you what... for one time refute my point. If you can't do it (which you can't) I've got an answer for this also. No problem for me.

A better response would be to address my response, attempt to refute it and than bring up this point.

Anyway, I'm ready for both. I thought I'd start with the easy one first.

[TB]

"...about the truth value of the NWT when I can read it for myself and pick out the self-contradictions in it. I didn't even have to look very far, they're obvious. ..."

You will lose your premise about the accuracy of the NWT miserably. I'd take that challenge in a minute. Start a thread. The NWT has over a 7,000 instances of accuracy over most other Bible translations right out of the gate.
Go ahead, start a thread comparing whatever Bible you like over the NWT.

You know, that would be an interesting discussion...but I think you're blowin steam...unless you read a new book since the last time you called me out to back up this very same statement.


When Satan squared off with Jesus in the wilderness, after Jesus' 40 day fast, We learn a few things about how Satan operates. One, he often uses truth, pulled from its context, and woven into the fabrick of his lie. The fact that truth exists in satans lie, does not make what Satan Says less false. The lie is still a lie. Another thing we can learn is that Satan can quote scripture very well, and does so, but uses it out of its contextual meaning. He quotes what is written without any regard to what is meant, or how it is applied.

Though a debate would be fun, it also would only amount to a red herring, designed to distract from the fact that I have allready shown the NWT to be unreliable as a source of truth. It may have some truth in it, but conclusions drawn from it cannot be relied on to be true.

[sysint]

You know,.....

When Satan squared off with Jesus in the wilderness, after Jesus' 40 day fast, We learn a few things about how Satan operates. One, he often uses truth, pulled from its context, and woven into the fabrick of his lie. ......It may have some truth in it, but conclusions drawn from it cannot be relied on to be true.

You have shown nothing yet again. Your illustration is off base. If something is written down, that's it. You are questioning the accuracy of the NWT as a Bible. I'm telling you it's accurate. Discussing JW doctrine is another matter, of which many of you (you definitely) included are completely unable to separate in your minds. So then you lie to yourself and everyone else saying the translation is inaccurate. Not so.

"It may have some truth in it, but conclusions drawn from it cannot be relied on to be true." --- I love this illogical reasoning. OK. Your Bible has thousands of intentional errors about God's name. Therefore, it may have some truth in it, but conclusions drawn from it cannot be relied on to be true in regards to God.

When you take out God's actual name in the Bible over 7,000 times and replace it with LORD I suppose you could "Satan" that away with some "reasoning" but the fact remains that by doing so changes the "contextual meaning". Your Bible lies to you thousands of times. Satan's number one goal is to reduce God, challenge his authority, question his right to be God over people. I suppose if I called you "man" all the time, you might get a little aggravated?

I see yet again you have no response to the intentional errors in your Bible translation. Your reasoning is also suspect.

[numbawunfela]

Poor Bootlen. This scripture is fulfilled on you: (1 Timothy 1:5-7) Really the objective of this mandate is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things certain ones have been turned aside into idle talk, 7 wanting to be teachers of law, but not perceiving either the things they are saying or the things about which they are making strong assertions.

As we continue to go deeper into the topic of the trinity, or the proper translation of the bible, or any other topic, you will see the following occur:

(Malachi 3:18) And YOU people will again certainly see [the distinction] between a righteous one and a wicked one, between one serving God and one who has not served him.
AS your posts get more extreme, your credibility will fall.

You should ask yourself: (Genesis 4:6-7) At this Jehovah said to Cain: “Why are you hot with anger and why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you turn to doing good, will there not be an exaltation? But if you do not turn to doing good, there is sin crouching at the entrance, and for you is its craving; and will you, for your part, get the mastery over it?
Although you may not agree, I know you can get mastery, if you choose not to, there will be no exultation, and the effect of the Holy Spirit, with its peace, reasonableness, love, etc. will be seen to be lacking before all.....

[numbawunfela]

At this point it may be good to asses the progress so far. Among other things, it seems that John 1:1 has come up a lot.
Is the Word 'God', or 'a god'? the grammatical points from Sysint seem to indicate that there is at least the possibility that 'a god' is a POSSIBLE translation. It also allows for the fact that a concientious translator would have reason not to add a letter 'a' since it was not present in the original text, but this doesn't mean it necessarily wasn't meant to be there in english translation, it just may be an oversight to not include it.
RESULTS: Inconclusive... You can't settle the identity of God on one verse. If it is so important, then there should be other verses that apply and can help us get to the bottom of things.
SO we can continue to produce witnesses.

[k-fridge]

Just a personal observation from a fellow Christian...

It appears that we have Christian arguing with Christian over meanings of words and various translations. While sincere study and discussion of God's word is healthy, it almost seems like some of you guys are fighting over these things instead of searching for their meanings. Sometimes non-believers use arguments like this as fodder to support their anti-God positions so I think we should be careful to remember that we're on the same team.

I now return you to an otherwise excellent discussion. :D

[numbawunfela]

Just a personal observation from a fellow Christian...

It appears that we have Christian arguing with Christian over meanings of words and various translations. While sincere study and discussion of God's word is healthy, it almost seems like some of you guys are fighting over these things instead of searching for their meanings. Sometimes non-believers use arguments like this as fodder to support their anti-God positions so I think we should be careful to remember that we're on the same team.

I now return you to an otherwise excellent discussion. :D

Thanks K_Fridge!!

THat was the motive behind the 'be nice' post I put up on the last page. If the truth has nothing to do with our personal opinion, but rather on what God tells us, there is no reason to dodge, get offended, or be nasty. I don't know if you went far enough back to se TB's post where he said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TB
The Christian perspective should be that scripture is right, and seek to line up their own opinion with it. With that perspective, there is no offense in being "wrong", merely gratitude at the opportunity to become "right", and therefore, no desire to avoid being accused of being wrong.

BTW did you play for the Bears in the late 80's??? :)

[k-fridge]

Thanks K_Fridge!!

THat was the motive behind the 'be nice' post I put up on the last page. If the truth has nothing to do with our personal opinion, but rather on what God tells us, there is no reason to dodge, get offended, or be nasty. I don't know if you went far enough back to se TB's post where he said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TB
The Christian perspective should be that scripture is right, and seek to line up their own opinion with it. With that perspective, there is no offense in being "wrong", merely gratitude at the opportunity to become "right", and therefore, no desire to avoid being accused of being wrong.

BTW did you play for the Bears in the late 80's??? :)
I wasn't singling out anyone in particular, I'm just one that believes that if we Christians have disagreements we should sit down behind closed doors to work them out and then be in that Honda (one accord :p) when we come back out.

Nope, never played fer the bears. Maybe bad news bears. :D

[numbawunfela]

Quote: Originally Posted by sysint
Col 1:15 rightly states Jesus is the firstborn of creation, the image of God.
True again, but it does not imply He is a second god. Verse 16 says Jesus created all things, Isa 45:18 says Jehovah did the creating. If both verses are true, then both creators are the same God. Verse 18 clarifies vs. 15, saying that Jesus was the firstborn, from the dead Jn. 1:3 says that nothing was made that has been made without Jesus doing it, therefore Jesus couldn't have been made himself, or it would not be true that all things that were made, were made by Him

(Colossians 1:15-20) 15*He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16*because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17*Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, 18*and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19*because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him, 20*and through him to reconcile again to himself all [other] things by making peace through the blood [he shed] on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens.

So Is it that Jesus was created, and that is what is meant by 'firstborn of creation'? How can it be that jesus was created if Jesus created all things in the next verse? (My translation says he created all OTHER things btw) Is it really saying that firstborn as in of creation (thus created) or of those resurrected, or both? Is 'by means of him' (vs16) Meant to show us God used him as an assistant perhaps to do all this? THat would seem to allow for the bible to say in one place 'jesus was created' and in another 'jesus created all things'. God made Jesus first and then WOrked with Jesus, allowing Jesus to take Part in the Creative Process. It would explain why We read this:
(Genesis 1:26) And God went on to say: “Let us make man..." The 'us' Referring to Jesus, who took Direction from god and then did the job.

SEEMS Reasonable at least. What do you think TB?

[numbawunfela]

The refrigerator perry was my favorite..

Jesus and his disciples all rode in that Honda

DId you ever wonder who the smallest couple in the bible was?

Adam and Eve, because they lived in a pair of dice... har har!

(Paradise get it?)

[k-fridge]

The refrigerator perry was my favorite..

Jesus and his disciples all rode in that Honda

DId you ever wonder who the smallest couple in the bible was?

Adam and Eve, because they lived in a pair of dice... har har!

(Paradise get it?)
LOL. I'll have to tell my preacher that one, should make a good pulpit joke.

[numbawunfela]

Adam and eve were small, but peter james and john all fell asleep on a watch...


The first car in the bible?

Plymouth fury

Gen 3:24 God drove adam and eve out of the garden of eden in his fury (some translations)

[k-fridge]

Adam and eve were small, but peter james and john all fell asleep on a watch...


The first car in the bible?

Plymouth fury

Gen 3:24 God drove adam and eve out of the garden of eden in his fury (some translations)
I'm gonna have to sign my pastor up at H-Talk so he can get all this good material. :p

[k-fridge]

I'm gonna have to sign my pastor up at H-Talk so he can get all this good material. :p

PS, we're showing our ages referring to Plymouth Furys.

[scrogdog]

Besides, the time may come when you post and all you get is the reply 'It's just another boot-bomb, ignore it fellas, he does this from time to time.'

Let me tell you of my friend Bootlen. In the three years I have spent on this board, he has been one of the very few, if not the only, frequent poster to the Christian discussions that also happens to BE a Christian and has yet to lose his temper with me.

Even when I want him too. ;)

Now, I can be a downright pain in the ass, a "known ass" as the saying goes here on the forums. I respect Bootlen a lot. He has never ever declared me hopeless when I have repeatedly assured him that I am.

Bootlen does seem a tad grouchy right now, but he also recently suffered a very close and important loss. I have never suffered a similar loss as yet so I can only imagine what it's like and what he is going through right now. And what I am imagining is not very good.

That said, you should probably also know that Boot has openly admitted that he has a closed mind. :) He can afford to be that way, you see, because he's right. :)

My anger over a certain recent event has now subsided, and I have returned for many reasons... among them to speak with you Numba. You seem a very refreshing voice "on the other side" as it were. But don't cast Bootlen down as the only stubborn believer on this board. ;)

Anyway, I was struck by your earlier comment about the Bible being incapable of contradicting itself. Maybe... maybe not. In my mind the bible is rife with illogic and conundrum. Whether or not that means that the bible conflicts with itself will be widely open to interpretation.

I am in my busy season at work and may not post as much as normal until February or so. I'll try to write detailed replies when I can which may not be always.


Sometimes non-believers use arguments like this as fodder to support their anti-God positions so I think we should be careful to remember that we're on the same team.

Perceptive and somewhat accurate I would say. However, don't forget that *I* believe that any idea or ideal that wishes to call itself "Universal Truth" should be a little more, ah, universal. And easy to understand. The depth of the discussions here are indeed fascinating, but not everyone on the planet has the sort of intelligence or even the downright desire it takes to consider things in this fashion. In short, to me a true God would play to a wider audience. :) Once concepts have to be explained by someone then they become tainted right there and then.

As Betrum Russell once said "Man would rather die than think. In fact, he does so."

[TB]

(Colossians 1:15-20)

So Is it that Jesus was created, and that is what is meant by 'firstborn of creation'? How can it be that jesus was created if Jesus created all things in the next verse? (My translation says he created all OTHER things btw) Is it really saying that firstborn as in of creation (thus created) or of those resurrected, or both? Is 'by means of him' (vs16) Meant to show us God used him as an assistant perhaps to do all this? THat would seem to allow for the bible to say in one place 'jesus was created' and in another 'jesus created all things'. God made Jesus first and then WOrked with Jesus, allowing Jesus to take Part in the Creative Process. It would explain why We read this:
(Genesis 1:26) And God went on to say: “Let us make man..." The 'us' Referring to Jesus, who took Direction from god and then did the job.

SEEMS Reasonable at least. What do you think TB?
if Jesus was created we are in trouble. Only an eternal being can pay an eternal debt of sin against an eternal God, in a finite time. If Jesus was created, then he had a beginning, and therefore is not eternal. His death would not pay the debt caused by our sin against an eternal being. From Gen. 1:26 we can derive the understanding that God was talking to someone other than himself, but who and how many we don't know. Now since the NWT has been shown to be unreliable as a source of truth elseware, then it would be unwise to rely on it completely as a credible source of truth now.

How about Isa 45 :18. If you consider this passage in Col. with that one in Isa. what do you conclude?

[scrogdog]

if Jesus was created we are in trouble. Only an eternal being can pay an eternal debt of sin against an eternal God, in a finite time. If Jesus was created, then he had a beginning, and therefore is not eternal. His death would not pay the debt caused by our sin against an eternal being.

Jesus WAS created, for when he had not yet become Jesus he was simply God. If Jesus had not come then no one would know of him; there would only be God. So Jesus was very much a creation of God. Even if you believe that Jesus was also God Himself.

[wolfdog]

..... Now since the NWT has been shown to be unreliable as a source of truth elseware, then it would be unwise to rely on it completely as a credible source of truth now.


Greek scholars Jason BeDuhn, Thomas Winter, Rijkel Tate, Edgar Goodspeed have committed their favorable opinions of the accuracy of the NWT to writing.

Bible translators Steve Byington and Bruce Metzger have as well.

Hebrew scholar Benjamin Kedar has testified to the accuracy and honesty of the translation.

A good many other writers of varying levels have expressed their educated opinions that the NWT is an accurate translation from the original languages.

Actual quotes are available if you would like.

[RoBoTeq]

The refrigerator perry was my favorite..

Jesus and his disciples all rode in that Honda

DId you ever wonder who the smallest couple in the bible was?

Adam and Eve, because they lived in a pair of dice... har har!

(Paradise get it?)

Who was the most sinful person in the Bible?



Moses; he broke all ten commandments at one time.

[TB]

Greek scholars Jason BeDuhn, Thomas Winter, Rijkel Tate, Edgar Goodspeed have committed their favorable opinions of the accuracy of the NWT to writing.

Bible translators Steve Byington and Bruce Metzger have as well.

Hebrew scholar Benjamin Kedar has testified to the accuracy and honesty of the translation.

A good many other writers of varying levels have expressed their educated opinions that the NWT is an accurate translation from the original languages.

Actual quotes are available if you would like.
I try to avoid appealing to the opinions of men to support my theological beliefs. Instead, I go to scripture for that support. When I believe something that scripture contradicts, my opinion must be changed, if that scripture is supported by the rest of scripture. It is really quite irrelevant who endorses a Bible translation, they only look less credible when a simple examination of it reveals the self-contradictions, trademark of liars. The endorsement of scholars only means they hold the opinion that it is a honest translation, but honest from what perspective? How many scholars were approached to endorse the NWT that refused to? The opinion of some, does not guarantee reliability.

Why would I want to read a faulty translation, (even if it were endorsed by many), and willingly allow myself to come to a false conclusion on the nature of God and Jesus, that is not supported by the rest of scripture. Wouldn't that be a bit like being stupid on purpose?

[TB]

Who was the most sinful person in the Bible?



Moses; he broke all ten commandments at one time.

Who were the four people in the Bible who didn't have parents?













Adam, Eve, Melchizedeck, and...























Joshua, son of Nun :D

[TB]

This holiday season, while on those long road trips, made even tougher by the seemingly constant remarks from the passengers side, remember, wives are simply carrying on a tradition since that first Christmas road trip to Bethlehem, when Mary road Joseph's ass all the way there.

[TB]

Jesus WAS created, for when he had not yet become Jesus he was simply God. If Jesus had not come then no one would know of him; there would only be God. So Jesus was very much a creation of God. Even if you believe that Jesus was also God Himself.

Y'know, that's a good point Scrog, the body of Jesus did begin in Mary's womb, and according to Mtt 1:18,20, Was fathered by the Holy Ghost--not Jehovah-- that would also qualify him as Gods first-born, but the Jesus born into this world then wasn't arround at creation, so we're back to square 1.

...'cept the passage doesn't say Jesus created after He was born into an earthly body, it simply says he created after it says he was first born...

[sysint]

I try to avoid appealing to the opinions of men to support my theological beliefs....
Why would I want to read a faulty translation, (even if it were endorsed by many), and willingly allow myself to come to a false conclusion on the nature of God and Jesus, that is not supported by the rest of scripture. Wouldn't that be a bit like being stupid on purpose?More fascinating logic. I see people attack the NWT not having "educated" support and now you are stating the opposite.

You have a faulty translation endorsed by many that removes God's name and (somewhat) allows you to come to a false conclusion of God and Jesus.

Put somebody in front of a Bible that hasn't seen it our Christianity and I highly doubt they would come up with the Trinity. Especially since neither the Word Trinity is in the Bible or it's definition.

[bootlen]

Poor Bootlen. This scripture is fulfilled on you: (1 Timothy 1:5-7) Really the objective of this mandate is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things certain ones have been turned aside into idle talk, 7 wanting to be teachers of law, but not perceiving either the things they are saying or the things about which they are making strong assertions.

As we continue to go deeper into the topic of the trinity, or the proper translation of the bible, or any other topic, you will see the following occur:

(Malachi 3:18) And YOU people will again certainly see [the distinction] between a righteous one and a wicked one, between one serving God and one who has not served him.
AS your posts get more extreme, your credibility will fall.

You should ask yourself: (Genesis 4:6-7) At this Jehovah said to Cain: “Why are you hot with anger and why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you turn to doing good, will there not be an exaltation? But if you do not turn to doing good, there is sin crouching at the entrance, and for you is its craving; and will you, for your part, get the mastery over it?
Although you may not agree, I know you can get mastery, if you choose not to, there will be no exultation, and the effect of the Holy Spirit, with its peace, reasonableness, love, etc. will be seen to be lacking before all.....

I have often wondered if Herod or his brother's wife considered John the Baptist's words as those of love.

[bootlen]

Just a personal observation from a fellow Christian...

It appears that we have Christian arguing with Christian over meanings of words and various translations. While sincere study and discussion of God's word is healthy, it almost seems like some of you guys are fighting over these things instead of searching for their meanings. Sometimes non-believers use arguments like this as fodder to support their anti-God positions so I think we should be careful to remember that we're on the same team.

I now return you to an otherwise excellent discussion. :D

#1 is not a Christian. He's a JW.

[bootlen]

Jesus WAS created, for when he had not yet become Jesus he was simply God. If Jesus had not come then no one would know of him; there would only be God. So Jesus was very much a creation of God. Even if you believe that Jesus was also God Himself.

Actually, the One we CALL Jesus was not created. But the name Jesus WAS created.

[sysint]

Jesus WAS created, for when he had not yet become Jesus he was simply God. If Jesus had not come then no one would know of him; there would only be God. So Jesus was very much a creation of God. Even if you believe that Jesus was also God Himself.The Scripture says he is the "firstborn of creation."

1 Corinthians 8:6 is in agreement with this by stating: 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. NIV

So, if all things are from the ONE God the father, and all those things are through Jesus, the scripture in Colossians has nothing to do with Jesus on earth.

Proverbs 8:22 The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; 23 I was appointed from eternity,from the beginning, before the world began.....30 Then I was by him, as a master workman; And I was daily his delight, Rejoicing always before him --NIV

1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder--KVJ

[sysint]

Greek scholars Jason BeDuhn, Thomas Winter, Rijkel Tate, Edgar Goodspeed have committed their favorable opinions of the accuracy of the NWT to writing....
I take it BeDuhn is now "approved" as a quote/mention? I remember bringing his book up before to you and you wouldn't look into it. Must be in a publication now. (everybody gets a dig-- don't take it too personal)

EDIT-- "Rijkel Tate" I think yo have a typo here.

[sysint]

#1 is not a Christian. He's a JW. I hardly think you are in a position to call somebody not a Christian. When did you get that authority of a judgment position?

[scrogdog]

The Scripture says he is the "firstborn of creation."

1 Corinthians 8:6 is in agreement with this by stating: 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. NIV

So, if all things are from the ONE God the father, and all those things are through Jesus, the scripture in Colossians has nothing to do with Jesus on earth.

Proverbs 8:22 The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; 23 I was appointed from eternity,from the beginning, before the world began.....30 Then I was by him, as a master workman; And I was daily his delight, Rejoicing always before him --NIV

1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder--KVJ

Yes, I agree that this seems to build a case that Jesus was created and thus not eternal.

This will be interesting and precisely what I mean by "biblical conundrum" because I have no doubt that your opponents will pull some scripture that supports thier case. Again, it is hard to believe that God would present such a stunningly complex scenario that is not easily understood by all. Instead we need to argue passages and their translations and meanings within the proper context; not quite an ideal situation for all men, even if they are looking for a god.

The bible has stunningly "whiffed" on the human condition. Certainly, not all on Earth are like we are in ARP, or else we would not see as much voter apathy as we do.

[wolfdog]

I take it BeDuhn is now "approved" as a quote/mention? I remember bringing his book up before to you and you wouldn't look into it. Must be in a publication now. (everybody gets a dig-- don't take it too personal)

EDIT-- "Rijkel Tate" I think yo have a typo here.


I saw your prior reference and just did not mention it.

Rijkel ten Kate

[numbawunfela]

Let me tell you of my friend Bootlen. In the three years I have spent on this board, he has been one of the very few, if not the only, frequent poster to the Christian discussions that also happens to BE a Christian and has yet to lose his temper with me.

Even when I want him too. ;)

Now, I can be a downright pain in the ass, a "known ass" as the saying goes here on the forums. I respect Bootlen a lot. He has never ever declared me hopeless when I have repeatedly assured him that I am.

Bootlen does seem a tad grouchy right now, but he also recently suffered a very close and important loss. I have never suffered a similar loss as yet so I can only imagine what it's like and what he is going through right now. And what I am imagining is not very good.

That said, you should probably also know that Boot has openly admitted that he has a closed mind. :) He can afford to be that way, you see, because he's right. :)

My anger over a certain recent event has now subsided, and I have returned for many reasons... among them to speak with you Numba. You seem a very refreshing voice "on the other side" as it were. But don't cast Bootlen down as the only stubborn believer on this board. ;)

Now that just Bites. I hate to beat people when they are down. I am very reserved with criticism, the old 'one finger pointing at you , three pointing back at me' addage comes to mind. THere is no reason to be offended by what others say here to me, as jesus did, I will try not to stoop to such levels as abusive speach:
(Jude 9) But when Mi′cha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.”
The only times Jesus 'lost it' was when the spiritual wellbeing of innocent ones was at stake.
I try to trust the others on the forum to post responsibly and honorably, and to either refrain if under unusual duress, or be willing to apologize if they find they responded out of turn. I never want to be one who is lioke this:
(Isaiah 32:2) And each one must prove to be like a hiding place from the wind and a place of concealment from the rainstorm, like streams of water in a waterless country, like the shadow of a heavy crag in an exhausted land.
That means being nice to all, but also sometimes stopping others from preventing some from listening to the truth through a, perhaps, overzealous representation, that may play to the fears common in society. I support a more responsible means of communicating bible truth.

If Boot was having a bad day, or a bad week, I'm sorry. I feel as though I was slow and deliberate in the way I brought things to his attention, but to offend is never my intention.

AS for you Scogdog, WE were in the middle of discussing your ideas concerning to Human condition in your thread:
http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=143002&page=37
Post # 481

It looks like you got that cranky-ectomy i reccomended ;)

[numbawunfela]

..

[numbawunfela]

if Jesus was created we are in trouble. Only an eternal being can pay an eternal debt of sin against an eternal God, in a finite time. If Jesus was created, then he had a beginning, and therefore is not eternal. His death would not pay the debt caused by our sin against an eternal being. From Gen. 1:26 we can derive the understanding that God was talking to someone other than himself, but who and how many we don't know. Now since the NWT has been shown to be unreliable as a source of truth elseware, then it would be unwise to rely on it completely as a credible source of truth now.

How about Isa 45 :18. If you consider this passage in Col. with that one in Isa. what do you conclude?

I really like the way your line of reasoning develops in this post. I will try not to bring too many scriptures into play, since that makes for really really long posts, and I start to lose track. besides, I think you will know most of the verses I am alluding to.

There is a matter of equivalency in Jesus' sacrifice that needs to be taken into consideration. Many do not realize that the sacrifice of Jesus had to correspond to that which was lost. However, In my study of the bible, I find that that which was losst was a perfect human Life, namely Adam. Adam lost perfection, and so Jesus restores this, becoming our father in place of Adam, adopting us as the offspring he could have had while a perfect human on earth, but was unable to since Satan Killed him. So when Jesus went back to heaven, he could offer the value of his perfect, sinless life, in place of Adam's, and then go back to living his heavenly spirit life he led before coming to earth. As a truly perfect human, under the Mosaic Law he was Entitled to ive forever, but now the value of that eternal existence that is not being used makes room for all of us to live forever.
SO the equivalency is not compared to God, an eternal being, but Compared to Adam, a Perfect human, who was born, had a beginning, was less powerful than angels, yet more than a mere beast.

We can understand Isa 45:18 in the context of all scripture,
(Isaiah 45:18) For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the [true] God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.
Just because God was the maker of the earth (indisputable really) doesn't mean he actually did the work, just as John Augustus Roebling is credited with building the Brookly bridge, it is unlikely he he did much physical labor, much less the all that would be required to accurately claim he built it according to the line of reasoning you propose. this idea is supported by scripture note the following:
(Exodus 19:20) So Jehovah came down upon Mount Si′nai to the top of the mountain.
(Exodus 20:1-3) And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying: 2*“I am Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves. 3*You must not have any other gods against my face.
So God himself spoke according to Exodus, even calling himself by name, yet in Galations....
(Galatians 3:19-20)Why, then, the Law? ... and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator.
It says the law came though angels and a mediator. GOd was obviously the starting point. then angels participated in conveying it to the mediator, moses. It apparently wasn't God's voice that the Isrealites heard. REally the distinction is insignificant from the point of view of the origin of the Law. It was obviously God. But the clarification in Galations allows for the view that God made the earth, like an architect, designer, but that another actually did the work involved. Thus he would be speaking to this one in Genesis 1:26. Pretty cool that God COULD do it all himself, but that he honors others with the opportunity to participate.

[scrogdog]

The point is that we all become a little testy at times, particularly when discussing this particular topic. The people I disagree with still add value to the discussion. :)

I'll get to that other topic as soon as I can. I'll have to re-read some things. Right now it appears that you may have misunderstood the nature of my basic premise (which was not to imply that God is Nazi-like). The bible fails on three levels; It is often not logical, it is certainly not scientifc, and none of the beings in the bible have ever manifested themselves to me in any way.

Your reply to that will be something along the lines of "you are too stubborn to hear the message" or "you believe yourself to be a God" if history is any teacher in this regard. :) Those very statements demonstrate a *fundamental* lack of understanding with regards to the human condition, with all due respect. It is a flat out fact that human beings use very different thought processes to arrive at conclusions. This has been discussed throughout history in philosophy and science.

Let me try to explore this a bit further by examining some other beliefs men hold. Some believe in the following; Bigfoot, The Lochness Monster, Extraterrestrials. What would make me believe these things? What turns these beliefs in to fact? Easy. Hard evidence. Fuzzy photos/videos of ape-like creatures or shadows moving through the water or even of UFOs are all "soft" evidence. Hard evidence would be the remains or even just a skull of one of the creatures. An unknown alloy, a ray gun. :) Anything.

It is my position now that none of these things exist. UFOs perhaps, but not alien beings. Now we could find hard evidence tomorrow and I'd change my mind. :) Just like that economist (whose name escapes me at the moment) who, when asked by Congress why his policies were all over the place, famously replied "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?"

Now, here's the thing. Isn't it obvious to you that others base their beliefs on these items using a somewhat lesser standard than I do? What works for you doesn't necessarily work for me. We see this phenomena demonstrated every single day. Yet, the bible expects all men to hold a single idea or ideal as a "universal truth". That is flat out impossible, my friend.

The other thing that is worth noting about the human condition is the root cause of things like racism. We humans are not comfortable with that which is unlike ourselves. We tend to make friends with people that share our views, and even in some cases, our physical attributes. And as we group in to these little cliques, we tend to look upon other groups as less. Because they do not speak, act or think as we do. Like I said in the OP in the other topic, the greatest ill of man is our need to be "right" and to cast others down as being wrong. Even understanding the condition I do this as well. I'm doing it right at this moment as a matter of fact. ;)

The point about 1984 and Orwell had not much to do with Nazis, much more to do with "being Orwellian" if you will. For what is the bible asking us to do? To group in to cliques of people who can accept things on faith using a somewhat lessor standard than others. And if you are not in that group, well then, God may just destroy you with a flood or put you in to his version of a concentration camp; hell. Further, even the chosen will have all that is bad removed from them before entering "paradise".

Well, there ya go. Orwellian horror at its best. Only one group can be right. Others, well, we can try to make them see, but if they do not, in the end they will be culled from the herd. Orwell's 1984 and God can shake hands on that one. They are in full agreement.

All Utopians share this philosophy. That's where the Nazi's came in... only as Utopians. There is more to being a Nazi than just being a Utopian though, right? :)

Gods should seemingly not be subject to human failings. Wouldn't you agree?

The other thing, of course, is the seeming lobotomy one must suffer before entering paradise. What makes a man good, my friend? Would you consider someone who had a lobotomy to be "fixed"? Does the path towards being "good" mean that it is acheived by *removing* that which makes us bad? Or is one percieved to be good because he is most often victorious in the inner struggle we all face in our day to day lives?

Heck, I know it is wrong to look at my neighbor's wife and think she is hot and want to have sex with her. But I do, and I can't help it. Where I "win" the battle is that it never becomes more than a passing thought. If instead that temptation is removed, am I still good?

Every item I have just described in this post, to me, shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how humans "work". Therefore my contention that the bible was written and inspired by man alone. That doesn't mean that there is no God, mind you. All I am saying is that the only tangible thing we have seems tremendously flawed in my view.

EDIT: Edited for typos and clarity

[sysint]

I saw your prior reference and just did not mention it.

It was long before that. Look at your old emails too. I stand behind my statement.
EDIT: You wouldn't start including BeDuhn unless he appears in JW publications. I'll take that as BeDuhn is now in a publication as a quote. That's the way it seems to work. True or false?

[wolfdog]

I have emails from you back to 3/05 and J. BeDuhn is not mentioned. Perhaps one got dumped, I don't know. I seriously don't recall you bringing up the name earlier than this thread.
I usually check the references you provide.

Those names and some others came from some research I was doing.

There was a recent quote in the WT. But as far as "apparoved"; no such list. I could send you a copy of the quote if you like.

So I'm not sure whether to answer true, false, or both.

[numbawunfela]

Your reply to that will be something along the lines of "you are too stubborn to hear the message" or "you believe yourself to be a God" if history is any teacher in this regard. :) Those very statements demonstrate a *fundamental* lack of understanding with regards to the human condition, with all due respect. It is a flat out fact that human beings use very different thought processes to arrive at conclusions. This has been discussed throughout history in philosophy and science.

Now, here's the thing. Isn't it obvious to you that others base their beliefs on these items using a somewhat lesser standard than I do? What works for you doesn't necessarily work for me. We see this phenomena demonstrated every single day. Yet, the bible expects all men to hold a single idea or ideal as a "universal truth". That is flat out impossible, my friend.

For what is the bible asking us to do? To group in to cliques of people who can accept things on faith using a somewhat lessor standard than others. And if you are not in that group, well then, God may just destroy you with a flood or put you in to his version of a concentration camp; hell. Further, even the chosen will have all that is bad removed from them before entering "paradise"

That is an eloquent defense to a point not made. :)

I will make this point again, however:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?p=1660939#post1660939
post #515
Blind ignorant faith is not required.

Ok there were several points in your post that I want to get at, but I'm gonna try to do just one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrogdog
SO... if you agree that all men do not think alike, thus many of us just do not have the capability or are not "hard wired", if you will, to take things on blind faith, how is it that you and the bible expect that to be the case with regards to the divinity of Jesus?

I believe that you are basing your argument with a false premise.

Yes all men think differently (I asked a Russian Freind of mine for something cold to drink and he brought me vodka out of the freezer. Not too bad.)
But no where in the bible or in true christianity are we expected to except things on blind faith.

Note some of my previous posts:

Quote: Originally Posted by numbawunfela
Proverbs 27:17 By iron, iron itself is sharpened. So one man sharpens the face of another.
But don't take my word for it. Be noble minded...
Acts 17:11 Immediately by night the brothers sent both Paul and Silas out to Be·roe′a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.
Double check everything. (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by numbawunfela
First off, real faith is not credulity. (Hebrews 11:1) 11 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.
Things we do not see are proved to be realities through examination. such as gravity, wind, etc. It is critically important to prove to oneself the inspiration of the scriptures.
(Romans 12:1-2) 12 Consequently I entreat YOU by the compassions of God, brothers, to present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason. 2 And quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making YOUR mind over, that YOU may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

The bible encourages us to use our power of reason, to prove to ourselves, examine things carefully, to axamine all things. If we WERE expected to accept things on blind faith, credulity, then I coud then follow along with your line of thought.
But we are not.
In fact, based on the biblical definition of faith at Hebrews 11:1, 'blind faith' is itself, a misnomer.

[numbawunfela]

I sorta had in mind the disscussion would continue in the other thread, but since it is here I'll roll with that. You guys have been doing this longer than I have.

NOTE: this is questioning your motives.

A little philosopher bashing


Scrodog I hafta admit that I am a little biased toward philosophers. I had a freind who had a masters in philosophy. So I don't hate them catagorically, per se. However I have a few charicteristics in mind that I seem to find consistently in them.

They tend to love the jorney as much or more so than the destination. I am all about results. I discuss so as to understand and then be able to know with confidence that i have considered it, and therefore am reasonably assured of the conclusions drawn, of course still being open to new views. Philosophers tend to be more interested in the excercise, the conclusion being either irrelevant or unimportant, since they never seem to want to reach one.

What is accepted as correct or incorrect is based on whe quality of the arguments presented, not necessarily on the information conveyed. the ability to debate has no real bearing on what is factual in reality, but philosiphers in general love to be able to 'convince' someone that a rediculous conclusion is true, through resoning techniques or debate tactics. I will admit it is an entertaining exercise, and quite amusing, but not a basis for making life altering decisions.

One discussion doesn't ever have a bearing on another. If I can prove that the bible was factual, for example, the philosopher does not see a reason to assign it any significance as an authority in a discussion about morality for example. the topic has changed, and the playing field has been re-leveled.

Philosophers also love to be right, or at least, acheive a footing in an argument whereby successful opposition is impossible. this means that if it is onconvenient to admit an obvious fact since it may hinder your ability to manuver later, you will simply refuse to acknowledge such a fact. I hope your signature quote by vince lombardi is not an example of this.

I have seen you decry the intolerance and narrowmindedness of many religious people, and rightly so. I am very religious, yet I hope i have proven myself an exception to the rule. I hope that you can also prove yourself an exception to my perceptions.

[scrogdog]

Blind ignorant faith is not required.

So you may say, but I admit I am scratching my head a bit here with regards to your reply. I'm not sure how "blind faith" and "a fundamental lack of understanding with regards to the human condition" are related.


Yes all men think differently (I asked a Russian Freind of mine for something cold to drink and he brought me vodka out of the freezer. Not too bad.) But no where in the bible or in true christianity are we expected to except things on blind faith.

Note some of my previous posts:

Proverbs 27:17 By iron, iron itself is sharpened. So one man sharpens the face of another.

But don't take my word for it. Be noble minded...

Acts 17:11 Immediately by night the brothers sent both Paul and Silas out to Be·roe′a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.

Double check everything. (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.

First off, real faith is not credulity. (Hebrews 11:1) 11 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.

Things we do not see are proved to be realities through examination. such as gravity, wind, etc. It is critically important to prove to oneself the inspiration of the scriptures.

(Romans 12:1-2) 12 Consequently I entreat YOU by the compassions of God, brothers, to present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason. 2 And quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making YOUR mind over, that YOU may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

The bible encourages us to use our power of reason, to prove to ourselves, examine things carefully, to axamine all things. If we WERE expected to accept things on blind faith, credulity, then I coud then follow along with your line of thought.

But we are not.

In fact, based on the biblical definition of faith at Hebrews 11:1, 'blind faith' is itself, a misnomer.

Basically the entire thread 'why I do not believe' is based on a false premise.

I fail to see how this argument addresses any single contention that I have made. While it is true that I do believe that a belief in God is blind faith, that's not even close to my core point with regards to the human condition.

Let's review;

I spent the first four paragraphs of my post showing how people come to believe different things. Culminating with this;


Now, here's the thing. Isn't it obvious to you that others base their beliefs on these items using a somewhat lesser standard than I do? What works for you doesn't necessarily work for me.

So, now, your contention is that just because the bible says that the search for truth is pure, it is. Well, that even may be the case, but that does not all of a sudden mean that the bible recognizes that is it impossible for all men to hold the same idea or ideal as a universal fact or truth. I don't see how the two points connect actually, maybe you can help me out here.

Next, I go on to point out that man has a history of forming in to groups of like-minded individuals and then looking down upon those who do not speak, think and act as they do. The bible itself does the very same thing. If you aren't "hard-wired" to accept things on faith, then you will not ascend and be seperated from the chosen. Uh... this is what men do. I consider this a huge failing of man... absolutely huge. How does what you wrote address this point at all? I just don't see it. To say that Christians have tried as hard as they can to remain true to certain things is all well and good, but that is meaningless to my point. Gods should be better then men. A god should be able to accept the diversity of HIS OWN CREATION.

Then I move on to describe the attributes of what philosphy calls Utopians. To a one, all believe that the only path to Utopia or Paradise is to eliminate those elements that do not fit in to the ruleset created by those in power.

Have you read 1984? Have you grasped its meaning and indeed its warning?

This mindset is of men... not gods. To me, anyway. Again, I'm not sure how suggesting that the search by Christains has been "true" does anything to address the fundamental point that I've made. Fine, Christains do thier best. Does that mean that the bible does not describe an Orwellian scenario? Hardly.

Finally, I end up at paradise itself. This is a condition unachievable by men. So, I examined how God would do it. Apparently, he would do it the same way as man, excising that which is "bad" or does not fit in. It is said that paradise will be free from sickness and sin. Well heck, will I even remember what it is like to be good or bad then? I will be incapable of sinning in paradise. Well, that would certainly mean that whatever exists in paradise will not be me. I can only view this sort of paradise as a sort of drooling myopia. Sorry. :)

Again, I fail to see how the methods used by Christians, or whether they were flawed or not, has any bearing on my comments as to how paradise will be achieved by God.

So, my post may have been based on a false premise, but you have not addressed the premise, that the bible is rife with the signature flaws of man. The actions of Christians have still resulted in the words I read. And the words describe a God with human failings and one who uses flawed human methods to achieve his goals.

Now, this is all my opinion of course. You may feel free to disagree. But I think we sort of meandered down the wrong path here. Your answer might have been more appropriate if the discussion had swung towards science, for example, but does nothing to address the philosophy of the bible itself, regardless of how those words were arrived at.

[scrogdog]

Scrodog I hafta admit that I am a little biased toward philosophers. I had a freind who had a masters in philosophy. So I don't hate them catagorically, per se. However I have a few charicteristics in mind that I seem to find consistently in them.

They tend to love the jorney as much or more so than the destination. I am all about results. I discuss so as to understand and then be able to know with confidence that i have considered it, and therefore am reasonably assured of the conclusions drawn, of course still being open to new views. Philosophers tend to be more interested in the excercise, the conclusion being either irrelevant or unimportant, since they never seem to want to reach one.

You in sales at all? ;) I profile you as a pragmatic. I, on the other hand, would be catagorized as an analytical. You are correct, the journey is quite important. It is one thing to know WHAT you state as truth, another to understand WHY. I have freely admitted on these forums to being a student of the human condition, and that means trying to grasp the thought processes of individuals. If we concentrate on results alone, then we miss an important part of the human condition in my view.


What is accepted as correct or incorrect is based on whe quality of the arguments presented, not necessarily on the information conveyed. the ability to debate has no real bearing on what is factual in reality, but philosiphers in general love to be able to 'convince' someone that a rediculous conclusion is true, through resoning techniques or debate tactics. I will admit it is an entertaining exercise, and quite amusing, but not a basis for making life altering decisions.

Well, whether or not I actually do this will be your call to make. I can only say that none other than Bootlen said something like "Scrog isn't afraid of where the search for truth may lead him. He says his piece and lets the chips fall as they may". Or something close to that. Boot and I are allies in politics but not religion. It was one of the greatest compliments that I have ever recieved. However, as I said, that is his perception but may ultimately not become yours.


One discussion doesn't ever have a bearing on another. If I can prove that the bible was factual, for example, the philosopher does not see a reason to assign it any significance as an authority in a discussion about morality for example. the topic has changed, and the playing field has been re-leveled.

Well, maybe that's true and maybe I'm just some wordsmith who loves to push buttons. Again, that will be your decision to make.


Philosophers also love to be right, or at least, acheive a footing in an argument whereby successful opposition is impossible. this means that if it is onconvenient to admit an obvious fact since it may hinder your ability to manuver later, you will simply refuse to acknowledge such a fact. I hope your signature quote by vince lombardi is not an example of this.

Well, here I will disagree, although I will acknowledge that anything that we have can be misused... science, philosophy and religion. The purpose of philosophy, to me, is to encourage even MORE philosophy. It is in this way that the human condition is explored.


I have seen you decry the intolerance and narrowmindedness of many religious people, and rightly so. I am very religious, yet I hope i have proven myself an exception to the rule. I hope that you can also prove yourself an exception to my perceptions.

I hope so too. :)

In any case, I did make the concious decision to restate my position here because it seems that I was not getting you to see what I was saying in the other topic. I think maybe that I still am not, but I am rooting for that to happen. :) And yes, I have already stated that you seem a reasonable sort, so it will be most interesting to see how someone who apparently thinks in a similar fashion to me reconciles certain things that I cannot.

EDIT: I just thought of something else to say that may add to my intended clarification of purpose. Upon reflection, I now find the topic title "Why I Don't Believe" to be a poor choice of words. I think perhaps something along the lines of "Why I Will Not Follow" would be more in order. At this point I am not arguing the existence of God per se, I am saying that for God to hold the philosophies described in the bible doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you, Numba, categorically demonstrate to me that the bible is the work of God. Let's say I then become a believer in that I now believe this entity exists. I still would not follow. Spirituality is a lost concept on me even if God exists. To me, God should be showing us how to accept the diversity of his creation. You know, the brotherhood of man. So, how does PROMOTING the clique mindset and the human/Orwellian idea of Utopianism do that? Answer: it doesn't. That is one of the reasons that I can only conclude that the bible is the work of man. But if demonstrated otherwise, as I said, I'd change my mind. But, that would only make me draw new conclusions... such as that God is far from the perfect being that he says he is.

As for my sig, I am in marketing. Attitude is everything in life. This is a discussion for another day, but it is hugely related to the human condition. Here's another of my favorite motivational tidbits given to us by a famous scholar and philosopher known as Wayne Gretzky;

"You miss 100% of the shots that you never take".

[sysint]

I have emails from you back to 3/05 and J. BeDuhn is not mentioned. Perhaps one got dumped, I don't know. I seriously don't recall you bringing up the name earlier than this thread.
I usually check the references you provide.

Those names and some others came from some research I was doing.

There was a recent quote in the WT. But as far as "apparoved"; no such list. I could send you a copy of the quote if you like.

So I'm not sure whether to answer true, false, or both.Goodness. There was just stuff all over the net on the September 07 publication talking about this and now you are sidestepping. I say if the quote isn't in a JW publication, you don't use it and you probably (in the strongest sense) wouldn't read it. Therefore, unless BeDuhn is quoted in the JW literature, you don't bring it up. I'll bet you haven't read the book. True or False?

[sysint]

So you may say, but I admit I am scratching my head a bit here with regards to your reply...

That's why you should pay more attention to what I am posting instead. ;)

[wolfdog]

Goodness. There was just stuff all over the net on the September 07 publication talking about this and now you are sidestepping. I say if the quote isn't in a JW publication, you don't use it and you probably (in the strongest sense) wouldn't read it. Therefore, unless BeDuhn is quoted in the JW literature, you don't bring it up. I'll bet you haven't read the book. True or False?

I guess I don't spend time at the same sites you do sysint. The name has not come up on the handful of trade sites I visit.

I don't spend any time reading things contrary to my theological viewpoint, however I have read a lot of things that were not quoted in a JW publication.

I had been reading a friend's copy of Beduhn's book and he repossessed it. So one has been ordered from Amazon. So true, I have not read the book completely.

[sysint]

According to your 9/07 OKM under the Question Box maybe you should cancel the order?

[wolfdog]

If you have read the article then you should recognize Titus 3:9.

Is that where this is headed?

[numbawunfela]

So you may say, but I admit I am scratching my head a bit here with regards to your reply. I'm not sure how "blind faith" and "a fundamental lack of understanding with regards to the human condition" are related.

So, now, your contention is that just because the bible says that the search for truth is pure, it is. Well, that even may be the case, but that does not all of a sudden mean that the bible recognizes that is it impossible for all men to hold the same idea or ideal as a universal fact or truth. I don't see how the two points connect actually, maybe you can help me out here.

Next, I go on to point out that man has a history of forming in to groups of like-minded individuals and then looking down upon those who do not speak, think and act as they do. The bible itself does the very same thing. If you aren't "hard-wired" to accept things on faith, then you will not ascend and be seperated from the chosen.

I remember asking we go one at a time. If I post three points in response to each one of yours, and you do likewise, our posts grow exponentially, and I get confused over what I WROTE, muchless over what I read to prompt me to write so much....

I rock at sales by the way.....( if I do say so myself) ;)

THe human condition. Perhaps we should pin that down a little better? It seems that it is the fact that we are all unique, and all the many things that implies. that all mankind can hold the same ideals. The diversity of religion is evidence of this. some are not 'hard wired' (your phrase) to believe exactly the same, to take on blind faith what others say, or what the bible says for that matter.

I contend that The Bible makes no requirement that people except anything on blind faith. that the fact that there are so many religions has no bearing on the bible's truthfulness. THe diversity of mankind is rather a VERY powerful source of proof of the Bible's Authenticity. ( since I'm trying to go one at a time I'll save the why for later) The fact that many people do not except the bible is more a function of circumstance or unhelpful exposure (religious fanatics giving the bible a bad name for example) than any failure on the bible's part.

accepting things on faith requires no 'hard wiring'. It is as natural as trusting the airplane won't fall out of the sky when you fly, or that your car won't say 'goood morning!' one day to you. Faith is the acceptance as fact things you may not physically see, because through examination you have come to understand that this unseen thing (what keeps the plane up) is a reality.

The first post was about what faith is biblically, since it seems that 'the human experience' is not addressed in its veriety, by an unbiblical view of faith. wherease a biblical view of faith most certainly allows for veriety in human opinions and thinking.

[TB]

Well now, since we seem to be playing musical opponents, maybe I'll get into it with Boot or Robo. Lessee here, what can we banter about....:D


I just find a strange humor in how many conversations are going on right now. I believe, numba, that scrog's premise of the "human condition" is being illustrated completely in the last few pages.

Scrog, I believe your premise of the human condition parallels what the Bible tells us it is, but the Bible goes one better, and explaines why it is.

Is. 14:12, Eze 28:11

The original sin, the one that got Lucifer thrown out of heaven, is described in the passages surrounding the references above. In the form of poetry, the prophesies against these two cities, and their kings, contain the description od Satans offence. This is His M.O., and we see it again in Eden when Eve is tempted. Satans sin was to attempt to exult himself above God, and that is how we are tempted as well--to exult ourselves above anything else. Since we are all individuals, that right there attests to Gods greatness, for who else could create a people, each so distinct, yet genetically linked to each other. Once Adam and Eve fell into sin--by attempting to exult themselves (basically, they decided their own thought and opinion was more reliable than what God told them), they introduced into creation the tendancy for each individual one of us, to exult ourselves. Since we are individuals, and our thoughts are relative to our own being, experiences and knowledge, so are our individual thoughts, and our sin condition, is to exult ourselves. Unfortunately, we each attempt to see the Bible in the light of our own condition, and even within the same denomination, we as individuals tend to find points where our opinions differ from each others.

I think we can all agree that Truth exists, otherwise we would not be trying to assert our opinion, but without a standard, we are all just shooting in the dark. What you claim as the human condition, exists because of sin, so in your own way, you have verified what the Bible says, about who we are.

The next step, is how do we deal with that condition? The Bible says that Jesus is that remedy that God designed. By submitting to Him, we grow out of that condition, and learn to overcome that condition that causes us to seek to exult ourselves. Some of us argue that it is the Bible we need to recognize as the standard that guides our individuality toward God and His salvation from that human condition. The remedy from exulting our own thoughts, is to exult one thought--Truth--in ourselves. That is Jesus' job, as we allow Him to.

[TB]

More fascinating logic. I see people attack the NWT not having "educated" support and now you are stating the opposite.
Not at all. Let me put it this way, there are many more scholars that endorse the Book of Mormon, than what you posted that support the NWT, so why do you not argue that the Book of Mormon is true? See what I'm saying? A claim of truth, no matter how many times it is repeated, is irrelevant once a lie is found.


You have a faulty translation endorsed by many that removes God's name and (somewhat) allows you to come to a false conclusion of God and Jesus. The translation I read does not remove Gods name, it simply uses a specific script to reveal it. The fact that it is there is understood, in the NIV anyways, but the NASV uses the same word for Gods name the NWT uses--which is the German transliteration of what Gods name was thought to be, anyways. Recent scholastic evidence suggests that is not the correct pronunciation of it either.


Put somebody in front of a Bible that hasn't seen it our Christianity and I highly doubt they would come up with the Trinity. Especially since neither the Word Trinity is in the Bible or it's definition.
That is speculation. The word "trinity" wouldn't be in the Bible, since it is a latin word used to summarize the teaching of the Bible, about Gods nature.

[TB]

Proverbs 8:22 The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; 23 I was appointed from eternity,from the beginning, before the world began.....30 Then I was by him, as a master workman; And I was daily his delight, Rejoicing always before him --NIV



Just how do you figure that refers to Jesus? It's talking about wisdom.

[bootlen]

I hardly think you are in a position to call somebody not a Christian. When did you get that authority of a judgment position?

Additionally, you, sys, are poor in vocabulary.

If I were to say you are a male (You ARE male, aren't you?:o), would that be judgement? Of course not. It would be discernment. And saying #! is not a Christian is not judgement...it is discernment. To judge means to pass sentence. THAT is what God tells us to not do...pass sentence.

Now, go spend some time in a Scriptural dictionary. Ya just might learn something. Or not.

[sysint]

If you have read the article then you should recognize Titus 3:9.

Is that where this is headed?It's headed for what it says. What is says is something you are avoiding. Now you label it useless. I can start quoting. It suggests you go over their complete library, that it's sufficient, and after you get through that maybe you have time for something else. I understand the non-endorsement, to me that only makes sense. (I see where many will go overboard with that statement). If you want to play dodgeball you will turn out to be the fat kid.

[sysint]

Just how do you figure that refers to Jesus? It's talking about wisdom.

Cherry picker-- Go back over the post in it's entirety. I guess you have a problem with Justin Martyr and Athanasius also on Proverbs 8 among many, many others. I know it's throws the Trinity thing for a loop as it points to Jesus as being created. The earlier guys would attempt to work around it. I guess nowadays you Trinitarians simply deny it.

[sysint]

Additionally, you, sys, are poor in vocabulary.
..To judge means to pass sentence. THAT is what God tells us to not do...pass sentence...Now, go spend some time in a Scriptural dictionary. Ya just might learn something. Or not.

He called himself a Christian. You said he wasn't. You are calling him a liar and passing judgment on him. Otherwise you could say I don't think he is a Christian. That isn't what you said.

judg·ment also judge·ment (jŭj'mənt) pronunciation
n.
1. The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation.

As far as learning something, you and I both know what your current level of understanding is. It's the primary reason you put out your one-liners and can't analyze a thought process --- you are weak in your position as you don't have the understanding of it as well as you could which would open a whole different level of discussion. You aren't capable yet.

[sysint]

A claim of truth, no matter how many times it is repeated, is irrelevant once a lie is found.I like this one. Good. I don't need to hear crap about NWT authors, etc...


The translation I read does not remove Gods name, it simply uses a specific script to reveal it. The fact that it is there is understood, in the NIV anyways, but the NASV uses the same word for Gods name the NWT uses--which is the German transliteration of what Gods name was thought to be, anyways. Recent scholastic evidence suggests that is not the correct pronunciation of it either. The German transliteration of Jesus isn't correct either but suddenly the hypocrisy of pronunciation isn't such a big deal. The facts are your Bible substitutes God's name rather than inserting it.


That is speculation. The word "trinity" wouldn't be in the Bible, since it is a latin word used to summarize the teaching of the Bible, about Gods nature. More dodgeball. A definition of the Trinity doesn't exist in the Bible. A Greek or Hebrew equivalent word or phrase doesn't exist in the Bible. There are very few instances where the Trinity-three are mentioned together and there is not enough information in those few scriptures to define a trinity.

[bootlen]

He called himself a Christian. You said he wasn't. You are calling him a liar and passing judgment on him. Otherwise you could say I don't think he is a Christian. That isn't what you said.

judg·ment also judge·ment (jŭj'mənt) pronunciation
n.
1. The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation.

As far as learning something, you and I both know what your current level of understanding is. It's the primary reason you put out your one-liners and can't analyze a thought process --- you are weak in your position as you don't have the understanding of it as well as you could which would open a whole different level of discussion. You aren't capable yet.

Having a problem reading, are you? "SCRIPTURAL" judgement....to pass sentence. God calls us to be discerning. Look up "discernment". It could be an eye-opening experience.

Was I wrong about you? You are male, right? Or did I "misjudge" you?

[scrogdog]

Very well. Before we continue, let's attempt to define what I mean by the human condition.

It's funny, but when I was young I really had no use for history at all. That all changed one day when I walked in to a small hole-in-the-wall game store where this guy was playing (by himself) a paper and cardboard game that simulated that Battle of Bastogne. I was mesmerized.

As my wargaming "career" progressed, I purchased a game known as "Squad Leader". Each scenario had a historical introduction to it. One scenario dealt with the airdrop at Arnhem. It was here that I first read of Private John C. Towle. I was probably 19 years old at the time.

Private Towle's official Medal of Honor citation reads:


For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 21 September 1944, near Oosterhout, Holland. The rifle company in which Pvt. Towle served as rocket launcher gunner was occupying a defensive position in the west sector of the recently established Nijmegen bridgehead when a strong enemy force of approximately 100 infantry supported by 2 tanks and a half-track formed for a counterattack. With full knowledge of the disastrous consequences resulting not only to his company but to the entire bridgehead by an enemy breakthrough, Pvt. Towle immediately and without orders left his foxhole and moved 200 yards in the face of intense small-arms fire to a position on an exposed dike roadbed. From this precarious position Pvt. Towle fired his rocket launcher at and hit both tanks to his immediate front. Armored skirting on both tanks prevented penetration by the projectiles, but both vehicles withdrew slightly damaged. Still under intense fire and fully exposed to the enemy, Pvt. Towle then engaged a nearby house which 9 Germans had entered and were using as a strongpoint and with 1 round killed all 9. Hurriedly replenishing his supply of ammunition, Pvt. Towle, motivated only by his high conception of duty which called for the destruction of the enemy at any cost, then rushed approximately 125 yards through grazing enemy fire to an exposed position from which he could engage the enemy half-track with his rocket launcher. While in a kneeling position preparatory to firing on the enemy vehicle, Pvt. Towle was mortally wounded by a mortar shell. By his heroic tenacity, at the price of his life, Pvt. Towle saved the lives of many of his comrades and was directly instrumental in breaking up the enemy counterattack.

While I was reading this, it was like a movie going off in my mind. Especially where they talk about "intense fire"... I saw scenes in my head typical of any war movie while I read of his actions.

When I had finished, I just sort of sat there stunned. I wondered if I had it in me to do such a thing. I wondered what it was within him, what his motivation was; knowing he was going to die but still doing what he felt needed to be done. Why had he chosen that moment instead of 5 minutes before or after? Did something within him "break" or "let go", so to speak, or was the decision made with a sort of "calm before the storm" clarity?

That's how it began for me. I am 49 now, so my studies have spanned 30 years. In many ways, I know no more now than I did then. In many other ways, my voyage of discovery has led to a host of revelations with regards to what make humans "tick" and how.

So, what definition nails this down? Good question. I'm not much for Wiki usually, but in this case I think that thier introductory two paragraphs provide a fair summation;


The human condition encompasses the totality of the experience of being human. As mortal entities, there are a series of biologically determined events that are common to most human lives, and some that are inevitable for all. The ongoing way in which humans react to or cope with these events is the human condition. However, understanding the precise nature and scope of what is meant by the human condition is itself a philosophical problem.

The term is also used in a metaphysical sense, to describe the joy, terror and other feelings or emotions associated with being and existence. Humans, to an apparently superlative degree amongst all living things, are aware of the passage of time, can remember the past and imagine the future, and are intimately aware of their own mortality. Only human beings are known to ask themselves questions relating to the purpose of life beyond the base need for survival, or the nature of existence beyond that which is empirically apparent: What is the meaning of existence? Why was I born? Why am I here? Where will I go when I die? The human struggle to find answers to these questions — and the very fact that we can conceive them and ask them — is what defines the human condition in this sense of the term.

Ok, that's about the best way to explain it. To me, the most important things to know are motivations and thought process. To others, certain biological studies may be more relevant to thier personal quest. The field is pretty wide-ranging.

Now, in the interest of going "one-at-a-time" I'll stop there, except to say that you are doing yourself a disservice in my humble opinion, Numba, by keeping on this blind faith thing. Neither the OP in "Why I Don't Believe" nor its follow-up here had the slightest thing to do with blind faith. For the purposes of discussing the philosophy itself, it doesn't matter who wrote it, men or gods. I'm claiming the philosophy is flawed regardless of who wrote it, or how well the integrity of information has been retained over time. As I said, even if you prove to me that God exists, it is *still* flawed.

Now, that is not to say that I won't discuss the blind faith issue with you; I'd be happy to. So, let's agree to either make a new topic to discuss it, or to save it for later in the interest of "one-at-a-time". Unless I am totally missing your point, I just can't see how the issues that surround blind faith have anything to do with what I've been talking about here.

[scrogdog]

I just find a strange humor in how many conversations are going on right now. I believe, numba, that scrog's premise of the "human condition" is being illustrated completely in the last few pages.

I totally agree.


Scrog, I believe your premise of the human condition parallels what the Bible tells us it is, but the Bible goes one better, and explaines why it is.

Is. 14:12, Eze 28:11

The original sin, the one that got Lucifer thrown out of heaven, is described in the passages surrounding the references above. In the form of poetry, the prophesies against these two cities, and their kings, contain the description od Satans offence. This is His M.O., and we see it again in Eden when Eve is tempted. Satans sin was to attempt to exult himself above God, and that is how we are tempted as well--to exult ourselves above anything else. Since we are all individuals, that right there attests to Gods greatness, for who else could create a people, each so distinct, yet genetically linked to each other. Once Adam and Eve fell into sin--by attempting to exult themselves (basically, they decided their own thought and opinion was more reliable than what God told them), they introduced into creation the tendancy for each individual one of us, to exult ourselves. Since we are individuals, and our thoughts are relative to our own being, experiences and knowledge, so are our individual thoughts, and our sin condition, is to exult ourselves. Unfortunately, we each attempt to see the Bible in the light of our own condition, and even within the same denomination, we as individuals tend to find points where our opinions differ from each others.

I suppose that is a fair alternate way of saying it. In reality things are far more complex than that, but it works for now. If I were to relate this back to my OP in the other topic, I'd say that this passage descibes what I called "the greatest ill of man" rather than the whole of the human condition itself. So, I suppose the question is, if God and the bible do, in fact, completely grasp the human condition, then why does a lot of the philospohy of God appear to show the reverse? There is no ideal that all men will agree on and there never will be. So, it seems sort of wierd to send non-conformists to hell when God would seeming already expect that there would be many differeing veiwpoints with regards to such a strict philosophy.


I think we can all agree that Truth exists, otherwise we would not be trying to assert our opinion, but without a standard, we are all just shooting in the dark. What you claim as the human condition, exists because of sin, so in your own way, you have verified what the Bible says, about who we are.

What is and isn't a sin isn't even a universal standard among men. Therefore to say that all men or God have the ability to define an overarching standard for all is not accurate. Again, Christianity is all about conformity (as is also the case with all other religions) and it should not be, as not all men will conform to the same thing. So now we have to consider the worth of any sort of punishment. If God doesn't realize what he has created in me then HE should be punished. :)

And as I have pointed out many times before, God's punishment is not developmental in nature. It's eternal.


The next step, is how do we deal with that condition? The Bible says that Jesus is that remedy that God designed. By submitting to Him, we grow out of that condition, and learn to overcome that condition that causes us to seek to exult ourselves. Some of us argue that it is the Bible we need to recognize as the standard that guides our individuality toward God and His salvation from that human condition. The remedy from exulting our own thoughts, is to exult one thought--Truth--in ourselves. That is Jesus' job, as we allow Him to.

Well, I suppose that works if you feel the need to pay some sort of price for simply being a human being. I certainly don't. To make me imperfect because of what Eve did is somewhat like blaming me personally for slavery in the United States. It is the sheer ridiculousness of the concept (sorry) which makes me shy away from it.

Like I said earlier, I can't help looking at my neighbors wife. Whose fault is that? Mine? Eve's? Or the GOD WHO MADE ME THAT WAY? ;)

[wolfdog]

It's headed for what it says. What is says is something you are avoiding. Now you label it useless. I can start quoting. It suggests you go over their complete library, that it's sufficient, and after you get through that maybe you have time for something else. I understand the non-endorsement, to me that only makes sense. (I see where many will go overboard with that statement). If you want to play dodgeball you will turn out to be the fat kid.


We are muddying the water here. I tried to email you and your old address is no good. Email me. I don't want to be a fat kid.

[sysint]

Having a problem reading, are you? "SCRIPTURAL" judgement....to pass sentence. God calls us to be discerning. Look up "discernment". It could be an eye-opening experience.

Was I wrong about you? You are male, right? Or did I "misjudge" you?You can't even make that "scriptural judgment". Discernment doesn't mean you open your big mouth in a forum and call somebody not a Christian for the simple reason that if they say they are you may be entirely wrong. Better to use discernment and ask questions and make points rather than what you are doing. You believe that the non-Christians go to hell. Therefore, you are saying he goes to hell. You don't make that decision. You can't even say for sure.

[bootlen]

You can't even make that "scriptural judgment". Discernment doesn't mean you open your big mouth in a forum and call somebody not a Christian for the simple reason that if they say they are you may be entirely wrong. Better to use discernment and ask questions and make points rather than what you are doing. You believe that the non-Christians go to hell. Therefore, you are saying he goes to hell. You don't make that decision. You can't even say for sure.


Really? So if I tell my child that if he plays in the street long enough, a car will hit him, then it is on my say-so that a car hits him? You really believe that? If you do then you are one sick puppy.

It is easy to tell if a person is a Christian by what he believes. And I can only assume what someone posts here is what he believes. Or are you accustomed to being around those who say what they do NOT believe?

[sysint]

Really? So if I tell my child that if he plays in the street long enough, a car will hit him, then it is on my say-so that a car hits him? You really believe that? If you do then you are one sick puppy.

It is easy to tell if a person is a Christian by what he believes. And I can only assume what someone posts here is what he believes. Or are you accustomed to being around those who say what they do NOT believe?I'm saying you have no authority to judge someone not Christian when they say they are. It's not your place. You can however outline what you think a Christian is. When it comes right down to it, you don't know. For instance, with your typically rude behavior I could come out and say you are not a Christian. However, it would be better that I use the scriptures that mention better behavior and let you decide how to conduct yourself.

I've seen "Christians" get sexual favors in the white house, play with little boys and drink too much. Want I don't have a right to do is deny that they are a Christian.

For instance, if a man lives his life mostly sin-free, believes in Jesus but doesn't accept the Trinity is he condemned to hell? From his understanding (which may be limited) but can you say he is not a Christian? How about a mentally retarded person who cannot grasp certain Christian doctrine. Are you going to say they are not a Christian?

[glennac]

This whole thread is about fighting between Christians of different beliefs and those with no beliefs. We all have a real enemy to worry about and everyone knows who that is the Muslim religion but no body seems to care. New King James Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=50) Mathew 10:36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household

[icchvac]

And that's a very good point glenn

[numbawunfela]

Things have picked up in here recently. hard to tell but it actually is a well coordinated series of food fights. Most are having fun. SOme are actually learning. one seems to just want to spread as much food around as possible, many are just hungry.

If you go back a few pages, there is an interesting series of posts about the trinity look for TB sysint and myself on that one. and Scrogdog is continuing the question from the original post on 'why i do not believe'

Bootlen dropped a boot bomb a few pages back and is now answereing for it now it seems.

I'm about to reply to TB.

[bootlen]

I'm saying you have no authority to judge someone not Christian when they say they are. It's not your place. You can however outline what you think a Christian is. When it comes right down to it, you don't know. For instance, with your typically rude behavior I could come out and say you are not a Christian. However, it would be better that I use the scriptures that mention better behavior and let you decide how to conduct yourself.

I've seen "Christians" get sexual favors in the white house, play with little boys and drink too much. Want I don't have a right to do is deny that they are a Christian.

For instance, if a man lives his life mostly sin-free, believes in Jesus but doesn't accept the Trinity is he condemned to hell? From his understanding (which may be limited) but can you say he is not a Christian? How about a mentally retarded person who cannot grasp certain Christian doctrine. Are you going to say they are not a Christian?

Then it is obvious that YOU don't know what a Christian is or is not. I will, however, attempt to explain it to you.

>Going to church every Sunday does not make one a Christian.
>Giving money to the needy, to the church, to a political affiliation, or to any other entity or inanimate object does not make one a Christian.
>Helping little old ladies across the street does not make one a Christian.
>Not picking one's nose does not make one a Christian.
>Being kind or polite does not make one a Christian.
>Healing the sick does not make one a Christian.
>Telling the truth does not make one a Christian.
>Not stealing does not make one a Christian.
>Not lying does not make one a Christian.
>Not murdering does not make one a Christian.

(How'm I doin' so far, ICC, TB, other brothers?)

>Honoring one's parents does not make one a Christian.
>Worshipping God does not make one a Christian. (There's a topic for a long thread all by itself.)

You beginning to see a pattern here? I mean other than the shock some of these bring to your little brain?

One thing and one thing only makes one a Christian...putting one's faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross is what makes one a Christian.

Now I would ask some questions of #1. The problem is, I am on my way out the door and possibly will not be back on this forum till next week unless Embarq performed a "miracle" today and got DSL up and running in my new digs. That being said, I will leave all of you to stew till I return and also allow #1 to steel himself for my questions (if he has the guts to answer them honestly).

Keeep 'er 'tween the ditches, guys.

[scrogdog]

And that's a very good point glenn

Why? We as Americans have always shown the ability to pull together in a crises regardless of religious and political affiliations. Do you imagine that not continuing?

[glennac]

Things have picked up in here recently. hard to tell but it actually is a well coordinated series of food fights. Most are having fun. SOme are actually learning. one seems to just want to spread as much food around as possible, many are just hungry.
If you go back a few pages, there is an interesting series of posts about the trinity look for TB sysint and myself on that one. and Scrogdog is continuing the question from the original post on 'why i do not believe'
Bootlen dropped a boot bomb a few pages back and is now answereing for it now it seems.I'm about to reply to TB.

Thanks for the update. These posts are a little to deep and long for me. I believe in the Trinity and the celebration of Christmas and the Resurrection of Jesus on Easter. I think we are in agreement on most issues but I am not going to worry myself about it, carry on.

[numbawunfela]

So, I suppose the question is, if God and the bible do, in fact, completely grasp the human condition, then why does a lot of the philospohy of God appear to show the reverse? There is no ideal that all men will agree on and there never will be. So, it seems sort of wierd to send non-conformists to hell when God would seeming already expect that there would be many differeing veiwpoints with regards to such a strict philosophy.
Again, Christianity is all about conformity (as is also the case with all other religions) and it should not be, as not all men will conform to the same thing. So now we have to consider the worth of any sort of punishment. If God doesn't realize what he has created in me then HE should be punished. :)

And as I have pointed out many times before, God's punishment is not developmental in nature. It's eternal.

Like I said earlier, I can't help looking at my neighbors wife. Whose fault is that? Mine? Eve's? Or the GOD WHO MADE ME THAT WAY? ;)

I need this in bite size pieces. I feel like I answer the question just after the question changed, that's usually what happens when i never understood the question to begin with. please bear with me.

So the Human experience is the veriety evident in mankind, including in viewpoints. The notion that there is one true religion cannot be right since not everyone will agree. since not everyone will agree, and the bible apparently condemns those who do not agree, the bible is not right.

"So, it seems sort of wierd to send non-conformists to hell when God would seeming already expect that there would be many differeing veiwpoints with regards to such a strict philosophy."

I am in agreement with the portions of TB's post you cited for the most part. and really, God made us 'in his image', so we are very much like him in very many respects, with a little inherited imperfection thrown in. this taint brings out qualities that TB mentioned. so God did make you to like girls, that way his purpose to have a worldwide human family could be realized. But the imperfection you inherited twists the natural desires and turns them against us.
I posted some on this: http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=143002&page=38 Post #482

In harmony with that post it is not a matter of conformity and non conformity, it is a matter of reality and unreality. That is why god said:
(Isaiah 48:17-18) 17*This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser, the Holy One of Israel: “I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit [yourself], the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk. 18*O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

It's not 'do it or I'll throw a tantrum and blow you to bits' it's 'You are only hurting yourself if you do otherwise, but it is your choice'

Edit:
I keep on the blind faith thing since a mark of christianity (according to you???) Is the need to blindly accept what is handed to him. since some people and cultures cannot do so, christianity condemns people for who they are, and that is not right.

I find it helpfull to try and sum up others thoughts to make sur I'm on the same page, please feel free to correct me.

[scrogdog]

one seems to just want to spread as much food around as possible

[b]Try to guess what I am right now[/belushi-voice]

SPLAT!

[b]A zit!!![/belushi-voice]

FOOD FIGHT!!!!!

That boy is a P.I.G. pig!

[numbawunfela]

I clarified on how I reconcile Isa 45:18 and Colossians 1:17 to 19.

What do you think?

The idea Sysint brought up about Proverbs chapter 8 and it referring to Jesus has some merit. Please look into that furthur, you likely just never heard of that before. It paints a really cool picture of jesus working like a junior apprentice with GOd, making it all happen, really enjoying himself in the process.

[scrogdog]

So the Human experience is the veriety evident in mankind, including in viewpoints. The notion that there is one true religion cannot be right since not everyone will agree. since not everyone will agree, and the bible apparently condemns those who do not agree, the bible is not right.

Almost correct. I would change the end to "either the bible is not right, or "God" is not a god that I will follow."


In harmony with that post it is not a matter of conformity and non conformity, it is a matter of reality and unreality. That is why god said:
(Isaiah 48:17-18) 17*This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser, the Holy One of Israel: “I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit [yourself], the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk. 18*O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

Ok, fine. To me, it is a matter of conformity, however. Either conform to the idea that Jesus was divine, or you are excised from eternity. What I am saying is that a God who would hold these philosophies will NEVER be my god. Ever. I am prepared to burn because I don't lay down my values before men, or gods.


It's not 'do it or I'll throw a tantrum and blow you to bits' it's 'You are only hurting yourself if you do otherwise, but it is your choice'

There is no choice to make. I and many others CANNOT take things on faith. There is no "choice". This is a perfect illustration of what I was getting at with regards to the human condition. People are uncomfortable with those unlike themselves. Just like Christians are. And they group in to little cliques of like-minded individuals. Just like Christians do. And then they look at others who do not think, act and speak as they do as some form or combination of, wrong/flawed/bad. Just like Christians do. And they can't imagine any other thought process then the one that they have. JUST LIKE CHRISTIANS. :)

We all do this to an extent. Such attitudes are, in fact, the basis of such things as racism. I myself can't believe that anyone could clap thier hands over thier ears with regards to a FLAT OUT FACT (evolution). :) Still, at least I can realize that a different mind set than mine exists, even if I don't understand it. I don't think many of you are quite at that point yet with all due respect. :)

EDIT: I just realized that I have made Christians sound "more guilty" than anyone else. Not the case at all. That should read "We all do this. Period."

You have just perfectly demonstrated this with your "choice" comment. And it is also why I say that most Christians show a stunning lack of understanding when it comes to the human condition. THAT is the human flaw in the bible. So, either the bible was written by men, or God is as flawed we are. Take your pick. ;)

In my humble opinion, of course.


I keep on the blind faith thing since a mark of christianity (according to you???) Is the need to blindly accept what is handed to him. since some people and cultures cannot do so, christianity condemns people for who they are, and that is not right.

While we are on the subject, why do you think God brought me in to this world? Even with free will, God has foreseen that I can't take things on faith. So, why bother to bring me?

Further, let's say that an asteroid hits the Earth tonight and all life is destroyed. At this time, that would mean that TWO-THIRDS, a strong majority, of Earth's population is sent to hell. You are ok with that? To you, that action is "godly"? To you, God has done his job in that scenario? See, this is the line of thinking that I try to grasp. New insights are always welcome.

Fine if you do, I really just don't. God cannot allow a situation like that to happen. Not and be my god.

If God is the "lawgiver" sort, then I'm in a heap o' trouble. Even so, I'll take that over the alternative. :)

[icchvac]

I myself can't believe that anyone could clap thier hands over thier ears with regards to a FLAT OUT FACT (evolution).

Evolution did not happen bud. Why would it turn itself off all of a sudden? I've needed two more arms, extra fingers, eyes in the back of my head and a light that comes out of my mouth so many times that I can't even count that high but evolution just stopped evolving humans all of the sudden? It never happened in the first place. God created man in His image, that's how we got here.

[scrogdog]

Evolution did not happen bud. Why would it turn itself off all of a sudden? I've needed two more arms, extra fingers, eyes in the back of my head and a light that comes out of my mouth so many times that I can't even count that high but evolution just stopped evolving humans all of the sudden? It never happened in the first place. God created man in His image, that's how we got here.

Well from what I have read it hasn't stopped at all. :)

In any case, to know it happened is a simple matter of observation. The first step in the scientific method.

First, we observe that all life comes from other life. I mean, except for how the first simple organisms GOT here :)... that we don't know. If you want to say that God placed them here, I'm cool with that.

Other than that, life does not just appear out of thin air, nor has anything like that ever been observed or suggested.

So: Premise 1 - All life comes from other life.

Secondly, we know that when you dig in to the Earth, you find things that are older than what we see here... "on top" as it were. Not only that, but we know that the further down that you dig... the older the things are that you find there.

So... way, way down there... when we examine the first forms of life... only very simple forms of life appear. We speculate that the first form might have been some sort of bacteria... we don't really know that either. What we do know is that they were simple forms. Non-vertibrates and quite small.

Later as time progresses, we see more complex forms of life begin to appear both in the plant and animal world. Man and other complex beings appear very far up.

So... if all life comes from other life... and simple forms of life were here before more complex ones... then the more complex ones MUST have come from the simpler ones!

Now... we know so little about how his occurred that believers have a field day over the theories of HOW it happaned. :) Well... we aren't too sure on the "hows" either. We just know that it happened.

But then, we still aren't too sure about the theory of gravity, but no one denies its existance right? Surely you will not throw yourself off of a bridge to demonstrate that gravity is "only a theory". But that is exactly what such charges against evolution are like.

Evolution is both fact AND theory... as are all scientific endeavors. But to find a hole or problem with the theory never changes the observation that simple forms were here first and now we are. :)

[AtticAce]

Christmas, Easter, Lent, Holloween, and the other so called Christian holidays are in fact pagan, as is our calendar dates of BC and AD. The founder of the Roman Catholic Church was Constantine. He was a pagan sun god worshipper, his god was Amen Ra, or Baal as he was know in Hebrew.

Just a few fun facts Constantine did not stop the persecution of Christians, Diocletian did that in 312 AD, Constantine in fact created a mix of the early followers of Christ called followers of the Way, with his pagan sun god worship.

You can read the original edict of Constantine making it a crime (punishable by death) to do any of the practices associated with the Sabbath sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday, on any day buy SUNday.

Passover and all the other festival days of the old covenant were outlawed.
Jews and any followers of the Way would did not fall in line were put to death.

To be a follower of the Messiah to recieve the spirit of Yahweh (God) frees one of all penalty under the law, we in fact are no longer judged by the law.
So keeping holidays created by the traditions of man have nothing to do with one's life with Yahushua (Jesus).

Now to those on this forum who have not repented (confessed, asked for forgiveness from God, turning from sin), trusting only in Jesus for your eternal salvation, you in fact will be judged under the entire law. How will you be judged? Innocent or Guilty? What will be your fate Heaven or Hell?

You can laugh it off, there is no God?

Language English, Spanish, etc, is complex it was crafted over thousands of years. No one would say it just happened by accident.

Think about a strand of DNA, the language of life imprinted on something so small we did not know it existed for 6000 years, now science discovers this complex language with billions of characters, and you think it just happened? There is no designer? The designer speaks to man through his Word (bible). You must be of the spirit to understand the bible, Jesus said the Gospel would be a stumbling block to the world. Jesus also said, What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and to lose his soul?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iv.i.html

[TB]

Evolution did not happen bud. Why would it turn itself off all of a sudden? I've needed two more arms, extra fingers, eyes in the back of my head and a light that comes out of my mouth so many times that I can't even count that high but evolution just stopped evolving humans all of the sudden? It never happened in the first place. God created man in His image, that's how we got here.

There ya go. I've said for years that if evolution were true, servicemen would have three hands. The fact we don't is the grace of God. Could you imagine the trouble we could get into if we did have three hands?


;)

[TB]

I suppose that is a fair alternate way of saying it. In reality things are far more complex than that, but it works for now. If I were to relate this back to my OP in the other topic, I'd say that this passage descibes what I called "the greatest ill of man" rather than the whole of the human condition itself. So, I suppose the question is, if God and the bible do, in fact, completely grasp the human condition, then why does a lot of the philospohy of God appear to show the reverse? There is no ideal that all men will agree on and there never will be. So, it seems sort of wierd to send non-conformists to hell when God would seeming already expect that there would be many differeing veiwpoints with regards to such a strict philosophy.
Numba pointed it out pretty well that the condition that lands "non conformists" in hell is their own refusal to act on Gods advice on how to escape that sin condition, or human condition we all find ourselves in. God is supplying, through the bible, the philosophy if you will, that changes our motives from self centered exultation, to others centered exultation, and ultimately God-centered exultation, while exalting in humanity the individualism created in us. It is the condition of sin in us as people that leads us into that human condition you find distastefull. So does God, and He presents to us the remedy for it. The only thing He's asking us to conform to is that remedy. If I was sick with small pox, and the Doc said that if I didn't submit to the treatments, I would be quaranteened from society, and ultimately die, but if I did submit to the treatment, I would live, then if I chose not to conform to the treatments and died, would that be the doc's fault? He is merely defining the condition I'm in and the result of it, if left unremedied. That's all God is doing. It's not a question of conforming to a philosophy where I loose my identity, it is a remedy that exalts my identity.



What is and isn't a sin isn't even a universal standard among men. Therefore to say that all men or God have the ability to define an overarching standard for all is not accurate. Again, Christianity is all about conformity (as is also the case with all other religions) and it should not be, as not all men will conform to the same thing. So now we have to consider the worth of any sort of punishment.
Sin is against God and His character, not man. Sin is our tendancy to exult ourselves above God--just like satan tried to do


If God doesn't realize what he has created in me then HE should be punished. :)
He was.



And as I have pointed out many times before, God's punishment is not developmental in nature. It's eternal. correct




Well, I suppose that works if you feel the need to pay some sort of price for simply being a human being. I certainly don't. To make me imperfect because of what Eve did is somewhat like blaming me personally for slavery in the United States. It is the sheer ridiculousness of the concept (sorry) which makes me shy away from it.
It is what Eve did that introduced sin into the world, but were not held accountable for that, only for what we do.



Like I said earlier, I can't help looking at my neighbors wife. Whose fault is that? Mine? Eve's? Or the GOD WHO MADE ME THAT WAY? ;)
Again, numba had a good responce, (and it was God who gave us an attraction to pretty women, but sin that causes us to mishandle that attraction) but you recognizing that your neighbors wife is hot, is not sin, what you choose to do with that can be though. I allways marvelled at the number of good looking women that seem to have come out of the woodwork immediately after I got married. I didn't see them before, so what happened? I got married and now satan has another avenue to attack me with, that's all. He wants to distract me from the plan God has to grow me with my wife, by turning my head, and attention away from my wife. It's my chioce, and God gave me many reasons not to give in. I learned a long time ago that believing myself immune from some sins--because I was too young to fall into them--only guaranteed that I would get snared by them once I got older--and still thought I was immune to them. (I forgot to reassess my vulnerability as I got older.) recognizing there are women out there that could make me fall enables me to see the temptation comeing and guard against it better.
Remember, Jesus was tempted too, but was without sin. It's not sin to be tempted, only to act on that temptation out of self centered exultation of myself, and my opinions---the human condition, the condition God wants to free us from. He desires to free us so much, that He submitted to the standard we could not, and paid the price we deserved.

[numbawunfela]

I've needed two more arms, extra fingers, eyes in the back of my head and a light that comes out of my mouth so many times that I can't even count that high...

LOL!!!!! Har Har Har

If you know a good dostributor of in the mouth lights let me know, that would be really handy.

[scrogdog]

There ya go. I've said for years that if evolution were true, servicemen would have three hands. The fact we don't is the grace of God. Could you imagine the trouble we could get into if we did have three hands?

;)

I hope that smiley means that you understand the ridiculousness of that statement. lol

Evolution has nothing to do with "improvements". It has to do with adaptation to environments. In fact, evolution can be like a game of rock/paper/scissors. Let's look at a real world example that is knocking on our collective doors.

In our very near future, man is going to colonize Mars. What a fascinating challenge, eh? No longer will we be simply camping in space. No longer will mission control be the one with all of the answers. They will need to be self-sufficient. And coming back isn't going to be easy. So, sooner or later, we won't come back. We'll live there.

Of course, this situation is the basis for a lot of speculations with regards to the future of man. One would think that at some point down the line, they will have thier own government and such. Maybe they become so politically distant that we wouldn't even like each other anymore, who knows?

However, one thing that will surely happen is adaptation to the new enviroment. Meaning, among other things, far less muscle mass than is required for Earth-bound humans. Is that an improvement? Depends on who you talk to. :) I hardly think that an Earth-bound athelete would view it as such.

I'll get to your other post later. I've had my intellectual breakfast, now it's time for my physical one. :)

[bootlen]

It is what Eve did that introduced sin into the world, but were not held accountable for that, only for what we do.



Well, I got my net set up at home so just one post before I go make a haul as part of the moving process.

I have to take a very minor but important issue with you here, TB. It was Adam who committed the first sin. Here is why I say that.

It is clear in Scripture that Adam and Eve had a very intimate and loving relationship with God. And I am quite sure that the Creator told them all they needed to know to maintain that relationship. So I am just as sure that He shared with them the principle found in James 4:17, "He who knows to do good but does not do it, to him it is counted as sin." And Scripture is replete in making it clear that the man is responsible for the spiritual well-being of his household.

That being said, if you read the account in Genesis about satan's tempting Eve, you will see that Adam was right there listening in. Adam did nothing to stop the beguilement of Eve. He "seen his duty" but did not do it. THAT sin preceded Eve's sin. Would you not agree?

[sysint]

Then it is obvious that YOU don't know what a Christian is or is not. I will, however, attempt to explain it to you....

One thing and one thing only makes one a Christian...putting one's faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross is what makes one a Christian.
Numbawunfela - Do you put faith in the finished work of Jesus? (yes/no) --- Thanks.

[numbawunfela]

Almost correct. I would change the end to "either the bible is not right, or "God" is not a god that I will follow."

There is no choice to make. I and many others CANNOT take things on faith.

THAT is the human flaw in the bible. So, either the bible was written by men, or God is as flawed we are. Take your pick. ;)

In my humble opinion, of course.

While we are on the subject, why do you think God brought me in to this world? Even with free will, God has foreseen that I can't take things on faith. So, why bother to bring me?

Not to digress into the validity of the evolution theory too much, but it seems that according to the biblical definition of faith (that I've posted several times about) you have studied the evidence in the light of what you know, and reached a conclusion you are willing to base future actions on, you've accepted the evolution theory on faith. THe same way I accept the God of the bible on faith. To be sure I can DEFINITELY see how somwbody in your position would tend toward evolution, it is the only reasonable conclusion for one in your shoes, but evolution per se is not the reason for the conclusion, simply the logical progression of a previous conclusion namely that god can't exist because he seems to be unable to accept the veriety in mankind.

I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely commend you, because there really are very few who even take the time to reason on any of this, to even draw any conclusion is better than many of the blind lemmings out there who simply do what they are told, the majority of which(it seems at times) belong to some sort of organized religion. I would definitely say that you set the bar for your belief system higher than many. the question is, do you set the bar for agreement with others any lower than these blind fundamentalist extremists? We will see.... ;)


Further, let's say that an asteroid hits the Earth tonight and all life is destroyed. At this time, that would mean that TWO-THIRDS, a strong majority, of Earth's population is sent to hell. You are ok with that? To you, that action is "godly"? To you, God has done his job in that scenario? See, this is the line of thinking that I try to grasp. New insights are always welcome.

Fine if you do, I really just don't. God cannot allow a situation like that to happen. Not and be my god.

I love that conclusion, because It is sound, reasonable and I agree with it 100% It is not godly, and that god is not mine either. I think this is where I and TB digress in our way of thinking to a certain extent. and so, realizing the amount of posting involved in doing so, I will open up the can of worms and say that the Hellfire Doctrine where god torments people for an eternity in a fiery Hell is not in the Bible (although the actual word Hell is in many translations, usually older ones.). That means that you CAN worship the god of the bible without the distaste that comes from that sort of teaching. Unlike TB I feel that God's way of disciplining is VERY progressive, and that he gives many chances until people simply die, and cease to exist.

THis is kind of annoying since I was hoping to get somewhere on the trinity thing and I'm going to spend a bit of time on the hellfire doctrine now.

[numbawunfela]

Numbawunfela - Do you put faith in the finished work of Jesus? (yes/no) --- Thanks.

Yup, Jesus came to earth as a perfect man, died for our sins, was really cool, easy to get along with, probably pretty good looking (he was perfect after all) raised to heaven in three days, now sits at the right hand of god. I hope that is what you are looking for.

As for 'the finished work' of jesus, I get a little scared since that may mean more than I am willing to commit to, or i may already have committed to it. :)

I unfortunately hafta run, so I can't banter about hellfire right away, and I can't play with Bootlen or Sysint ;( .

I'll try to get back tonight on that Scrogdog

[scrogdog]

Yeah, me too. We'll reconvene tonight. :)

I just wanted to throw one other small thing out there before I go, because this is something very interesting;


Adam did nothing to stop the beguilement of Eve.

Ahhh... but how were Adam and Eve to know what beguilment was or the consequences of it *before* they ate from the Tree of Knowledge? How would they even know the meaning of disobedience?

Good luck with the move, Boot.

[sysint]

Yup, Jesus came to earth as a perfect man, died for our sins, was really cool, easy to get along with, probably pretty good looking (he was perfect after all) raised to heaven in three days, now sits at the right hand of god. I hope that is what you are looking for.

As for 'the finished work' of jesus, I get a little scared since that may mean more than I am willing to commit to, or i may already have committed to it. :)... OK. Thanks. Boot, you are a slanderer. By your definition numbawunfela (albeit a little full of himself) is a Christian. I guess calling somebody out as non-Christian isn't a good idea.

[chillbilly]

Yeah, me too. We'll reconvene tonight. :)

I just wanted to throw one other small thing out there before I go, because this is something very interesting;



Ahhh... but how were Adam and Eve to know what beguilment was or the consequences of it *before* they ate from the Tree of Knowledge? How would they even know the meaning of disobedience?

Good luck with the move, Boot.
Simply put, God told them not to eat of the tree.
IOW, they knew that it was against the wish of God, yet they did not comply.
And there we have original sin, akin to the sin we see present day....those who do not comply with the laws God gave them.

[numbawunfela]

OK. Thanks. Boot, you are a slanderer. By your definition numbawunfela (albeit a little full of himself) is a Christian. I guess calling somebody out as non-Christian isn't a good idea.

Sorry Sysint, I thought about the 'play with' part as I was leaving and I regretted it logging off. Didn't come across the wayt i meant it too, but when you gotta go, you gotta go.

Thanks for sticking up for me. :)

[numbawunfela]

I just discovered that. had to cut 65 characters.

[numbawunfela]

So for you scrodog, about hell. I’m going to try to be thorogh as I post on this since I don’t want to go back and forth any more than is necessary. I will try to post concerning the main proofs about hell, using a translation that uses the word pretty consistently. As for the word itself:
“Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.”—The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Vol. XIV, p. 81.
SO those three words are rendered hell in mainly older translations, now some translations simply transliterate them as mine does.

I offer the alternate understanding that Hell (Hades and Sheol) is simply the Common Grave of mankind. Gehenna refers to a death from which there is no hope of a resurrection. There is no conciousness in any of these places, nor suffering nor pain, and one can be resurrected by go to life out of Sheol and Hades, but not Gehenna. The following will at once support this conclusion, and prove unbiblical the concept of Hell.
******First off, Is Hell hot?
Actually, Instead of blazing fire it is described as a “land of darkness.” (Job 10:21) Instead of a place of screams it is described as a place of “silence.” (Ps. 115:17) The Catholic Douay Bible, at Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, says: “The living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing more. Neither have they a reward any more: for the memory of them is forgotten. Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it earnestly: for neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge, shall be in hell [Sheol, AS], whither thou art hastening.” So, since the “dead know nothing more,” or as the King James Version says, “the dead know not any thing,” it would be impossible for them to know conscious torment. And since there is no work in hell, how can there be activity, red-hot or otherwise?

Jesus several times compared death to sleep, since he had the power to awaken them (resurrect them) from death:
(John 11:11-14) “Laz´a·rus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep.” 12 Therefore the disciples said to him: “Lord, if he has gone to rest, he will get well.” 13 Jesus had spoken, however, about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. 14 At that time, therefore, Jesus said to them outspokenly: “Laz´a·rus has died”.
Of course one is not conscious of anything while sleeping, definitely not of a fiery torment.

“I cried out of the belly of hell [Sheol, AS]: and thou hast heard my voice.” (Jonas 2:3, Dy) Was it red-hot where Jonah was? No, it must have been damp and dark, although warm at fish-body temperature. Jonah spoke the way he did because he understood hell or Sheol to be the grave. For, had not Jehovah delivered him, the fish’s belly would certainly have become Jonah’s grave. If hell were eternal, Jonah would not have gotten out.

******Who goes to Hell?
Ps. 9:17, KJ: “The wicked shall be turned into hell,* and all the nations that forget God.” (*“Hell,” 9:18 in Dy; “death,” TEV; “the place of death,” Kx; “Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB, NW.)
******Not only wicked, but also several righteous ones went to Hell:
Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me in hell [Sheol, AS], and hide me till thy wrath pass, and appoint me a time when thou wilt remember me?” (Job 14:13, Dy)
Since Job was already being tormented by the Devil, would he pray to be “protected” in, of all places, a Devil-managed place of torment?

“I will go down to my son into hell [Sheol, AS], mourning.” (Gen. 37:35, Dy) Did the biblical patriarch Jacob, later named Israel, father of the nation of Israel, a righteous man, visualize his son in a steaming, scorching fire? And did Jacob expect to go to such a place? Clearly, Jacob did not view hell as being red-hot.

People persist in Calling Hell a place of Torment…but if that is true, why did Job pray that he might rest in hell?

And if hell were a place just for the wicked, why would God send his Son to hell?

********Jesus went to hell and was there three days:
Acts 2:25-27, KJ: “David speaketh concerning him [Jesus Christ], . . . Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” (The fact that God did not “leave” Jesus in hell implies that Jesus was in hell, or Hades, at least for a time)

***** Does anyone get out of Hell?

Rev. 20:13, 14, KJ: “The sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell* delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.” (So the dead will be delivered from hell. Notice also that hell is not the same as the lake of fire but will be cast into the lake of fire.) (*“Hell,” Dy, Kx; “the world of the dead,” TEV; “Hades,” NE, AS, RS, JB, NW.)
********What about Gehenna?
The Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) was outside the walls of Jerusalem. It was a place of Idolatry for a while, and Child Sacrifice. In hesus’ time it was an incinerator for garbage and criminals who were not considered fit for a burial. All this stuff was consumed in the fires, to which sulfur, or brimstone, was added to assist the burning. At Matthew 5:29, 30, Jesus spoke of the casting of one’s “whole body” into Gehenna. If the body fell into the constantly burning fire it was consumed, but if it landed on a ledge of the deep ravine it was consumed by maggots. (Mark 9:47, 48) Living humans were not pitched into Gehenna; so it was not a place of conscious torment.
Really it was a symbol of everlasting destruction, since the only PEOPLE who went there were criminals deemed at the time, and in the mind of Jesus’ hearers, to be unworthy of a burial or a resurrection.

********How does god feel about burning people in Fire?
“They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into my mind.” (Jer. 7:31, AS) This horrible practice does not even enter the mind of the Creator. And no wonder, for “God is love.”—1 John 4:8.

********So the Bible pretty soundly Disagrees with this teaching. As TB mentioned the whole bible should agree with a given teaching, so how does this afferct the way we view other instances of the word Hell? Like the account of the rich man and lazarus at Luke 16:19-31, which you have posted once before.

Is the account literal or merely an illustration of something else? The Jerusalem Bible, in a footnote, acknowledges that it is a “parable in story form without reference to any historical person.” If taken literally, it would mean that those enjoying divine favor could all fit at the bosom of one man, Abraham; that the water on one’s fingertip would not be evaporated by the fire of Hell; that a mere drop of water would bring relief to one suffering there. Does that sound reasonable to you? If it were literal, it would conflict with other parts of the Bible. If the Bible were thus contradictory, would a lover of truth use it as a basis for his faith? But the Bible does not contradict itself.
If it is not literal smarty pants numbawunfela, what does it mean? I’m glad you asked numba…. J
The “rich man” represented the Pharisees. (verse 14.) The beggar Lazarus represented the common Jewish people who were despised by the Pharisees but who repented and became followers of Jesus. (See Luke 18:11; John 7:49; Matthew 21:31, 32.) Their deaths were also symbolic, representing a change in circumstances. Thus, the formerly despised ones came into a position of divine favor (due to their repentance), and the formerly seemingly favored ones were rejected by God (since they did not repent), while being tormented by the judgment messages delivered by the ones whom they had despised. Examples of this being Acts 5:33; 7:54. The disciples really made a nuisance of themselves. J

The “lake of fire” is also a symbolic term for everlasting destruction: “Death and Hades [hell, AV] were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire.” (Rev. 20:14, NW) So the “lake of fire” means “the second death,” a destruction that lasts forever and ever, with no hope of a resurrection.
Note that hell or Hades is eternally destroyed. Hell, says Revelation 20:14, must be hurled into the “lake of fire.” If hell is the lake of fire, as many say, how can it be cast into itself?

As to the “everlasting punishment” of Matthew 25:46, the original Greek word does not carry the idea of torment but of a cutting off from life. Thus the New World Translation renders it correctly as “everlasting cutting-off.”

But what of Revelation 20:10 about the Devil’s being “tormented day and night for ever and ever”? In Jesus’ time jailers were called “tormenters.” So when the Scripture says he will be “tormented day and night for ever and ever” in the “lake of fire,” it means that the Devil will be restrained in a never-ending detention of destruction. Indeed, it will be “for ever and ever.”

**********Some people may wonder, but doesn’t god punish these horrible people for what they do? Yes, it would be injust to do otherwise.
So what is the penalty of sin?

Rom. 6:23: “The wages sin pays is death.”
After death, do you still need to pay for your sins?
Rom. 6:7: “He who has died has been acquitted from his sin.”
So when we die, we are asleep. There is no Fiery hell, God loves us and trains us (disciplines us) while alive to avoid everlasting destruction, everlasting death.

[bootlen]

OK. Thanks. Boot, you are a slanderer. By your definition numbawunfela (albeit a little full of himself) is a Christian. I guess calling somebody out as non-Christian isn't a good idea.

Nope. Firstly, #1 said he could not commit to the finished work. #1 apparently thinks what Jesus did is not enough. That means #1 is not a Christian. Satan himself will admit what #1 said in his post.

Besides, I have a couple questions for #1.

#1, do you worship Jesus as God?

Do you believe Jesus is God?

Which is correct...the NAS or the NWT?

[bootlen]

So for you scrodog, about hell. I’m going to try to be thorogh as I post on this since I don’t want to go back and forth any more than is necessary. I will try to post concerning the main proofs about hell, using a translation that uses the word pretty consistently. As for the word itself:
“Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.”—The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Vol. XIV, p. 81.
SO those three words are rendered hell in mainly older translations, now some translations simply transliterate them as mine does.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Rom. 6:23: “The wages sin pays is death.”
After death, do you still need to pay for your sins?
Rom. 6:7: “He who has died has been acquitted from his sin.”
So when we die, we are asleep. There is no Fiery hell, God loves us and trains us (disciplines us) while alive to avoid everlasting destruction, everlasting death.

Among other misrepresentations, you are confusing physical death with spiritual death. Typical JW post.

[icchvac]

Interesting posts here. I must be a fundamentalist type since my opinion is that numba1 is watering down the penalty of not asking Jesus for forgiveness (which I didn't see that he admitted to Sysinit).
Abraham's Bosom is a place, not his chest area. Death and Hades were/will be spirits riding the horses that will be cast into the lake of fire, not the actual locations named such.
I'm not real fond of typing so I'll just stop and say that I'm still in agreement with bootlen so far.

[TB]

That being said, if you read the account in Genesis about satan's tempting Eve, you will see that Adam was right there listening in. Adam did nothing to stop the beguilement of Eve. He "seen his duty" but did not do it. THAT sin preceded Eve's sin. Would you not agree?

Yes, I do agree, if it was the case before sin entered the creation that men were to control their wives. (You know how well that works now, maybe by then Adam knew better than to try.) We are not told that Adam did try, or that he did not, so IMO speculation is risky. When I look at Gods character, and how he deals with us, He does not seek to control us, but to direct us, give us advice, even commands (His advice is generally a command), then allows us to do what we choose to, right or wrong. Since this is part of Gods character in dealing with us, and at that time, before the fall, Adam was still in Gods image, and therefore, I think, would have dealt with Eve the same way--but we're not told weather he did or not.

1 Timothy 2:14
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

This verse tends to imply that Adams sin was intentional, which, I 'spose could have been just keeping his mouth shut to see what happened to Eve, but it also suggests, along with 2 Cor. 11:3 that Eve was the first sinful human.

After all that, I must say that I can't argue that you're wrong Boot, that may very well be the case that Adams sin was in not defending Eve, or in not defending Gods purpose, and you were right to call me on it.

[TB]

Numba, I see what you attempted to do by always translating references to sheol as references to hell, but you revealed your ambiguity as well. Basically, you are right that Sheol refers to the grave, but it also is used to refer to Hell.

7585 sh^eÕowl { sheh-ole’} or sh^eol { sheh-ole’}

from 7592;

AV - grave 31, hell 31, pit 3; 65

GK - 8619 { lwaov]
1) sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit
1a) the underworld
1b) Sheol - the OT designation for the abode of the dead
1b1) place of no return
1b2) without praise of God
1b3) wicked sent there for punishment
1b4) righteous not abandoned to it
1b5) of the place of exile (fig)
1b6) of extreme degradation in sin
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

You also fail to differentiate between references made to sheol in poetry, as in the Psalms. When has poetry ever been used to promote a truth by a literal understanding of the words used?

Your reference to Ecc. 9 :5,10 reveals something too. Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon, as an apologetic work, from the point of view of someone who does not know God. Such a person would tend to take a viewpoint of the grave being the end of existence, therefore nothing exists beyond it. His conclusion then, in ch.12, is to turn to God when we can, preferably, before we're too old to enjoy the full life He wants to give us while we live in this part of eternity, everything else is meaningless--a chasing after the wind.

You're right too about the definition of gehenna, but when Jesus spoke of it, he wasn't talking about the kitchen trash, and He wasn't referring to the garbage dump. He was useing something the people were intimately familiar with--a garbage dump of perpetual fire, to relay a spiritual truth that they could understand, one that had been developed in the OT.

Mark 9:43,45,46
43 And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire. 45 And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life halt, rather than having thy two feet to be cast into hell. 46 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

In the parable of the sheep and the goats, it's clear Jesus believed Hell was eternal.
Matthew 25:41
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels:

In Matt. 8:12, 22:13, and 25:30, Jesus speaks of an "outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" The outer darkness speaks of a place where the individual has no sensory perception. There will be (a continuing action) weeping and gnashing going on, but the suggestion is that you won't be aware of it. The picture is of solitary confinement.

Since our offence is against an eternal being, then the payment must have an eternal element as well, either an eternal being must pay it for a finite amount of time, or a finite being for an eternal time.

If Jesus was not an eternal being, then His work on the cross was not complete enough to cover the sins of the world. You then will be makeing up the difference, for an eternity.

[numbawunfela]

Man alive! i thought 10k was enough characters. That's ok though, I know that if I expected everyone in the forum to just say I was right automatically, this wouldn't be such an interesting place to go.

Aparrently we can agree on all the rest of the citations about hell. all that is left is a question about psalms, one about ecclesiastes, and the topic of Jesus and Gehenna. Ok lt's get down to it.
There were two lines of reasoning that are a bit troublesome to me TB. I REALLY and HONESTLY admire you for being a sincere bible student and an honest advicator for what you see is right, not just what you were told is right, and I hope that has come out in my posts previously. This is very rare in the world today. I Fully expected you to bring up an objection or three, because, like me you are responsible enough to have examined the topic carefully to reach a conclusion that seems sound and that you can fell confident about- after all, aou ability to please our loving creator is at stake.
to write off what you say as just bunk and unworthy of a response would be disrespectful, as you have always been civil with me, and I believe very capable of reason, as the lines of reasoning in your posts seems to indicate.

1b1) place of no return
I like strong's lexicon, however, you can see where it has this one wrong, since people in the previous post are shown to come back from Hell, among other things.


You also fail to differentiate between references made to sheol in poetry, as in the Psalms. When has poetry ever been used to promote a truth by a literal understanding of the words used?

Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon, as an apologetic work, from the point of view of someone who does not know God.

Unless I misunderstand, these come dangerously close to contradicting a post that I was very pleasantly surprised to see from anybody on the forum, the one where you said that

IF......then it must be true that the rest of the Bible supports this understanding.
The ENTIRE bible is inspired of god (2tim 3:26) The only instance in the bible where we cannot take what is written as God inspired counsel is The words of Job's three comforters, the reason being that God specifically condemned their words at the end of the book, thereby letting us know that what preceeded is of questionable content, included in the bible to convey the force of the torment satan put job through by using even false freinds, who claimed to be worshipers of god (among other things satan used)
Assuming they did not contradict that quote. Take ps 22 as a prophecy concerning the messiah,
(Psalm 22:18) 18*They apportion my garments among themselves, And upon my clothing they cast lots.
It was filled in every detail. At the very least the psalms can be relied upon to give accurate usage common in ancient jewish society. Besides only one citation in the entire post was from psalms, so if you wish to, you can exclude that one and assume that the Hell as described by the rest of the Bible as a cold dark place of inactivity and unconciuosness is not "silent" Ps. 115:17. But does that make sense?
And to take the council of Solomon in the 12th chapter of ecclesiastes and not the rest is dangerous, where does one draw the line at deciding what is inspired and what is not? when it is convenient or expedient? Really, most who express doubt as to the validity of ecclesiates do so for two main verses.

(Ecclesiastes 9:4-6, 10) For as respects whoever is joined to all the living there exists confidence, because a live dog is better off than a dead lion. 5*For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. 6*Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun..... 10 All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in She′ol, the place to which you are going.
(Ecclesiastes 3:18-21) I, even I, have said in my heart with regard to the sons of mankind that the [true] God is going to select them, that they may see that they themselves are beasts. 19*For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity. 20*All are going to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust. 21*Who is there knowing the spirit of the sons of mankind, whether it is ascending upward; and the spirit of the beast, whether it is descending downward to the earth?
Thr reason being that they tend to make it hard to accept the hellfire doctrine. But these two verses agree with the rest of the Bible, OUR standard, TB.
What is a soul?
(Genesis 2:7) And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.
It is the union of the breath of life and a physical body. Only god can make it live.
1*Cor. 15:45: “It is even so written: ‘The first man Adam became a living soul.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” So the Christian Greek Scriptures agree with the Hebrew Scriptures as to what the soul is.
Souls are people, plain and simple.
1*Pet. 3:20: “In Noah’s days .*.*. a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water.” The Greek word here translated “souls” is psy·khai′, the plural form of psy·khe′. KJ, AS, Dy, and Kx also read “souls.” JB and TEV say “people”; RS, NE, and NAB use “persons.”
Josh. 11:11: “They went striking every soul [Hebrew, ne′phesh] that was in it with the edge of the sword.” The soul is here shown to be something that can be stricken by the sword, so these souls could not have been spirits.
Souls can be animals too, since they also have a physical body and the breath of life. The he same Hebrew word for soul is applied to both mankind and animals.
Lev. 24:17,*18: “In case a man strikes any soul [Hebrew, ne′phesh] of mankind fatally, he should be put to death without fail. And the fatal striker of the soul [Hebrew, ne′phesh] of a domestic animal should make compensation for it, soul for soul.”
So what happens to souls that sin?
Ezek. 18:4: “Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul* that is sinning—it itself will die.” The original Hebrew reads “the ne′phesh.” KJ, AS, RS, NE, and Dy render it “the soul.” Some translations say “the man” or “the person.”
The new testament agrees that the soul can die:
Acts 3:23: “Indeed, any soul that does not listen to that Prophet will be completely destroyed from among the people.”
******What happens to that soul when it dies?
Ps. 146:4: “His spirit [Hebrew, from ru′ach] goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish.”
This agrees with Ecclesiastes, the beginning of this section of the post.
The alternate understanding I presented of Hell, or hades Greek, sheol HEbrew, as the common grave of mankind, to which all have gone, including jesus, and from which many will return in a resurrection (jesus already did) is supported by the rest of the bible. other examples can be made to agree with this idea without too much trouble.

Numba, I see what you attempted to do by always translating references to sheol as references to hell, but you revealed your ambiguity as well. Basically, you are right that Sheol refers to the grave, but it also is used to refer to Hell.
Consistency is key, God isn't trying to confuse us. and as shown in the previous post, Hell is not only desribed by the rest of the bible as a dark place of unconcious inactivity, but a burning hell is contrary to God's personality. So really the only conclusion left is that a Burning fiery hell does not exist. that is ok, because it has a beneficial effect on us.
Let us analyze the effect of this conclusion. People are set free from slavish fear of a vindictive God. People who are made in god's image like Scog, who cannot let themselves believe that God would do such a horrible thing are now able to come to know and love god. People who read the bible and see the inconsistincies with scripture and doctrine can realize that the bible isn't wrong, some people are simply sincerely misguided.

As for Gehenna, the simple fact that we cannot live after death, that we as souls, die, and the fact that Helll is the common grave rule out any possibility of Gehenna being a place of eternal torment. So then what did Jesus mean?

First after giving a brief history of the place, the appendix, page 891, of Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott (1864), declares: “Gehenna, then, as occurring in the New Testament, symbolizes death and utter destruction, but in no place signifies a place of eternal torment.” This understanding allows us to simply see the erternal nature of Gehenna in all it's references as referring to the destruction of those thrown into it. No live person was ever thrown into the Valley of Hinnom.
let us take your three examples.
Two of the three examples you gave were parables, which as shown in the Rich man and lazarus, are symbolic, and should therefore be understood as such. The idea of everlasting DESTRUCTION fits well in these, or the idea that death was a change of circumstances, as in the rich man and lazarus.
One Idea or the other can fit into one of these three examples.

[acmanko]

Pagans gathered in temples to their gods and goddessess, just as christians gather in variuos churches. paganism predates christianity and Judasim. Both of which are rife with pagan rituals.

[sysint]

Nope. Firstly, #1 said he could not commit to the finished work. #1 apparently thinks what Jesus did is not enough. That means #1 is not a Christian. Satan himself will admit what #1 said in his post.

Besides, I have a couple questions for #1.1, do you worship Jesus as God?
Do you believe Jesus is God?Which is correct...the NAS or the NWT?What you do is constantly change your statements. Can't you simply make a statement and stick to it? Numba said he needed clarification to your ambiguous "finished work" statement. Rather than your presuppositions look at his statement. It is scripturally true, he answered it and you are still a slanderer.

On the "which is correct" question, it cannot be answered in that manner. Accuracy or correctness is analogous.

[sysint]

Among other misrepresentations, you are confusing physical death with spiritual death. Typical JW post.Please outline what you think the difference between spiritual and physical death is. Additionally, identify how specifically the death of Jesus relates to physical and spiritual death. I'll be waiting for the scriptures identifying both types of "deaths".

[bootlen]

Please outline what you think the difference between spiritual and physical death is. Additionally, identify how specifically the death of Jesus relates to physical and spiritual death. I'll be waiting for the scriptures identifying both types of "deaths".

Again? I've done just that on numerous threads, including this one.

[bootlen]

What you do is constantly change your statements. Can't you simply make a statement and stick to it? Numba said he needed clarification to your ambiguous "finished work" statement. Rather than your presuppositions look at his statement. It is scripturally true, he answered it and you are still a slanderer.

On the "which is correct" question, it cannot be answered in that manner. Accuracy or correctness is analogous.

I cannot make it any clearer than it is. And I certainly cannot help it if you have a hard time understanding American English.

"Finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross" = complete atonement for ALL sins past, present, and future. It's really as simple as that. If you cannot comprehend that, I recommend a remedial English class.

[sline-dawg]

Gotta love believers arguing over who is more right.....:rolleyes:


Lots of people have been killed in that argument.....:(


Hasn't changed in thousands of years..... and doesn't look like it ever will.......:mad:



MHO

[bootlen]

Gotta love believers arguing over who is more right.....:rolleyes:


Lots of people have been killed in that argument.....:(


Hasn't changed in thousands of years..... and doesn't look like it ever will.......:mad:



MHO

The truth is, I would never kill anyone for believing the way they choose. But I would die rather than claim to believe any way other than the way I believe.

[TB]

Pagans gathered in temples to their gods and goddessess, just as christians gather in variuos churches. paganism predates christianity and Judasim. Both of which are rife with pagan rituals.

I think you mean to say, paganism, and Catholicism are rife with pagan rituals. Compare, if youl'd like, the Catholic Catechism, and a witches book of shadows. (esp. the new catechism) You'll find they are pretty similar. Christianity on the other hand, uses the Bible as its standard, and the only paganism in it is condemned by God in virtually the same breath it's mentioned with.

[sysint]

I cannot make it any clearer than it is. And I certainly cannot help it if you have a hard time understanding American English.

"complete atonement for ALL sins past, present, and future. It's really as simple as that. If you cannot comprehend that, I recommend a remedial English class.Numba agrees with that. You are now definitely a slanderer as Numba is a Christian by your very own definition. Next time try not spending so much time being a horse's backside and you can avoid slandering which is a serious matter to God.

[TB]

Aparrently we can agree on all the rest of the citations about hell. all that is left is a question about psalms, one about ecclesiastes, and the topic of Jesus and Gehenna. Ok lt's get down to it.

Gimme some time amigo. I wont have time to type my responce for a while, I think, but I'm gonna address it. (I'd hate to disappoint you) :D

[bootlen]

Numba agrees with that. You are now definitely a slanderer as Numba is a Christian by your very own definition. Next time try not spending so much time being a horse's backside and you can avoid slandering which is a serious matter to God.

Your entire premise is out of context. Take notice that #1 has not answered my questions.

[sysint]

Your entire premise is out of context. Take notice that #1 has not answered my questions.Like I said before. Either you can make a statement or you can't. Apparently now you need many statements. Constantly changing your mind.

I'll make a statement. I have no problem with it and don't need extra statements to modify the original because I haven't thought things through. I don't think it's appropriate to call anyone not a Christian. To call yourself a Christian could actually be un-Christian. Here is my statement:

The most a person can do is try to be a Christian.

Phillipians 2: 12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling - NIV

[scrogdog]

Simply put, God told them not to eat of the tree.
IOW, they knew that it was against the wish of God, yet they did not comply.
And there we have original sin, akin to the sin we see present day....those who do not comply with the laws God gave them.

What would you call disobeying God? Something that is wrong? Bad? A sin?

Well, Adam and Eve had no idea what wrong, bad or sin was yet. So they were presented a choice that was merely a choice between two possible things to do. Not a choice between obediance or disobedience, good or bad, moral or sin. Thet did not yet know of these things.

Obeying God and/or disobeying God were the same thing to them.

[scrogdog]

So for you scrodog, about hell.

Beleive it or not, I have actually read the bible. That is not to say that a review of certain passages are not helpful in discussion, but I have read it multiple times, in fact. I also call myself agnostic, not athiest.

I've seen many forms of this argument before. To me, it simply rienforces the whole "biblical conundrum" thing because there are other passages that refer to hell as a place of torment and fire.


From Luke 16:19-31


19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazuras, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by th angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted , and thou art tormented.

26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

This is exactly what I mean by "biblical conundrum" or the "signature flaws of man". To me, any "universal truth" that is delivered upon man by God should be easy to understand. But none of us here seem to be able to make a simple point about the thing without quoting passages, determining context and intent, and a whole bunch of other "bible olympics" as you put it. I like that term. :)

So, do we see the bible contradict itself? Yes, I think we do. See, this is why I would say that the bible was written by men. It has nothing to do how well the validity of information was passed over time, or anything to do with blind faith. To me, the bible is full of human error, and human mis-perception of the human condition. If we presume God to be perfect, then this cannot be His work.

Same deal with Adam and Eve. They had no knowledge of good and evil so they could not be expected to know that eating of the apple was a bad thing. It was simply one choice to make among two equal choices... eat it or not. To them, same difference.

[scrogdog]

Among other misrepresentations, you are confusing physical death with spiritual death. Typical JW post.

No kidding? And here I was thinking that Numba was simply one of millions of Christians who disagree with each other over what the bible says. Seems to me that that alone makes him part of the club; hardly an outcast of any sort. :)

It is interesting to note, also, that in my little asteroid scenario, the amount of people who are saved would, to a believer, depend on denomination. That means that for a lot of you that you aren't even close to having one third of the world being saved. I don't know the exact numbers but I'd guess that the number of people saved in Boot's version of the world would be something less than 10% of total population.

Gads! What I am trying to figure out is why that is ok with some.

[numbawunfela]

Gimme some time amigo. I wont have time to type my responce for a while, I think, but I'm gonna address it. (I'd hate to disappoint you) :D

Thanks TB, I really enjoy our conversations. Refreshing to have a thinking person to banter with.

There are some questions raised by the conclusion that Hell is nothing more than the common grave, and that the soul is you, and does simply die and cease to exist. we can go into those if you like.

And you respomse doesn't have to be as long as mine, I just wanted to do all the typing at once instead of drawing it out, also it makes it easier to point out where somebody wasn't paying attention so we can get to the heart of the matter (like when ScrogDog posts about the rich man and Lazarus, when it was in my adressed in my post :) ) this way we don't ride on that merry go round as Roy put it, nobody getting anywhere.

[scrogdog]

Not to digress into the validity of the evolution theory too much, but it seems that according to the biblical definition of faith (that I've posted several times about) you have studied the evidence in the light of what you know, and reached a conclusion you are willing to base future actions on, you've accepted the evolution theory on faith. THe same way I accept the God of the bible on faith. To be sure I can DEFINITELY see how somwbody in your position would tend toward evolution, it is the only reasonable conclusion for one in your shoes, but evolution per se is not the reason for the conclusion, simply the logical progression of a previous conclusion namely that god can't exist because he seems to be unable to accept the veriety in mankind.

This is a very interesting paragraph that I think I can use to give you some better insight with regards to how I think.


you've accepted the evolution theory on faith

I understand what you are trying to say, but the intent it conveys is not exactly true. One could say that I have faith in science to explain how things work, if for no other reason that I am sitting here talking to you on a computer. Science has a solid record of achievement in that regard. However, I’ll be the first to admit that science is sometimes wrong. But science only explains things, so the initial observation remains unchanging. For example, Newton observed an apple falling to the ground. Then along came Einstein who said that Newton’s explanation of things was incomplete, so he modified the theory. Now, you may have read in the news the past few days about this surfer/physicist (I’m not joking) who may modify the thing even further. But, during that whole time, apples continued to fall to the ground, and will presumably continue to do so even if our current theory is COMPLETELY debunked in the future. So, that would mean that we’d still need a new explanation for it.

As far as evolution occurring, it doesn’t matter whether we have complete fossil records, or whether we can reconcile the missing link, or any of a thousand things that Darwin’s *theory* postulates. Darwin could be shown to be 100% wrong tomorrow, and all that would mean is that we would still need to explain the observation that simple forms of life were here first and now we are. In other words, man descended from ape-like creatures whether we did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or theory, or some other yet to be discovered. If you want to say that God waved his hand and caused the changes, then fine, say that. But the changes occurred and Genesis did not. :)

Generally, someone like me can only entertain an alternate explanation of things if it has been tested under the guidelines of the scientific method. And here, the record of believers is not so good. I’ve often made the somewhat insulting claim (sorry) that believers will perform any tap dance that they need to in order to maintain belief. I’ve seen it all from claims that the speed of light has changed over time (demonstrably false), to the idea that the Great Flood determined the arrangement of fossils (illogical since that would mean all of the larger masses would be further down and lighter stuff at the top – which is the reverse of the actual case).

It seems to me that it would be a whole heck of a lot easier to relax the standard of fact in the bible. So what if Genesis did not occur precisely as described? God can still create; he can still be everything one needs him to be. Last I heard, Christianity was not predicated on how old the Earth is. In other words, you are not a better Christian somehow if the Earth is only thousands of years old instead of millions.

The only chance for a guy like me to believe is to choose to not view things so literally. What if God waved his hand and created the universe right at the big bang? What if evolution occurred just as we think it did… except that was exactly God’s plan all along? For belief to make any sort of sense to a guy like me, it can’t simply turn a blind eye to what we know. So, it would have to work with what we know. Is that possible? From where I sit, yes.

[scrogdog]

like when ScrogDog posts about the rich man and Lazarus, when it was in my adressed in my post

I know that. Perhaps I made my point badly, it was simply that a communication from God to the masses needs to be something that is easily understood and agreed on.

Everyone has thier own idea on what is symbolic, what's a parable and what is allegorical. You have given your view. I am pointing out another basic flaw in the bible. Obviously, everyone is going to have a differing idea of what is what. So, how can this be a message from God to man? How is it that it is so hard to grasp meaning and intent? We are all reading the same words. Mostly. :)

[acmanko]

Hey Scrog, God is telling me to celebrate Christmas for you, buy taking a scotch on the rocks and enjoying it, but on Easter i got to down a six pack.:D

[scrogdog]

Well, Thanksgiving is paramount on my mind, and right now, I'd haveta say that God favors Green Bay. :D

[numbawunfela]

Beleive it or not, I have actually read the bible. That is not to say that a review of certain passages are not helpful in discussion, but I have read it multiple times, in fact. I also call myself agnostic, not athiest.

I never said you were an athiest (at least I don't think so......) And I already posted about the rich man and lazarus (post 203, last third of the post) . Not too hard to understand really, when taken with the rest of the bible. I also remember postng the following:


I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely commend you, because there really are very few who even take the time to reason on any of this, to even draw any conclusion is better than many of the blind lemmings out there who simply do what they are told, the majority of which(it seems at times) belong to some sort of organized religion. I would definitely say that you set the bar for your belief system higher than many. the question is, do you set the bar for agreement with others any lower than these blind fundamentalist extremists? We will see.... ;)

What say you, Sir Scrog? Are you able to leave a conclusion you have held so long when new evidence comes to light? I wondered about this before we started and that is why I posted about philosopher bashing a few pages back.

Your position is unique here. You have the ability to see two opposing views, persued with decency and reason, from two who likely know more about the subject than yourself (TB and myself. Not to generalize, of course, I don't know much about your background.) so that you can weigh the evidence, knowing that points you may not have thought of were brought out. Kinda like a presidential debate in a Perfect World (not the one we live in). ;) REally I would say it could be providential, God diving you exactly what you needed.

If the premise of your personal ideology is (among other things):
Further, let's say that an asteroid hits the Earth tonight and all life is destroyed. At this time, that would mean that TWO-THIRDS, a strong majority, of Earth's population is sent to hell. You are ok with that? To you, that action is "godly"? To you, God has done his job in that scenario? See, this is the line of thinking that I try to grasp. New insights are always welcome.

Fine if you do, I really just don't. God cannot allow a situation like that to happen. Not and be my god.
Then now it is time to readjust. the Bible does not teach hell (TB is working on it, of course, but you should be able to read the posts and decide for yourself, not follow blindly) so then what does that mean? how does it affect you in a day to day way? Years of being frustrated at the concept of a vindictive angry unreasonable God are potentially past.....

Remember, the bible is infallible, not unquestionable, so please ask as many questions as you like. just please try to keep it to new questions that haven't already been addressed.

[scrogdog]

I never said you were an athiest (at least I don't think so......) And I already posted about the rich man and lazarus (post 203, last third of the post) . Not too hard to understand really, when taken with the rest of the bible. I also remember postng the following:

What say you, Sir Scrog? Are you able to leave a conclusion you have held so long when new evidence comes to light? I wondered about this before we started and that is why I posted about philosopher bashing a few pages back.

Your position is unique here. You have the ability to see two opposing views, persued with decency and reason, from two who likely know more about the subject than yourself (TB and myself. Not to generalize, of course, I don't know much about your background.) so that you can weigh the evidence, knowing that points you may not have thought of were brought out. Kinda like a presidential debate in a Perfect World (not the one we live in). ;) REally I would say it could be providential, God diving you exactly what you needed.

If the premise of your personal ideology is (among other things):
Then now it is time to readjust. the Bible does not teach hell (TB is working on it, of course, but you should be able to read the posts and decide for yourself, not follow blindly) so then what does that mean? how does it affect you in a day to day way? Years of being frustrated at the concept of a vindictive angry unreasonable God are potentially past.....

Remember, the bible is infallible, not unquestionable, so please ask as many questions as you like. just please try to keep it to new questions that haven't already been addressed.

Well, there is still a problem here even if hell is not a place of torture. Whatever hell is, isn't it described as a place for the wicked? And if that is so, I am reliably told that Charles Manson is welcome in heaven even if his belief that Jesus is divine does not come until he's on his death bed. As long as God see his belief as true, then he's in. On the other hand, I may have led a life that is the equivilent of Saint Mary, but I am not welcome if I do not believe that Jesus was devine. So, I end up in hell, whatever that means, and Manson goes to paradise.

Are the wicked properly dealt with under these conditions? To me, no. That is not a philosophy I can follow.

Again, no matter what hell is, it is still an Orwellian God that culls the herd over mindset.

Even so, even if you were to reconcile all in my mind, I still see no *reason* to believe and am not compelled to in any way. So, that's likely the biggest issue. :)


Remember, the bible is infallible

The bible's task is to bring His word to the masses. How do you think it is doing in that regard?

[numbawunfela]

Well, there is still a problem here even if hell is not a place of torture. Whatever hell is, isn't it described as a place for the wicked?
Are the wicked properly dealt with under these conditions? To me, no. That is not a philospohy I can follow.

First, I refuse to follow such a mindset as well. Hell is not just for the wicked, job wanted to go there, jesus did go, and jacob expected to meet joseph there (all in my post). REmember it is the Common Grave of mankind, EVERYONE who dies goes there. You have been fed dis-information my poor friend, so examine what the bible says and form you own opinion. The truth is supa dupa ;)


Even so, even if you were to reconcile all in my mind, I still see no *reason* to believe and am not compelled to in any way. So, that's likely the biggest issue. :)

THis is kinda why i asked about your motives, there is not much I can do for someone whosincerely finds orgainzed religion repugnant, but has no desire to believe in anything himself. like Sysint's signature, 'It's much easier to complain bitterly about the beliefs of others if you don't have to present a working version of your own.' this is especially true if you dont WANT a working version of your own. But then again maybe the reason you have no desire is because of what believeng means to you, the result of the dis-information you have been fed. I wouldn't want to believe either if it meant being a fanatic.


The bible's task is to bring His word to the masses. How do you think it is doing in that regard?

Very well actually.
But let me first provide you with an alternate belief set. the working theory in MY mind, so that as you continue the conversation with me and TB, you may be able to leave some of the preconcieved ideas you may have formed as a result of the dis-information you have been given.
This will take a few minutes.....

[numbawunfela]

SO Adam and eve are in the Garden of Eden and they are warned about not eating from the tree. Pretty simple really, 'You Get all the trees, I (God) get one, please don't steal from my only tree.' They screw it up and pass sin and death along to the human family. As TB pointed out, this raised some questions. 'The challenge was of the rightfulness, deservedness, and righteousness of God’s sovereignty (God's right to rule) —whether his sovereignty was exercised in a worthy way, righteously, and for the best interests of his subjects or not. An indication of this is the approach to Eve: “Is it really so that God said you must not eat from every tree of the garden?” Here the Serpent intimated that such a thing was unbelievable—that God was unduly restrictive, withholding something that was the rightful due of the human pair.
SO time was allowed to answer this question. God cannot simply claim 'yes I am a good God!' Thinking, intelligent angels are all watching, maybe wondering. God has nothing to hide, so He allows time to see what happens if people rule themselves. Issuing the first prophecy at Gen 3:15. Interesting, Satan says God cannot be trusted to rule in the best interests of mankind, but to issue this challange, he has to trust that this horribly unjust god has enough principles not to blow him to bits and settle this challenge fairly. contradictory, yes?
Anyhow, in time other issues are added to the original claims of Satan. For example: will any person, human or Angel, be able to prove faithful under test? DO they all serve God purely for selfish motives? It is just like a stubborn rebel to imply nobody else could do any better than himself, as Satan does with this claim found at (Job 1:8-12) 8 And Jehovah went on to say to Satan: “Have you set your heart upon my servant Job, that there is no one like him in the earth, a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad?” 9 At that Satan answered Jehovah and said: “Is it for nothing that Job has feared God? 10 Have not you yourself put up a hedge about him and about his house and about everything that he has all around? The work of his hands you have blessed, and his livestock itself has spread abroad in the earth. 11 But, for a change, thrust out your hand, please, and touch everything he has [and see] whether he will not curse you to your very face.” 12 Accordingly Jehovah said to Satan: “Look! Everything that he has is in your hand. Only against him himself do not thrust out your hand!” So Satan went out away from the person of Jehovah.
And then (Job 2:4-8) But Satan answered Jehovah and said: “Skin in behalf of skin, and everything that a man has he will give in behalf of his soul. 5 For a change, thrust out your hand, please, and touch as far as his bone and his flesh [and see] whether he will not curse you to your very face.”
So in the book of Job we see that Job was faithfull, but strictly speaking imperfect as we all are. We also see how God Blessed him richly, thanking him, as it were for doing this: (Proverbs 27:11) 11 Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, that I may make a reply to him that is taunting me.
The issues were settled conclusively when Jesus came to earth. He proved that a person could remain faithful under test, his only motive being love for God. This shows that there are many of us who would be faithfull to god if we had a chance, but with Satan and imperfection around we simply cannot. That's ok, God has a plan for this too.
The entire Hebrew bible was dedicated to:
1) Pointing out how to recognize the Messiah when he came through prophecy, Since he would be the one to answer the questions conclusively.
2) Building on the theme of severignty by Stressing his superiority over other Gods.
3) Showing the benefits of living under his rule by separating a nation (ancient Isreal) as his special property to show what happens when you follow his way of doing things, in contrast with the rest of the world, who is free to do as they choose.
The Greek Scriptures were dedicated to shifting true worship from a specific place and nation, to a universally approachable way of worship. Handy since true worshippers are around the world, and the old system of three annual trips to Jerusalem would be rather cumbersome. :) Also God fullfilled his purpose to Bless the entire earth:
(Genesis 18:18) Why, Abraham is surely going to become a nation great and mighty, and all the nations of the earth must bless themselves by means of him. The nation of isreal, and the Jewish Messiah being the means.

Throughout history, the resurrection hope is what God holds out to humans. Resurrection is the re-creation of a person, complete with their synaptic connections, and therefore their entire personality. A restoration of that person to life.
Job wanted to go to hell to escape the torment of his life as it was. he knew the dead were concious of nothing at all (which would be an improvement over his life at the time) and he knew god could resurrect him, and would do so if he stayed faithfull. (Job 14:13-15) 13 O that in She′ol [HELL] you would conceal me, That you would keep me secret until your anger turns back, That you would set a time limit for me and remember me! 14 If an able-bodied man dies can he live again? All the days of my compulsory service I shall wait, Until my relief comes. 15 You will call, and I myself shall answer you. For the work of your hands you will have a yearning.
This is constant through to the new testament:
(John 11:23-25) Jesus said to her: “Your brother will rise.” 24 Martha said to him: “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.”
(John 5:25, 28-29)“Most truly I say to YOU, The hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who have given heed will live... 28 Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29*and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.
*****The time period we are living in is dedicated to two things.
1) The anwering of these two questions about the sovereignty of god, and the motives of creation in worshipping god. We all give a personal answer as Job did.
2) The finishing of the Seven creative days that are to end in the population of earth with a righteous human society unitedly praising God.
'finishing the seven crative days!! what are you talking about, numba?
The account in Genesis says each of the first six days ended, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued. (Ge 2:1-3) Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: “Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.” By the apostle’s time, the seventh day had been continuing for thousands of years and had not yet ended. The Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, who is Scripturally identified as “Lord of the sabbath” (Mt 12:8), is evidently part of the great sabbath, God’s rest day. (Re 20:1-6) This would indicate the passing of thousands of years from the commencement of God’s rest day to its end.
So not only are the Creative days not 24 hours each, they are not over.
Since we are to a certain extent caught in this dispute, god refuses to let people die for nothing.
The Resurection is for two groups, those "who those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment." Paul says simply: (Acts 24:15) that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.
God intends not to raise people who died, so he can kill them again, ermember, dead ones already paid for their sins. (POST 203) they will be resurrected after the issues are settled and will be given a chance to hear without Satanic interference, or imperfection clouding their judgement. Then, how they respond during this time period will determine if their resurrection turns out to be for them one of life, or judgement, as Jesus said. Then there is Gehenna (post 203) that is reserved for those who manage to screw it up AFTER bgetting that second chance. It is death with no chance of a resurrection (everlasting destruction if you remember). Only a few have made it there, that the bible mentions, namely Adam and Eve (since they were perfect, their sin was a willful deliberate choice) and Judas Iscariot (due to the willful deliberate and long term premeditated nature of his resistance to Jesus and God). So it is possible for overachievers to get into Gehenna on the fast track, thus Jesus' warnings.

So nobody blown to bits for no reason, all things settled, nobody forgotten.

The only thing people say in objection consistently is that it woulda been easier to just blast Satan and be Done with it, but really, by not settling the issues raised it allows for this misery to start again. This way not only allows for true future security, but it allows us to take part in slamming Satan as the fart-mouth he is. Rather satisfying really.
What has been proven? That no system of government through the millenia of Man's history can truly solve mankind's problems. That independence from God is harmfull to humans, we were not created to live that way. That some of Mankind could be faithfull to god, if it weren't for imperfection messing things up. That Perfect justice demands that we be given the opportunity to decide for ouselves without interference.
THis give all of us to be a part of something bigger than ourselves, like in the war story you mentioned. To give your life in the cause of a worthy Ideal. Do you have it in you?
----Continued in the next post--------------

[numbawunfela]

------------continued----------------

The result of all this for you?
(Isaiah 65:17) 17 “For here I am creating new heavens and a new earth; and the former things will not be called to mind, neither will they come up into the heart. The Bad experiences will fade into the Millennia of good ones we then experience. God is not ignorant to the suckiness of the world we live in.
(Psalm 37:11) 11 But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.
(Revelation 21:3-4) 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” What we see now are these former things.

Pretty cool.



By the way....

I can't believe nobody caught my Bevis and Butthead impression at the top of post 209.....

:)

[scrogdog]

You said "butt"... hehe hehe hehe.

In any case, I have decided to NOT go over your previous post with the fine toothed comb of a so-called devil's advocate.

Instead, I will say that, yes, that seems like a more palatable philosophy. One of my biggest issues with God is that some view his punishment (e.g. hell) as eternal... which means non-developmental, in nature. It is hard to imagine any sort of father figure that would do that.

That would be like cutting off your dogs leg or killing it if it poops on your rug. Dogs aren't as smart as us, so we need to have patience with them. We are not as smart as God, so he needs to have patience with us.

A question though, what would be a "selfish motive" for doing God's work, or serving him? I've heard a lot from others about "self aggrandizement" and how the simple act of helping your fellow man can be seen as such. That is why, they say, that the path to paradise can only be through accepting Jesus as our savior.

Well, I can't get a handle on that. Helping your fellow man is one of the grandest things one can do. And yes, it very much does give life some meaning, and perhaps even a sense of purpose.

I've often viewed the biblical story of Adam and Eve as an attempt to explain why a perfect God would create an imperfect being. I see arguments regarding self aggrendizement in the same light; that it is so important to accept a certain story, that we needed to "invent" something that makes the case. Other than that, neither story really makes a great deal of sense. To me anyway.

Along the same lines as Manson in heaven, it makes zero sense to NOT consider good deeds done in life. Now, you may say that good deeds do not absolve one of the sins that they have done. I say that there is only one person that can absolve my crimes; me. The Beatles said it best... "and in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make".

See what I mean? It just seems to me a silly idea that's only purpose is to describe why you must accept Jesus.

In reality, I'm not sure Jesus or God themselves would care a whit. Ok, Jesus saved us. Thanks. No, really, thanks! The same way I would say thanks to a military person for protecting my family. Worship may be taking things a little far, though I am quite greatful to each and every one of them. ;) Besides, what kind of perfect being calls *themselves* glorious and seeks the worship of lesser beings?

Christians want to "spread the word". I say it's a heck of a lot more useful, and yes... satisfying, to instead spread your actions. :)

If I were to guess, you will now spend the next few pages arguing with TB and Bootlen about resurrection among other things that you said. Good luck. Unfortunately, I can't see either side as being necessarily "more right" than the other, regardless of how palatable (or not) the philospohies are. Like I said, we are all reading basically the same words. I see no empirical way to decide which is right... it is simply a matter of what works for you. The human condition... as it were. :) And the greatest ill of man on display, to reaffirm that we are right and that the other guy is wrong.

Especially if they are democrats. ;)

[sysint]

....

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted , and thou art tormented.

Gads! What I am trying to figure out is why that is ok with some.This is figurative. What does the name Lazurus mean? -- Let me get to the point that I can defend it as figurative and a God described as fair and just wouldn't torment people forever in a hell. It is a concept inconsistent with what God is.

[scrogdog]

This is figurative.

Perhaps so, but therein lies the problem with regards to these types of topics. You say it is figurative, and another says it is literal. What standard, then, is to be used to make a determination on an intellectual level? As far as I can see, there isn't one, other than people making that determination for themselves in accordance with thier particular aganda.

Agenda isn't a bad word you know, and niether is conspiracy. They sound sinister, but sometimes man can hold perfectly wonderful agendas. He can also conspire to do good. :)

Anyway, my sense is that one of the ways that others Christians will oppose the philosphies of yourself and Numba, at least with regards to hell, is that they do not feel comfortable that man can behave himself without the threat of a very strict and painful celestial spanking.

[icchvac]

Numba1 "none blown to bits"

Leviticus 10:1-3 (NKJV)
The Profane Fire of Nadab and Abihu
1 Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. 2 So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. 3 And Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD spoke, saying:

‘By those who come near Me
I must be regarded as holy;
And before all the people
I must be glorified.’”

So Aaron held his peace.

2 Samuel 6:6-8
6 And when they came to Nachon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. 7 Then the anger of the LORD was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his error; and he died there by the ark of God. 8 And David became angry because of the LORD’s outbreak against Uzzah; and he called the name of the place Perez Uzzah[c] to this day.

Maybe not blown to bits but instantly punished all the same.

[sysint]

Perhaps so, but therein lies the problem with regards to these types of topics. You say it is figurative, and another says it is literal. What standard, then, is to be used to make a determination on an intellectual level? ....Form a logical method. I can make a statement regarding hell and you can test it throughout scripture. If it lines up, then it is a rational conclusion. I think when the testing gets to the rich man and Lazurus that it will stand that the conclusion cannot be actual and therefore would be figurative.

However, that's not the way most people go at discussion since it is more difficult. Going back and forth isn't overly helpful. You need one line of reasoning carried through.

[sysint]

Originally Posted by bootlen View Post
Hmm. No mention in your post of referring Jesus as being the "Everlasting Father" spoken of in Isaiah. But I can understand why you avoid it...it totally destroys your point.


Hmmm. Here you are again not taking up my point on "mighty god" in deference to "almighty god". However, you are after this point. Tell you what... for one time refute my point. If you can't do it (which you can't) I've got an answer for this also. No problem for me.

Anyway, I'm ready for both. I thought I'd start with the easy one first.

I'm still sitting on this one. Give up already? No answer? Thought so. I can wait some more on everlasting father until you attempt to come up with something. This Isa. 9:6 trinitarian support argument is poor.

[bootlen]

Like I said before. Either you can make a statement or you can't. Apparently now you need many statements. Constantly changing your mind.

I'll make a statement. I have no problem with it and don't need extra statements to modify the original because I haven't thought things through. I don't think it's appropriate to call anyone not a Christian. To call yourself a Christian could actually be un-Christian. Here is my statement:

The most a person can do is try to be a Christian.

Phillipians 2: 12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling - NIV

I have not made any changes. I have been consistent in my posts.

[bootlen]

No kidding? And here I was thinking that Numba was simply one of millions of Christians who disagree with each other over what the bible says. Seems to me that that alone makes him part of the club; hardly an outcast of any sort. :)

It is interesting to note, also, that in my little asteroid scenario, the amount of people who are saved would, to a believer, depend on denomination. That means that for a lot of you that you aren't even close to having one third of the world being saved. I don't know the exact numbers but I'd guess that the number of people saved in Boot's version of the world would be something less than 10% of total population.

Gads! What I am trying to figure out is why that is ok with some.

That is likely an accurate estimation.

[bootlen]

Originally Posted by bootlen View Post
Hmm. No mention in your post of referring Jesus as being the "Everlasting Father" spoken of in Isaiah. But I can understand why you avoid it...it totally destroys your point.



I'm still sitting on this one. Give up already? No answer? Thought so. I can wait some more on everlasting father until you attempt to come up with something. This Isa. 9:6 trinitarian support argument is poor.

Jesus is "Mighty God. He is also Almighty God. He si also Everlasting Father.

[bootlen]

HEY! #1!

How about it? You running from my prying questions? Is sys your front man or something?

[TB]

Thanks TB, I really enjoy our conversations. Refreshing to have a thinking person to banter with.

There are some questions raised by the conclusion that Hell is nothing more than the common grave, and that the soul is you, and does simply die and cease to exist. we can go into those if you like.

And you respomse doesn't have to be as long as mine, I just wanted to do all the typing at once instead of drawing it out, also it makes it easier to point out where somebody wasn't paying attention so we can get to the heart of the matter (like when ScrogDog posts about the rich man and Lazarus, when it was in my adressed in my post :) ) this way we don't ride on that merry go round as Roy put it, nobody getting anywhere.

My delay isn't the topic, although your questions would be interesting to explore. I just won't have a lot of time this week to be on-line, and just barely enough to read the pages of new posts each time I do get here. (Let alone my incredibly slow typing speed. I thought I did better but I timed myself once and I got about a paragraph done in about 1/2 hour. Sometimes it takes longer if my thoughts get too far ahead of my fingers and I forget where I'm going :rolleyes:)

[sysint]

Jesus is "Mighty God. He is also Almighty God. He si also Everlasting Father.Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that Jesus is Almighty God. It's not Biblical.

[sysint]

Isa 45:21 says: Declare what is to be, present it— let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD ? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior;there is none but me. --NIV

If I am to buy into your very poor argument of Isa 9:6 about Jesus having to be the same god as Isa 45:21(or others) or being a false god then what about Matt 23:9? It says: 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. --NIV

If I apply your "false god" reasoning that makes Jesus "the father". Jesus can't be the father so he would be a false father.

I stand by my statement that Jesus is not Almighty God and it still stands.

[bootlen]

Isa 45:21 says: Declare what is to be, present it— let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD ? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior;there is none but me. --NIV

If I am to buy into your very poor argument of Isa 9:6 about Jesus having to be the same god as Isa 45:21(or others) or being a false god then what about Matt 23:9? It says: 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. --NIV

If I apply your "false god" reasoning that makes Jesus "the father". Jesus can't be the father so he would be a false father.

I stand by my statement that Jesus is not Almighty God and it still stands.

Then you argue against Scripture (and God). Jesus is God the Son and the Everlasting Father. The Father is God the Father. Therefore Jesus is God. There is no other way to honestly and intellectually take the Scriptures' definition of God the Father and God the Son.

[sysint]

If I am to buy into your very poor argument of Isa 9:6 about Jesus having to be the same god as Isa 45:21(or others) or being a false god then what about Matt 23:9? It says: 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. --NIV

If I apply your "false god" reasoning that makes Jesus "the father". Jesus can't be the father so he would be a false father.

I stand by my statement that Jesus is not Almighty God and it still stands.



Then you argue against Scripture (and God). Jesus is God the Son and the Everlasting Father. The Father is God the Father. Therefore Jesus is God. There is no other way to honestly and intellectually take the Scriptures' definition of God the Father and God the Son.

"God the Son" is not a biblical phrase. It is not found in the Bible. Why do you insist on using a non-Biblical description?

Your reasoning in Isa 9:6 is faulty and clearly visible. You change the rules for your doctrine. I'm not going to beat the straw out of your man any further. It's blatant. Your statement fails reason yet again. It amazes me how in your head you freely substitute, God, Father, and Jesus with no apparent logical reasoning behind it.

I have no problem with Jesus being called an everlasting father or a mighty god or if it refers to God being the everlasting father. My reasoning is still valid and your reasoning isn't.

There is only one Almighty God and it isn't Jesus.

[numbawunfela]

HEY! #1!

Yes Boot?

I didn't realize you were waiting on me.