Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
After fourteen years, on Friday, I had to put my dog down. I will miss her, but it had to be done. She was the greatest dog on the planet. I've had enough maudlin moments over the weekend, with many I'm sure still to come, but it gave me a chance to explain to my 11 year old that life is like the flame on a candle, when it goes out, it doesn't go anywhere, it's just gone. Of course, so many people believe in the afterlife around here. To my Christian friends, many I'm sure had dogs, do you believe animals go to heaven?I think the answer has to be "no". First off, they don't have souls, as far as the bible seems to be concerned. Second of all, they don't know Jesus, and that's the only way into heaven. WHat do you think, and why do you think it?Do animals, then, go to hell? I mean they don't believe in Jesus. They have no souls to torture though. So then, do they just get annihilated?
I think it is vexed question. Yet, I think there are many examples of animals in heaven, even if they are metaphorical only. the Angels in Revelation come from heaven riding on horses for instance.
I think another important factor which many Christians don't consider is that the bible very often puts heaven and earth together as a pairing. For instance - Genesis 1 tells us that God made heaven and earth. And in Revelation we are told that God will make a new heaven and a new earth. I take it means that the place we go to when we die today will not be the same heaven that God is making new. but this also probably means that the earth we live on today will be not be the same - but that there will be a new earth.
One of the distinctives about Christianity that is peculiar to it is that heaven comes to earth, not the other way around. The bible talks of God coming down to collect men - not men trying to find their way to heaven. Other religions seem to spend their time finding ways to make God happy - or to appease him or some miracle way of getting to heaven. Christianity is unique in that God comes to earth - and collects his people - not to necessarily take them back to heaven - but to redeem and restore them in a heaven which is really is on earth.
Think of the Garden of Eden. It is often referred to as a picture of heaven. Yet it is Heaven on earth. Think of the New Jerusalem which comes to earth. It also is a picture of heaven on earth. Why would God make a new heaven and a new earth? Why an earth if no one was going to be living on it?
That does not make sense. I think heaven is really going to be a lot like earth anyway. just a perfect one. I don't know whether animals have souls or not. I don't really sense that they do - yet - I am not sure that you require a soul to be in heaven. Take angels for instance. We do not know if they have souls.
The bigger question for you however is - would you want your pet to go to heaven if you are not going to be there? Surely the state of your eternal affairs are more important than that of an animal?
Created:
Posted in:
I take it we can look at Jesus through the lens of both the OT and the NT including his people of old and his 1st century disciples with Paul. In other words, I take it that we need to see continuity between the Old and the New - not just discontinuity.
The OT with its 10 commandments - and in particular its "you shall not steal" command - implicitly provide for private property. Hence it is quite plausible to say Jesus is opposed to communism - where private property is abolished.
The NT famine in Jerusalem circa Pentecost noted in Acts gives us the view that the Church provided for the weak, particularly within the community of the church. Acts tells us the church family, meaning private individuals, sold their possessions and gave to those who needed it. This was clearly voluntary and the distributers were the Church, not the State, hence a movement away from socialism where socialism is defined as centralised state control / organisations.
Paul tells us in Romans 13 - to owe man nothing, except love. He also said out of your abundance give, while Jesus clearly was ok with giving the crumbs to the dogs. There is a sense of a trickle down effect happening here from a supply side - view of the market which is also a trend away from Keynesian and indeed modern market individualism both which rely heavily on a demand side basis.
The NT clearly tells the disciples to value heavenly things more than earthly things. And to give when it is possible to help the poor and vulnerable. Yet there is also a clear focus on Christians practising and preserving the environment and being good stewards of the planet. Hence don't be greedy. Don't over-exploit. Don't steal. Respect the government. Respect the family. Respect the church.
Free Market Capitalism, like socialism is notoriously difficult to define. Which version is correct? Does the Classical position take the cake? Or does Keynes method take the cake? Does the modern emphasis on individualism take the honours?
Free Market capitalism relies upon the notion that people are self-interested. Socialism, the notion that people are intrinsically good. Free market thereby reflects more accurately the world the idea that people are sinful - thereby self-interested. Yet socialism - when defined not by government control but by a focus on justice and equity which is powered by voluntarism probably more describes the redeemed Christian's worldview.
Hence, the question is going to be in many ways determined by what kind of world do we currently live in? Is it more worldly or it is more Christian? Are people more self-interested or is there a sense in which people are other focused or even God focused?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Subsequent to one of the most bible ignorant FAKE Christians on DebateArt having her Satanic ass handed to her, we can only wonder when TRADESECRET will "tip toe" out to bring Satan to the forefront again? Understandably, she has to take some time off to lick her wounds inflicted upon her by the Brother D., but when will she have the nerve to represent Satan once again? Most assuredly, Jesus and I will be waiting for her, praise!
When the best you can come up with is ad hominin attacks, it demonstrates to anyone watching that you have exhausted any arguments you might have had. Given that it has been you that has been missing over the past couple of days, I think it is more accurate that you have been licking your wounds and trying to find satisfactory answers to the questions I have posed you. The fact that you have been gone so long and still have no response is further evidence that you have no clue. I can rest my case until you come forth with something worth responding to.
When you think about it, TRADESECRETS'S MO and lack of biblical knowledge, and where she tries in vain to rewrite Jesus' true words, acts like a Presbyterian, which is one of the most disgusting and comical divisions of Christianity that there could ever be! Yeah, that's it, TS has to be a PRESBIE!!! No wonder she didn't want to tell us which church affiliation she follows! OMG, how embarrassing.
Harikrish suggested I was Presbyterian, I never denied it. I merely mentioned that I don't see it as a relevant consideration. I also do not believe that what we have discussed over the past while actually gives you any idea or conception of my background - which is why you have been so insistent to know what it is. That way you can go to your little book and cut and paste someone's elses work. By the way, I am not confirming my position either. You can make of that whatever you want - which you will anyway.
You have demonstrated that you are ignorant when it comes to the bible and you are ignorant when it comes to interpretation. You have also revealed you are ignorant of church history and that you lack the normal fruits of the Spirit including humility and self-control. From my perspective, despite the fact that you can at times demonstrate a general knowledge and understanding of the gospel, which means you are not entirely lost, you are doing more harm than good by promoting a wrong understanding of the character of GOD.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
OK back toy our original question:
why should they answer without relying on supernatural explanations?
because it has to be proven that the god or god-like being has supernatural powers, it has to be established where these powers come from or if indeed "supernatural powers " were simply misunderstood happenings with reasonable scientific explanations or enigmatic metaphors.Example: Jesus raised the dead? No he didn't raise the literal dead. Those outside of his circle were called the dead, when they had been through the initiation ceremony of being raised to another level of initiation and entered into his circle they became the living. As both those two enigmatic verses of " come let us go and die with him" John 11:16 and "let the dead bury the dead" Matthew 8:22 . If these two enigmatic verses are to be taken literally then they make absolutely no sense whatsoever.Why would these disciples want to llterally die". And how can "the dead bury the dead" literally?.
Thanks for your explanation. I think what you are saying is not that you don't want people to rely upon supernatural explanations but rather you want to talk about what phenomena exists in any set of circumstances that firstly demonstrate "in your mind" supernatural powers, and secondly, whether they are genuine powers, which cannot be explained either scientifically, nor metaphorically. Correct me if I have misunderstood you.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
AGAIN, what did't you understand about my previous post?
Brother DT your last post was very easy to understand. It went like this: "I Brother DT admit that I know nothing about the Bible or about GOD. I am a fool and judge others according to a standard I myself am unable to attain. I don't understand sin. I don't understand how to interpret the bible. I don't understand grace. My view of God is distorted and I need to repent."
I look forward to being a "bird dog" for Jesus regarding your blatant ignorance regarding the Bible! Now, take the last word in this discussion, like all beaten FAKE Christians like you have to do, and save your energy for what is to come in the future regarding you rewriting the Bible in Satan's name.
The only thing you are looking forward to is not having to deal with TS anymore. He has soundly refuted each and every one of your sad and pathetic arguments while you have been unable to refute even one of his. In fact you have run away on every occasion. TS accepts your concession.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You claim that Jesus is God, but then state He is not the God in the Old Testament where it is shown that Yahweh/Jesus murdered innocent fetus,’ babies and children. Obviously you haven’t heard of the adage, “you can’t have your cake and eat it too.” If there is only 1 God as the Bible so states (1 Timothy 2:5), then Jesus is the God of the Old Testament within the Triune Doctrine! GET IT?
Yes, I fully acknowledge that Jesus is God, the second person of the Holy Trinity. I have no issues with the God of the OT as Jesus. I just reject your assertions that the GOD of the OT or indeed the NT is a murderer and killer of children. You have provided verses - and your interpretation in a form of commentary. Yet, you don't seem to understand the story of the Bible. You miss the big picture and like non-Christians - you fall for the same lies and misunderstandings as they do. It makes me wonder if you have the Spirit of God. As I said above, you seem to lack the fruits of the Spirit.
You question Jesus being born of Mary, and then try and weasel out of this claim using child like refutations, whereas your direct quote is: “Yet it seems he must have been if he was the true child of Mary who herself had inherited original sin.” GUILTY! If you used the correct syntactical sentence structure, it should have been stated: “Yet it seems ‘H’e must have been because ‘H’e is the true child of Mary.” Understand???
I have explained myself adequately in respect of how I put it above. You, rather than accept me in good faith, want to fight and argue about nothing. You also intentionally neglect to comment on Jesus using the "if" word.
Between all of your embarrassments shown above, which is only a FEW OF MANY, along with you comically positing that the universe would stop operating if Yahweh died on the cross, your total disrespect towards Jesus as shown. (Post #112), and a “plethora” of other disgusting posts towards Jesus, you make the TRUE Christian like myself sick to their stomachs!
Well it was your argument. So if it falls down, you fall down. Just a moment ago - you were getting all hot under the collar about the fact that I said blasphemy against the Son of Man was not the same as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. You went red in the face and said GOD cannot be divided. They are ONE. So if that if that is the case - then if GOD died on the cross, since GOD cannot be divided - then the world dies. You cant have it both ways. The word that springs to my mind for you is imbecile.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Look back at your disparaging posts towards Jesus, where one of them is the fact that you don’t know if He was born into sin or not (Post #111), where Christianity is built upon absolutes and not “maybe’s” from the FAKE Christian Tradesecret.
Be very careful what you say, Brother DT. I have only been honest in my reflections about the birth of Jesus. I have been quite clear to state Jesus never sinned. I have been quite clear to say he was without sin. I used word "if" in argument - similar to how Jesus himself used the word "if" in his argument. I note that intentionally refused to comment on that point in your slurs at me. Christians have the character of meekness and humility, it seems that you don't possess such good fruit. My point in relation to original sin v sins is still something you are unable to grasp. My concession of ignorance goes directly to the fact that JESUS is fully MAN being born of a woman who herself was born with original sin. Does this mean Jesus was born into sin? I never said that. In fact I would hesitate greatly to suggest that. Hence, my view about original sin as being the same as being born into sin is not absolute. I don't have an answer. I am not ashamed of that. I have no reason to be. I am not questioning Jesus' deity, or sinlessness, or majesty or anything of a sort. That is where you mind goes when these things are discussed - mine is directed towards how transmission occurs and to what is the distinction between sin and sins. You have added nothing except disappointment. You obviously do not know how to think properly.
You are too scared and embarrassed to state your church affiliation because that would give me “cannon fodder” to use against you as you admitted (Post #98) which shows that your church is open to embarrassment! Priceless admittance on your part! You couldn’t even individually refute the many biblical axioms that state you are guilty of being embarrassed about Jesus and your church (Post #76). The biggest irony is the fact you claimed I attacked you in an ad hominem way, where in fact, Jesus attacked you in this manner with His own words! Priceless. (Post #78)
Stop lying. You demonstrate no fruits of the Spirit but rather reflect Satan and his lies and violence. My church affiliation is not within the scope of our discussion and I refuse to be drawn into it as though it were. None of your comments in relation to my intentional refusal to provide that information is valid and for the record you did attack by way of ad hominin. Your notion that it was Jesus is just another lie.
You have committed the Unpardonable Sin in its TRUE DEFINITION of Blasphemy towards Jesus the Christ, along with me using biblical axioms to back up this absolute claim. You on the other hand used a comical copy and paste ruse from an equally ignorant FAKE Christian like you (Post #107), whereas it was weak as a kitten and laughable. You never refuted the listed claims of mine individually, proving you guilty of blasphemy towards Jesus and committing the Unpardonable Sin, but instead, you ran away from them as usual (Post #76).
Again I reiterate I have not committed the unpardonable sin. Your statement putting Jesus as God and that God cannot be divided is irrelevant to our discussion in at least two ways. Firstly, I never blasphemed against Jesus, always holding him in true respect and honour, but secondly, because Jesus' own word deny what you are alleging. He clearly states - all sins can be forgiven against the son of man. Therefore your argument herein is not relevant in this situation. I take Jesus' words over yours anyday. Furthermore, I did not cut and paste anything. I did refer to authorities on the subject - as is proper. You were unable to refute it. Saying they are comical and weak is not a refutation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That definition works for me. At least in the short term.Define "divine". My understanding is that divine means god or god - like
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Not once did I question the birth of Jesus. Stop lying. The context clearly shows I was making an argument. It is no different to when Jesus says in Matthew 12:27 if I did cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do you drive them out". Obviously Jesus is not questioning whether he drove them out by demons - he drove them out by the Holy Spirit. But your logic - foolish as it is - emphatically declares that Jesus drove them out by demons. Are you guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit? Using your own distorted understanding of interpretation then you MUST be guilty.
I don't have any need to weezil out of something I was not in. I never said it and I never implied it.
Another sorrowful situation that Tradesecret is in at this time, is the blatant fact of HER committing the Unpardonable Sin! HER excuse that SHE didn’t commit this act, was copy and pasted from another equally dumbfounded FAKE Christian spewing forth nonsense on this topic. Whereas I gave direct logic and reason that SHE did commit the Unpardonable Sin in my post #112, all vouchsafed with biblical axioms and using the true definition of Blaspheme against Jesus the Christ.
I have not blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Your ignorance on this subject is astounding. You have absolutely no idea. It is pathetic.
Another standout is Tradesecrets shame in that SHE could not tell us HER church affiliation. This shame obviously tells us that her church was open to severe embarrassment to begin with, where SHE still remains in HIDING of this embarrassing fact. 2+2=4.
This is simply a distraction. No one but you care about my background.
There seems to be sufficient evidence that you are unable to mount a decent argument. You certainly do not understand rules of engagement and you do not have a clear understanding of interpretation. I am still waiting for you to address any of the questions I put to you. Yet I have attempted to answer yours - apart from the red herrings.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“I preached from this passage recently - in the past 12 months - and was referring to commentaries and a book on word pictures.”
With all of the embarrassing and contradicting statements against Jesus you have made within this thread, you have the nerve actually preach to others as if you knew what you were biblically talking about?! Are you kidding?! Please, for our sake, tell the membership at DebateArt that your existence on his forum is just a ruse, where you are just pretending to be a Christian as a parody, okay? This is because myself and others have shown you to be one of the most biblically ignorant FAKE Christians on DebateArt!
I did not think it was necessary to reply to dog poo.
When you start to provide something to discuss perhaps we can have a talk.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“Seriously! Is that the best you can come up with? I was positing an argument? Not making a statement of proposition. I have no doubt about Jesus' parentage.”
LOL! It is a good statement - and one you did not refute.
“God does not judge Christians against a 20th century grammar textbook.”
I spelt it correctly.
I did not realise that inept people like you actually exist.
The Greek was written entirely in Capital Letters - why are you disrespecting God by not writing everything in Capital letters? Oh it must be because you disrespect God. Don't get distracted by pathetic and stupid arguments - lets talk real stuff - substance. “
Well another post without any need to respond. You are a loser.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
BROTHER D QUOTE TO YOU: Your simple-minded quote above shows without any doubt that you are too embarrassed about your church and how they represent Jesus the Christ, and where your Satanic church is obviously as ignorant of the bible as you are. The adage of “like attracts like” rings true with you and your Satanic church, because your blatant misconceptions relative to the bible are obviously taught by your churches Devil Speak!
“Whatever!” - I might repeat it. Whatever. You have nothing to say that actually means anything to me or requires a response.
BROTHER D. QUOTE TO YOU: Additionally, you remove one foot to insert the other AGAIN with your admittance that if you did tell us your church affiliation, then you would provide cannon fodder and material for any astute TRUE Christian like myself, or an Atheist, to bury you in further embarrassment, therefore admitting that your church is open to embarrassment! THANK YOU VERY MUCH TRADESECRET FOR ADMITTING THIS TACIT INFORMATION! PRICELESS! LOL!!!!
“Whatever!” Let me repeat it for you. Whatever. I think you are a joke.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"forgiven including anything said against Jesus, (which is what you accused me of)"
I repost this because of your inability to read. Everything you accuse me of is about Jesus. Your ignorance of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is astounding. Anyone who can read can see that I have not once criticised the Holy Spirit and certainly have not blasphemed him.
“I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” (Matthew 12:31-32)
Amen!
BLASPHEMES: the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; sacrilege, irreligiousness, irreverence, taking the Lord's name in vain, swearing, curse, cursing, impiety, impiousness, ungodliness, unholiness, desecration, disrespect;
1. You sacrilegiously slap Jesus in the face by taking the sacred thing of Jesus birth and questioning it with your Satanic quote of: “IF” Jesus was born through Mary…” therefore you are calling the birth narrative of Jesus in Matthew 1:18-25 AS A LIE!
I have not questioned his birth. using "if" to mean I question something is the same as Jesus using "if".
2. In an absolute sense, you really don’t know if Jesus was born with original sin or not! You embarrassingly keep wavering back and forth upon this topic as shown in your post #97 and others. In the name of Jesus, quit showing irreverence to Jesus and make up your mind in an absolute sense for Christ’s sake!
I don't know. This is not a problem. Whereas with you - you just duck for cover and pretend it is not an issue. blind faith is your MO. In any event, I clearly indicated Jesus did not sin.
3. You blatantly deny our Jesus as a man AND as Yahweh God incarnate in your Satanic post #5 and others as well. Therefore, you have disrespected Jesus as God of the bible and being a serial killer, because of your Satanic churches doctrine that you have erroneously swallowed to the contrary!
Yes it is certainly true that I deny Jesus is a serial killer. Yet this is not disrespect and certainly not blasphemy of the Spirit.
4. You blatantly HIDE from telling the membership in which church has fed you your wrongful Satanic doctak viwhere it thinks Jesus is just a man, whereas, the bible teaches that Jesus was man AND Yahweh God incarnate in many verses and narratives that you are obviously unaware of, which in turn you show irreverence towards Jesus the Christ AS GOD! No wonder you don’t want to expose your Satanic church!
I am not hiding behind anything. this is a total red herring by yourself. you want to throw spurious stuff at me. I choose not to give it to you. my background is irrelevant to this discussion.
e
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“I have clearly indicated that I believe Jesus is without sin”“I think it was possible that Jesus as Man could have sinned”“Not contradictions. one describes the actuality. the other a possibility.”“Just because Jesus possibly could have sinned does not mean that he did.”“In fact we know he did not - which means he, unlike Adam, overcame the temptation of sin. If it was not possible for Jesus to sin, then his overcoming of sin would give Christians no comfort that they too are able to overcome sin. It is pretty basic Christianity 101.”“I don't believe that original sin means he was with sin.”“But was he born with original sin? Probably. I am not sure.”“ Yet it seems he must have been if he was the true child of Mary who herself had inherited original sin.”“Jesus as man inherited original sin.” “Jesus as God did not inherit original sin”. “Original sin is not the same as sins.”“Your problem, I think, is that you are unable to properly provide an adequate understanding of the Humanity of Christ. Until you can explore this - these things will remain troublesome for you.”“It is encouraging that you have a developed view of Christ's deity. Yet, your theology will remain skewed until you explore Christ's humanity, a doctrine which is absolutely vital for the Christian church and proper understanding of the atonement.”
Absolutely and totally consistent. You laughing does not demonstrate contradiction. It is not my fault that you are uneducated.
With your nonchristian like comical wavering upon Jesus being born into sin or not goes against Jesus’ inspired word once again, to wit: “The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.” (Psalm 119:130).
Again I deny that allegation. You need to prove that original sin - is the same as being born into sin and furthermore that that actually means a person sins. So far you have not attempted to do so. In not doing so - you diminish your own argument. and by not doing so - people are left perplexed by you actual argument. It seems you don't have one.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“Close but not correct. Jesus as man is fully man. When Jesus died on the cross, GOD did not die. Otherwise - the universe would have died along with GOD. You cant have it both ways. God cannot sin. God cannot tell a lie. God cannot die. Jesus as man did die. We know that. Yet Jesus as God did not die. Yes, another one of those apparent contradictory matters.
When Jesus is just a man, as you wrongfully state, whereas the Bible shows Jesus was a human man AND GOD, is the reason that you remain so confused and dumbfounded.
I have consistently maintained Jesus is fully God and fully Man. You are the one who diminished Jesus' humanity. Is there a reason you have not addressed my point????? you said God died.
You are WRONG once again when you use your tired out ruse of “God cannot die, Otherwise the universe would have died with Jesus (God)." Firstly, Yahweh/Jesus DID NOT DIE AS A TRUE SACRIFICE because He arose on the 3rd day, AND, the universe was already set in motion by Jesus in following the laws of physics whether Yahweh/Jesus was gone for 3 days or not! In a TRUE SACRIFICE, the person REMAINS DEAD, like in WWII, understood?! Here, let me use your own words against you, obviously you don't think things through and just believe things in blind faith!
God did not die full stop. Your reference to the deistic watchmaker as authority is more scary than anything I say. Your logic is for want of a better word - "DUMB"
“Firstly, it is your god who is called "serial killer Yahweh God", not mine. My God is the God of the bible.”
The God of the Bible is Yahweh/Jesus as God incarnate of the Trinity Doctrine definition, therefore Jesus is the serial killer God as shown in the Old and New Testaments!
Yes, I understand that is your position - but it is not mine and nor is it the majority of Christianity. It is your story to prove, not mine to disprove.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Thanks for the compliment.I am not personally conducing a competition on which FAKE Christian in number 1 at this time, but as shown to date, subjectively TRADESECRET is way ahead of all FAKE Christians as being #1 at this time because of his blatant blaspheme against Jesus in the thread below on page 4 and above! It is truly hard to believe the Devil Speak that spews from his Satanic mouth that is directed from his church!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I expect you have probably answered this elsewhere, but if someone believes in a divine being who intervenes divinely into the world, why should they answer without relying on supernatural explanations?What do you mean by that? My motive is and has been clear as a blue sky from day one. I question what the the believers believe in and expect them to be able to answer without relying on supernatural explanations.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“I can say I don't know or I am not sure.” “ But was he born with original sin? Probably.” “Yet it seems he must have been if he was the true child of Mary who herself had inherited original sin” “I don't believe that original sin means he was with sin"
Barring your ... position on whether Jesus was born into original sin or not, you strike out with your quote herewith: “If he was the true child of Mary….”
You have the audacity to say “IF” Jesus was the true child of Mary?!
Seriously! Is that the best you can come up with? I was positing an argument? Not making a statement of proposition. I have no doubt about Jesus' parentage.
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:” (Matthew 1:18-25)
Notwithstanding, you capitalize Mary’s name, but slap Jesus in the face AGAIN by not capitalizing His pronoun “he” in your statement.
God does not judge Christians against a 20th century grammar textbook.
The Greek was written entirely in Capital Letters - why are you disrespecting God by not writing everything in Capital letters? Oh it must be because you disrespect God. Don't get distracted by pathetic and stupid arguments - lets talk real stuff - substance.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I didn't reply or address your #88 post because there was nothing of substance to address. I reject your assertions that unless I give you my background details that I am running away or denying Christ. I have nothing to be ashamed of. I honestly don't see the point of providing you with canon fodder. And material which is irrelevant to our discussion.
Your simple-minded quote above shows without any doubt that you are too embarrassed about your church and how they represent Jesus the Christ, and where your Satanic church is obviously as ignorant of the bible as you are. The adage of “like attracts like” rings true with you and your Satanic church, because your blatant misconceptions relative to the bible are obviously taught by your churches Devil Speak!
Whatever!
Additionally, you remove one foot to insert the other AGAIN with your admittance that if you did tell us your church affiliation, then you would provide cannon fodder and material for any astute TRUE Christian like myself, or an Atheist, to bury you in further embarrassment, therefore admitting that your church is open to embarrassment! THANK YOU VERY MUCH TRADESECRET FOR ADMITTING THIS TACIT INFORMATION! PRICELESS! LOL!!!!
Whatever!
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
[I] notice that you were silent to me saying that you have undoubtedly committed the Unpardonable Sin. You have blatantly gone against Jesus where one question Jesus' birth through Mary in whether it was true or not. BLASPHEME!You have blasphemed the Holy Spirit of Jesus' Triune Doctrine ... therefore your existence upon earth is just a waiting game for your demise,
It is clear you do not understand the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. If you recall from Matthew 12 the context is a healing of a demon possessed man. the crowd asked "can this be the messiah"? The Jewish leaders said "he does this by the prince of demons". At issue, apart from their careless and reckless use of words, was the source of Jesus' power to cast out demons. Jesus destroyed their arguments, showing such logic was not only absurd but inconsistent with their own people who cast out demons. Their words obscured the real truth which was that the Spirit of God was Jesus' source of power and this implicitly meant the kingdom had come. He had tied up the strong man and was taking hold of his possession, proving the vulnerability of Satan and his kingdom. Their words obscured the truth that neutrality was not an option. This is where he talks about the blasphemy of the Spirit. Note he starts of by saying every sin will be forgiven including anything said against Jesus, (which is what you accused me of) but anyone who speaks against the Spirit of God will not be forgiven. Jesus then spends several verses discussing good fruit and bad fruit and how they reveal a good tree or a bad tree. His point was the healing of the demon possessed man was a good fruit - how can you Jewish rulers say it came from a bad tree? He calls them blind - I am not sure he said they blasphemed the Holy Spirit but certainly he warns them to be careful for this was close to doing it. They could see what was going on and were afraid for their position and power. Jesus threatened this. the point is - I have not blasphemed the Holy Spirit. I have not attributed the source of Jesus power to Satan. I actually attributed his overcoming of sin to the Spirit of God. I attributed his conception to the Holy Spirit. I absolutely take the view that as MAN, Jesus totally relied on the Holy Spirit in all things. Hence, your spurious and false allegation comes to nought. On the other hand, you need to heed Jesus warning "for by your words you will be acquitted and by your words you will be condemned." - reckless and careless words do matter.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“I think it was possible that Jesus as Man could have sinned.”
Just where do you stand upon this topic? you continually CONTRADICT yourself ad infinitum,
“I have clearly indicated that I believe Jesus is without sin”
“I think it was possible that Jesus as Man could have sinned”
Not contradictions. one describes the actuality. the other a possibility. Just because Jesus possibly could have sinned does not mean that he did. In fact we know he did not - which means he, unlike Adam, overcame the temptation of sin. If it was not possible for Jesus to sin, then his overcoming of sin would give Christians no comfort that they too are able to overcome sin. It is pretty basic Christianity 101.
“I don't believe that original sin means he was with sin.”
“But was he born with original sin? Probably. I am not sure. Yet it seems he must have been if he was the true child of Mary who herself had inherited original sin.”
You have yet to explain why you don’t think Jesus' original sin, as Yahweh God incarnate, is actual sin.
Jesus as man inherited original sin. Jesus as God did not inherit original sin. Original sin is not the same as sins. Your problem, I think, is that you are unable to properly provide an adequate understanding of the Humanity of Christ. Until you can explore this - these things will remain troublesome for you. It is encouraging that you have a developed view of Christ's deity. Yet, your theology will remain skewed until you explore Christ's humanity, a doctrine which is absolutely vital for the Christian church and proper understanding of the atonement.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“I can say I don't know or I am not sure.” “ But was he born with original sin? Probably.” “Yet it seems he must have been if he was the true child of Mary who herself had inherited original sin” “I don't believe that original sin means he was with sin"
"you admit that Jesus, as the aforementioned serial killer Yahweh God incarnate, was born into original sin! Therefore, original sin imposes that Jesus has sin upon Him, disregarding your comical ruse of the differrence of original sin verse regular sin, SIN IS SIN! You can weasel your words until Hell freezes over, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT JESUS THEREFORE HAS SIN UPON HIS BEING WITH ORIGINAL SIN, PERIOD!!!"
Hi Brother, glad to see you did not get lost elsewhere and pleased you have finally started to address some of my questions. Firstly, it is your god who is called "serial killer Yahweh God", not mine. My God is the God of the bible. Secondly, I never said and in fact deny that God was born into original sin. I agree that sin is sin - but original sin is not the same as sin. Hence why I have on several occasions asked you do to distinguish between the two. It is obvious that you can't or this would not be such a difficult strain on your brain. I have said - and I will repeat I am not sure whether Jesus as man was born inheriting original sin from his mother. Presently, I cannot see how he, as man, could have avoided it. And you certainly have not even been bothered trying to explain it. Obviously you don't think things through and just believe things in blind faith.
JESUS IS GOD INCARNATE, EXHIBIT #1: Remember, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not names for different parts of our Christian God, but one name for God because three persons exist in God AS ONE ENTITY. They cannot be separate from one another. Each person is understood as having the identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures, understood? Therefore, Jesus as a man, is the serial killer Yahweh God incarnate!
Close but not correct. Jesus as man is fully man. When Jesus died on the cross, GOD did not die. Otherwise - the universe would have died along with GOD. You cant have it both ways. God cannot sin. God cannot tell a lie. God cannot die. Jesus as man did die. We know that. Yet Jesus as God did not die. Yes, another one of those apparent contradictory matters.
JESUS STATED: “I and the Father are one.’ (John 10:30-33) See Exhibit #1“For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.”(Colossians 2:9) This is speaking specifically about JESUS. Can it get any clearer that Jesus is God, any further questions, see EXHIBITI #1PAUL STATED: “But in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.” (1 Timothy 3:15-16) Without controversy, who was manifested in the flesh as our Christian God? You got it, Jesus! See EXHIBIT #1
I am not in disagreement with those statements. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. He and the Father and the Spirit of God are one. Nevertheless, Jesus was fully man. Not half man - half God. Fully MAN!. You continue to deny the humanity of Jesus - and that is heresy. And if you are not denying - you certainly are diminishing it, making it of no matter, giving his humanity no credit. That is pretty close to heresy.
“I totally agree that Jesus had to be pure to die on the cross for the sins of the world. Yet God did not die on the cross. Man did. Jesus as God could not sin. As Man it was possible for him to sin.”
Jesus is God that walked the earth, See EXHIBIT #1,
Yes, confounded for any who do not have the Spirit of God.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
TRADESECRET, the runaway FAKE Christian,Pssst, Jesus and I noticed that you are still too embarrassed to address the link below. Since my post #92 above is showing you to be a minion of Satan, maybe the both of you would be able to address the following post, okay?As if DebateArt didn't see you continually running away from said post above! LOL!
I didn't reply or address your #88 post because there was nothing of substance to address. I reject your assertions that unless I give you my background details that I am running away or denying Christ. I have nothing to be ashamed of. I honestly don't see the point of providing you with canon fodder. And material which is irrelevant to our discussion.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"Where did I usurp the Scripture or Jesus' authority? Firstly, I used the words "not sure" because I don't know. I said he was sinless because the bible clearly states this. Jesus was God Incarnate - but he was also FULLY man. As God he cannot sin - as man he must have been able to. Otherwise his claim to defeat sin is a façade."
Your term of “NOT SURE” in questioning whether Jesus was born in original sin or not, as the serial killer Yahweh God incarnate, CAN NEVER WORK! How dare you say you “DON’T KNOW!”
I can say I don't know or I am not sure. It is easy. Read my words - I don't know or I am not sure. I don't know who the serial killer Yahweh God incarnate is. Sounds like a dog poopy demon. He sounds like he needs to have his bottom wiped. He sounds like a sinner to me. Serial killers are sinful per se.
Jesus however is God and Jesus is Man. I said above he has not sinned and that indeed he was sinless. But was he born with original sin? Probably. I am not sure. Yet it seems he must have been if he was the true child of Mary who herself had inherited original sin. After all, how is original sin transmitted from one generation to the next? It is not biological. It is not in the DNA. We call it the estate of sin. It is something which is inherited. Something that is passed to you by declaration or gift. Perhaps you can explain how else it is transmitted? And also why Jesus was immune to it as a Man?
When Jesus becomes God AND man, He has to be pure without any sin whatsoever, whether original sin, or any type of sin, because there had to be a pure and clean sacrifice on the cross to save mankind because it was God’s will, which in turn is Jesus’ will since he is God (Hebrews 10:7-10). DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE GODLY PREMISE. OR NOT?
I totally agree that Jesus had to be pure to die on the cross for the sins of the world. Yet God did not die on the cross. Man did. Jesus as God could not sin. As Man it was possible for him to sin. If it were not possible then the temptations in the desert are a lie. Now I don't believe Jesus did sin and your verses which you provided below demonstrate that. Yet, unless it was possible for Jesus to sin - the entire Christian message is a joke. It is the fact that he overcame all temptations and still did not sin which makes his story more profound.
you explicitly state “As God he cannot sin - as man he must have been able to.” WHAT?!!! You have the audacity to now state that Jesus as a man sinned???!
There is no reason for you to lie. I never said Jesus sinned. I said Jesus was sinless.
“You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.” (John 3:5)
We have a high priest who was tempted in every point like we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)
Yes, "he who knew no sin was counted as sin in order that we might become the righteousness of God." So he knew no sin.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
"He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth.” (1 Peter 2:22)
“Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me?” (John 8:46)
WHAT HAS BEEN SHOWN BY YOU THUS FAR IN QUESTIONING JESUS AS GOD HAVING THE POSSIBILITY OF ORIGINAL SIN, AND BEING IN SIN AS A MAN, GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST JESUS’ WORD AS SHOWN!
I have clearly indicated that I believe Jesus is without sin. I don't believe that original sin means he was with sin. That is your conjecture. Yet you don't even understand the difference between sin and sins. I think it was possible that Jesus as Man could have sinned. The bible clearly says he did not sin - he overcame the temptations of sin.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"I don't hold to the view that Mary was sinless. I am not sure that Jesus was without original sin. He was sinless of course.”
First thing, where do you get the authority to usurp Jesus' inspired modus operandi within the scriptures as Yahweh God Incarnate?
Where did I usurp the Scripture or Jesus' authority? Firstly, I used the words "not sure" because I don't know. I said he was sinless because the bible clearly states this. Jesus was God Incarnate - but he was also FULLY man. As God he cannot sin - as man he must have been able to. Otherwise his claim to defeat sin is a façade.
Then you Satanically claim that YOU ARE NOT SURE THAT JESUS AS GOD WASN'T BORN WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIN, AND THEN POSTULATE THAT JESUS WAS WITHOUT SIN, which is a blatant contradiction in terms.?
It is not a contradiction. You have not even bothered trying to understand sin v sins. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit but his mother was human. Mary did have original sin - and since she was Jesus' mother, he too must have inherited the estate of sin. You can produce scriptures to contradict me. He knew no sin. Yet he was born on this earth. It is clearly possible to be subject to original sin and not sin because Jesus did not sin. As man, Jesus according to Philippians put his deity aside and attended this earth in the power of the Holy Spirit. His miracles don't attest that he is God per se- they attest that people should repent (Matt 11:20).
Barring your comical ruse of the difference between original sin and earthly sin, You cannot have both sin propositions, and still posit that Jesus was without sin OVERALL, key word, OVERALL, understand?
I read what you write - but can you prove this from the Scriptures? How can Jesus be born of a sinful woman and not inherit sin? I state that both propositions are clearly in the Bible. He was conceived by the Spirit of God because he was both fully God and fully Man. You seek to diminish his human nature. That is heresy according to church history and the bible.
HAS ANYONE EVER SEEN A CHRISTIAN STATE THAT OUR GOD WAS POSSIBLY BORN INTO ORIGNAL SIN WHERE IT GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST JESUS' PURITY AND MODUS OPERANDI AS GOD OF THE UNIVERSE?
Obviously, you are not a scholar of church history. You must only read books that agree with you. Well good for you.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"No - what have I to be scared about. Why would I give you any opportunity to squirm out of discussing these matters - and give you information so you can attack me ad hominin? Because that is what you will do immediately you know my background - because that is how people like you think you can argue. You don't have an argument against my points - so you attack me or my church or my background. I wonder if that is what you will do?"
TRADESECRET is calling my APPROPRIATE JESUS INSPIRED PASSAGES AS AD HOMINEN ATTACKS, even though they are 100% appropriate to his embarrassment of running away from telling us which division of Christianity that he follows?! Are you kidding?! This action by the FAKE Christian TRADESECRET is very telling, where if the truth were known, what would his church think of him running away from it in embarrassment which admits that his church is open to embarrassment!!! Priceless admittance, thank you TRADESECRET!
This is probably the first time on DebateArt where a FAKE Christian like TRADESECRET whimpers in front of the membership that by using Jesus' TRUE WORDS against them, as I have shown below, are ad hominem attacks and is just not fair, boooo hooo cry baby, *sniff, sniff!"
TRADESECRET is obviously ashamed and HIDES from his choice of which church he attends, where he goes directly againt this Jesus inspired passage: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)TRADESECRET goes against another Jesus inspired passage where his church must not be honorble, herewith: "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." (Philippians 4:8)TRADESECRET is mocking Jesus outright because he continues to HIDE from telling us in what division of Christianity he follows, to wit: "Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap." (Galations 6:7)TRADESECRET cannot defend his choice of a church affiliation by not being able to follow Jesus’ words herewith: ”We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ," (2 Corinthians 10:5)TRADESECRET obviously cannot hold firm to the trustworthyness of his church because he is to embarrassed to tell us what church that is: ”He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9)
TRADESECRET'S THOUGHT BUBBLE: "I shouldn't be responsible in having to tell everyone my division of Christianity, but in turn, I can still attack others of different religions and divisions of their faith, so there, neener, neener, neener! I can't defend my church of choice against the Brother D and others, so it is better that I remain silent to save what face I have left in this forum, even though it makes me look unchristian to my faith and church. I will continue to throw out "smoke screens" to hide behind, because if I actually told this forum my church affiliation, they would probably laugh and make me the greater fool than what I am now, shhhhhh! It is a good thing that no one knows who I am at my church on DebateArt because they would look down upon me by being too embarrassed to respect them and to tell others in what they represent! 'I am sorry Jesus, hopefully you understand that I can't defend your division of the faith, okay?"TRADESECETS biblical knowledge is as EMPTY as their biography page where there is NOTHING within it, other than to RUNAWAY from the questions that it asks of its members! How pitiful is that, and TRADESECRET wants to be called a Christian? NOT!TRADESECRET, RUN AWAY FROM YOUR EMBARRASSING CHURCH AND BIOGRAPHY PAGE, RUN IN THE NAME OF SATAN! LOL!!!
Again, since you have no rebuttals - no arguments in respect of our discussion - then once again - there is nothing for me to respond to. You are defeated. I take no particular pleasure in defeating a dunderhead. But there you have it. You have actually run out of anything useful to say.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
therefore she committed the original sin FIRSTIt really gets my goat when people use the term 'original sin' wrongly!'Original sin' is the state of sinfulness we are all born with - it is 'original sin' in the sense it belongs to our beginning (origin) to be a person.It doesn't refer to the 'first sin ever commited'.It's like 'immaculate conception' - Jesus was not the subject of 'immaculate conception'.Mary - and no-one else - was born without original sin (see above!). Mary was 'immaculately conceived' in her mother's womb. This was so the mother of jesus was herself sinless.So Adam and Eve did not commit the 'original sin' and 'immaculate conception' is not an alterative term for 'virgin birth'.
I am happy with that explanation to an extent. Although I think that Adam's fall from grace is whereby "original sin" arose. Without his fall from grace we might still be in an estate of grace and not in an estate of sin.
I don't hold to the view that Mary was sinless. I am not sure that Jesus was without original sin. He was sinless of course. Yet, this is why I have been asking Brother DT to explain the difference between sin (original sin) and sins (sins we individually commit as a result of the fall. He has not bothered - I suspect because unlike you he does not see the difference.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"No - what have I to be scared about. Why would I give you any opportunity to squirm out of discussing these matters - and give you information so you can attack me ad hominin? Because that is what you will do immediately you know my background - because that is how people like you think you can argue. You don't have an argument against my points - so you attack me or my church or my background. I wonder if that is what you will do? "
As shown above in one of the most embarrassing quotes a Christian could ever make in front of a Religious Forum, and in front of Jesus as well (Hebrews 4:13), is for TRADESECRET being to embarrassed to tell us in what division of Christianity that he follows! Unbelievable disrespect towards Jesus and his church!TRADESECRET is obviously ashamed and HIDES from his choice of which church he attends, where he goes directly againt this Jesus inspired passage: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)TRADESECRET goes against another Jesus inspired passage where his church must not be honorble, herewith: "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." (Philippians 4:8)TRADESECRET is mocking Jesus outright because he continues to HIDE from telling us in what division of Christianity he follows, to wit: "Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap." (Galations 6:7)TRADESECRET cannot defend his choice of a church affiliation by not being able to follow Jesus’ words herewith: ”We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ," (2 Corinthians 10:5)TRADESECRET obviously cannot hold firm to the trustworthyness of his church because he is to embarrassed to tell us what church that is: ”He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9)As I have explicitly and biblically shown, I have attacked Tradesecret upon his Satanic position of trying in vain to rewrite the Judeo-Christian bible to his unbiblical way of thinking. Now to make it even worse for Tradesecret, he hides behind one of the lamest excuses that most of us have ever seen, and that is not telling us in which division of Christianity he follows. This can only surmise that he is to embarrassed to tell us, or he is hiding something that he cannot defend and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath!
Well I guess I was right, eh? Ad hominin attack after attack. I take your refusal to answer or respond to my points above a concession to the topic. I accept your defeat.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I'm very ready to admit I know nothing about idioms in ancient Hebrew! I'd be interested to know how you got your expertise - or are you relying on the say-so of an unnamed 'expert'?Are you sure you're not adopting an interpretation because it suits your prejudice? In any case I don't see a problem... it's only a story!
hi Keith,
I preached from this passage recently - in the past 12 months - and was referring to commentaries and a book on word pictures. I will have a look and find out where I obtained the information. it is readily available. It was not first time I have heard it. I used that picture because it is helpful. give me a couple of days - and remind me if I have not got back to you. I lent some books and will need to go back to the library to get the source.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“What did you prove? Did you prove Paul wrong? Seriously!So you don't believe that Paul's words are the words of God? You really have aproblem reading and understanding.”
Barring your horrific spelling and where you cannot separate words, conversely, don’t you believe that Timothys words are the words of Jesus as well when he stated that Adam was not deceived, but Eve was the one deceived and transgressed FIRST?
The book of Timothy was written by Paul, not Timothy. I explained I don't have an issue with Paul's words. I agreed that Eve transgressed first. I just stated that her sin was not the original sin - the one that cause humanity to fall. For the record - it is probably correct to state the Satan sinned first.
“Adam committed the original sin as covenant head.”
I see, therefore this is the start of making women ruled by their husbands!
Actually, I think her sin enabled that to take place. Yet, Adam being the head or ruler does not make females inferior or children for that matter. It just means that Adam was responsible for what happened.
“Adam knew it was wrong to eat the fruit.
NO, he did not know it was wrong because HE HAD YET TO EAT THE FRUIT FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE WHEN EVE HANDED IT TO HIM TO KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG, GET IT?
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not give him the capacity to know wrong, it gave him the capacity to decide what was right and wrong. Adam knew it was wrong - why else would Eve question Satan? Also - they knew their was a consequence of eating it - death. It is just silly to say Adam did not know it was wrong.
The bottom line is Eve ate the forbidden fruit FIRST, therefore she committed the original sin FIRST, barring any perceived notion of a covenant where Adam HAS YET TO RULE OVER HER AT THIS TIME!!! GET IT? Original sin was initiated in the Garden of Eden, otherwise, why do they call it the "FALL?"
I never disagreed that Eve sinned first. I have maintained that her sin was not the original sin. Yes, first in time can mean original for her - but it does not follow that it was original for humanity. This is why I say to you: distinguish sin from sins. You still have not because your brain does not understand what the bible talks about. Adam's sin according to Paul brought death into the world, not Eve's. You have yet to explain that point. I have.
Besides, the original sin scenario was all a setup by Jesus as our Jewish Yahweh God incarnate because He created the serpent known as Satan in the first place and allowed it to deceive Eve. Also, in Jesus being omniscient, He knew beforehand that Eve was going to go against His command, and subsequently Adam as well relative to eating from the Tree of Knowledge!
All those things only demonstrate that God knows all things and is omniscient. It might even go towards first causes. but it does not go at all towards understanding second causes and responsibility. Your ignorance is astounding.
TRADESECRET: Since you are too SCARED to fill out a biography page, in what division of Christianity do you follow? Are you a Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist, JW, or?
No - what have I to be scared about. Why would I give you any opportunity to squirm out of discussing these matters - and give you information so you can attack me ad hominin? Because that is what you will do immediately you know my background - because that is how people like you think you can argue. You don't have an argument against my points - so you attack me or my church or my background. I wonder if that is what you will do?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
We aren't told what Pharaoh would have done if God had not hardened his heart! Given that God took the trouble to do so implies Pharaoh might well have let the Israelites go. God forced Pharaoh to do what God wanted him to do on that specific occasion.We are talking about a story written before philosophers had spilt gallons of ink on 'free will'. I doubt the scribes who wrote Exodus ever discussed 'free will'!
That just shows that you don't understand the Hebrew word in question. The word means - let of the shackles. It is a picture of God holding Pharaoh back like the dog on a chain - and then letting him of the leash. Or like God is a dam holding back water and then opens the gates. God was holding Pharaoh back from acting consistent with his nature - and then let him of the chain to do whatever Pharaoh wanted to do.
This is the meaning of the words in the Hebrew. You cant just ignore their meaning - by referring to the English translation of an idiom. Or I suppose you can. The point is though - God did not force Pharaoh to do what he did - prior to that time God's force - was a holding back - and restrain - a keeping a dog on the chain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
ludofl3xYou must also believe a lot of native people's versions of how things happened, no? Like you have to believe the story of Devil's Tower, right?
No, to answer your question. I don't believe a lot of people's versions of how things happened. However I am happy or content to suspend my judgment until sufficient evidence appears to prove or disprove. This is how science operates, does it not?
We suspend our judgment until sufficient evidence is produced to hold a position. Surely any self - respecting scientist would not hold to a default position before the evidence was in.
In the Exodus matter - there is a lack of evidence - v someone's cultural belief. In Australia the dreamtime is one of those situations. Were Australian scientists to dismiss such dreamtimes because of the lack of evidence then it would create a nightmare. Better to simply suspend one's judgment.
A lack of evidence can be and had been overturned in history. Quick example - the Hittites.
Once only known about from the Bible, dismissed because there was no evidence and considered a myth at best - and then lo and behold - someone found some evidence. Now it is conclusive that the Hittites existed despite once only thought only a joke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Alternate argument using same reasoning: "I think Tradesecret is a secret atheist. It is difficult to demonstrate based on the lack of evidence. Yet the lack of evidence by itself does not prove its not true."If no evidence for Tradesecret's atheism exists, then why believe it?
Thanks for the laugh. Yet in that sentence I am not actually presenting an argument; merely positing an opinion and conceding I don't have an explanation. Only a default position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Exodus is right, They are Egyptian Chariots sunk because in the SeaI doubt this claim. I have only ever seen psuedo-experts whose religious beliefs would benefit from this claim utter it. In reality, it is not clear what 'sea' the Bible is referring to, so finding chariot wheels in an unknown sea is quite a trick...
I think the story of Exodus is true. It is difficult to demonstrate based on the lack of evidence found. Yet, the lack of evidence by itself does not prove it did not happen.
It is a myth that Jews seem in part to accept as part of their history. Personally I am not sure that I could dismiss someone's else culture just because I could not find evidence to support it.
As for the chariots found in the Red Sea, it would not matter if such items were found, the skeptics would dismiss them as either planted or from another culture. And that would be the end of it. After all can you imagine if so and so found some tomorrow? What self respecting scientist is actually going to go and have a look? They would look like a goose in the first place, suspecting that it was hoax. So none would go. Then some documentary making has been scientist will go along and have a cursory look - and make some wild claims on both sides - and then it would be posted on YouTube - and that would be the end of it - for several years. After that if anyone referred to it - they would be laughed at and ridiculed.
Hence it really is a waste of time trying to find something like this.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“You don't even believe in original sin so it is deceitfulfor you to suggest that Paul in the latter verse is attributing it to Eve. Everyone noticed your running away. Genesis and Paul were in accord with eachother. Paul does not suggest Eve wasresponsible for the Original sin. He says Eve was deceived. Adam is responsible.’
You comically stated that “He says Eve was deceived. Adam is responsible." Huh? Read the passages below, therefore how can Adam be responsible subsequent to EVE eating the forbidden fruit FIRST AND FORMOST in initiating the original sin!
Yes let me repeat myself. Obviously you are having trouble grasping what I am saying. Paul tells us that sin entered through one man - Adam. Now so far you have not denied this doctrine although you clearly do not believe it, thus denying the WORD of God. I have no issue with Eve eating the fruit first. Can you show anywhere where what she did is called sin? Or will you just assume it? For the record I think it was sin - but not the original sin. Hence she cannot be responsible for the original sin.
1. Who ate the forbidden fruit FIRST before Adam did, therefore initiating the original sin FIRST? Correct, it was EVE as the transgressor“"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.” ( Genesis 3:6))
I don't have an issue with Eve eating first. But where is it called sin? Did Eve transgress the covenant of works? Absolutely. But is it called sin? And is what she did "the original sin". I say no. Adam committed the original sin.
2. Who agreed that EVE ate the forbidden fruit FIRST and then gave it to Adam? Correct, it was Jesus with His inspired word!“To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ (Genesis 3:17)
Again I have no issue with agreeing that Eve ate the forbidden fruit first and that she gave it to Adam. But is it called sin? Or are you just making it up as you go along? I know you really need it to be sin - but is it ever called sin?
3. Who agreed that Adam was not deceived, but EVE was the FIRST to be deceived and transgress in initiating the original sin? Correct, it was Timothy!“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1 Timothy 2:14)
Boring. Paul told Timothy that Adam was not deceived but Eve did. She transgressed. But is it ever called sin? And was what she did the original sin? I say no. Why? Because Adam was the head of the home. And if Adam had acted like a man - he would have told her to repent of her sin - and beg for forgiveness from God. She would have died - and sin would not have been passed on from generation to generation. Adam was the covenant representative of the family. It was when the head of the family sinned - it became original sin. Again - I ask you - explain the difference between sin and sins. Your ignorance and avoidance of this question is making you look like a bigger fool than you need to be.
4. Who agreed with the aforementioned passages that EVE was the FIRST to sin, therefore being the originator of original sin? Correct, it was Paul!“But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.” ( 2 Corinthians 11:3)
The verse does not say that Eve sinned first. It says she was deceived and ate the fruit first. She was led astray and I agree it was into sin - but it was not original sin. Again you have no clue. Until you can distinguish between sin and sins - you live in ignorance. Have you heard of the word covenant?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Sin is only an assumption.Which varies, depending on how we were conditioned.
Sin is not an assumption. Sin is anything that falls short of the standards of God. Now we might in our culture because we have been conditioned think that sin is an assumption and depends upon how we were conditioned - but that is a cultural matter. It does not change the fact that sin itself does have a definition.
Typically people in our culture laugh at sin. Either we minimise or we exaggerate. Either it becomes a small white lie or it is murder. In either event - we don't think it is relevant to us. Yet, sin is the problem with this world. If we were to get rid of sin - then the world would be perfect. In other words, it is the error that prevents the world from being perfect. This makes sense because sin is defined as the falling short of the perfect standard of God.
Its historic meaning is pictured by an arrow falling short of its target. If the arrow hits the target there is no sin. If it falls short - there is sin.
Sin however is an offence against God. If you don't believe in God, then you don't believe in sin. You might believe in evil or you might believe that people do awful and immoral things - and you might even call it sin for want of a better word - but that in my understanding of the bible is not sin. It is better termed an offence. In that situation it would be more helpful to talk about sin being an assumption or a conditioning.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"I have asked the author to distinguish between first and second causes. He has not done it yet. I doubt he has the ability to understand and differentiate between the two. Yet, the bible clearly talks about both. Like free will and determinism, both are laid out in the Scriptures side by side - I don't have to understand how they meet or don't meet. Sometimes this causes me pain in the brain - but mostly I ask myself - why is it necessary for me to understand these things. God is not a human that I could understand him. And if I could understand him, then probably he is not a god. "
FREE WILL DOES NOT EXIST
If you read my post above you will know I said free will is complex. Yet without free will - man is not responsible for his sin. This is the notion you have to learn to comprehend. In any event, you do believe in free will - otherwise every comment on here directed at anyone is pointless. So stop lying.
CHRISTIAN "FREE WILL" FOR DUMMIES:This is because of the simple concept that are Jewish Jesus is Yahweh God incarnate, and is OMNISCIENT, therefore He knows everything! (1 John 3:20).
Just because Jesus knows everything does not mean we don't have free will.
Jesus knows the minutest details of our lives in the past, present and future, for He mentions even knowing when you lose a single hair (Matthew 10:29-30). Not only does our Jewish Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, know everything that will occur with us until our demise (Isaiah 46:9-10), but He also knows your very thoughts, even before you speak them! (Psalm 139:4). FREE WILL? NOT!
just because God knows all things - does not mean we don't have free will. God holds us responsible for our choices. Not because of his choices.
Our Jewish Jesus, as God, even saw us in the womb, and being omniscient, anything less wouldn’t be the God of the Jews! Jesus knew what we were going to do before time and when we are to die! (Psalm 139:16) “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5) Free Will? NOT!
I repeat what I said above.
Everyone of those verses I refer to as well in order to refute persons who think they can will themselves into Heaven. I think free will is true - but I don't think free will is unlimited.
We have the free will to do what we want to- this is why we are responsible for own sins - and why God is just in punishing sin. Yet, I don't agree that we have the free will to do the right thing. Our sin nature - inherited from Adam makes us do what we want for ourselves. But it never wants to repent before a holy God. Like the bank robber walking out a bank with a gun and a bag of money - we see God the holy police man - and what do we do? What should we do - we should drop the bag and the money - walk across to the police officer and hand ourselves in. What do we do? We run for the hills. Why? Because we see God as the big bad policeman who is going to throw us into prison. I think that is the picture of God that you present. A God who cannot be trusted - a God who is vindictive. A God who is not consistent. A god who is corrupt and evil. Yet the bible talks of a God who is just and holy but one who is also merciful and loving. You never talk of a loving God, only an evil God.
We cant come to God - because we don't want to come to God. Yet God calls us to himself through his son who died on the cross for the sins of the world. By trusting in Jesus - that he suffered and died for my sins - I don't have to see God as the police in the sky anymore - because the just God has had my sins dealt with - and offers me grace and mercy. Free will is complex. Yet without it - God is EVIL and untrustworthy.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Jesus did not create sin. Sin is not part of the created order. Therefore it is impossible for it to be created.
Barring your comical and unfounded speculation once again, when Jesus can create evil in the same vein as your comical notion of having no smells, color, etc., then Jesus can create sin as well. 2+2=4.
You are mixing up two completely different concepts. God cannot sin. He cannot create sin. Sin is a falling beneath God's standards - that is its definition - so it is logically and conceptually impossible for God to do or create it. On the other hand - you quote the standard Isaiah 45 and Amos references to God creating or making evil. You need to establish that evil is the same as sin. I don't take the view that the two things are the same at all.
“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” (Colossians 1:16)
This verse is NOT talking about sin. Sin is not a thing. That is something you just don't get. Evil does not have to fall beneath God's standards - but sin does. Evil is also a perception. What is evil to me may be good to someone else. What is sin to me is always sin against God.
I have no reason to rephrase as I don't believe your incorrect assertions. God is holy and just. He is compassionate and merciful.”
I understand that logic and biblical reality is out of your realm of thinking in being a FAKE Christian, that is a given, therefore you cannot accept through biblical axioms that our Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, is the following: greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, and malevolent God!
That may well be your god - but this is not the God of the bible. In fact your god sounds like Satan - and I am confident that your god will spend eternity in the Hells of Fire which has been reserved for him.
“judgment is distinguished from vindictiveness. Judgment and just is logically and definitively impossibly incompatible with murder.
MURDER: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice to slaughter wantonly.
Actually murder is the killing of a human by a human. And it is not just the killing - but an "unlawful" killing. This is where your ignorance of law is laughable. Did you know that cows and horses and dogs cannot be charged with murder, nor can cars or machines or computers or even robots? God is not a human. But not just this element escapes you - but the next one does as well. UNLAWFUL. You seem to think unlawful is irrelevant. You are not a theologian. You are not a lawyer. You are simply a fool. God is lawfully able to put to death any sinner on this planet.
With you taking the position of the above scenario as just “Judgment” by Jesus, is why the churches are losing their followers, because no one after following your position can remain intelligent looking in the aftermath, understood?
My church is growing. And it is because we teach the bible. Our world relies on a just system. God has a just system.
God sent Jesus to deal with sin because sin offended God's holiness.
The bible teaches the Trinity. Your humour is not funny.
There is a distinction between causing Pharaoh's sin and allowing Pharaoh to sin. Again it would be helpful if you googled - first and second causes which you seem unable to grasp.”
THE BOTTOM LINE IS JESUS IS OMNISCIENT, THEREFORE JESUS KNEW BEFOREHAND THAT PHARAOH WAS GOING TO SIN AND KNEW THAT HE WAS GOING TO HAVE TO MURDER THE 1ST BORN IN EGYPT!
first and second causes??????? figure out what it means.
You really don't like it when people prove you wrong. You turn into a dunderhead.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“So is Genesis right or is Paul right?”
Well, … in Romans 5:12 it was man (Adam) that was responsiblefor the original sin, BUT, in 2 Corinthians 11:3, it was Eve that wasresponsible for the original sin:
You don't even believe in original sin so it is deceitfulfor you to suggest that Paul in the latter verse is attributing it to Eve. Everyone noticed your running away. Genesis and Paul were in accord with eachother. Paul does not suggest Eve wasresponsible for the Original sin. He says Eve was deceived. Adam is responsible.
“Oh dear, it is a problem admitting I don't knoweverything.
“Oh dear, it is a problem admitting I don't knoweverything.
I am truly sorry that you admit that you don’t knoweverything regarding the bible, but at the same time, you proffer that youdo! It is ungodly that you admit thatthe bible has problems and complexities, which is pure Devil Speak! In Deuteronomy 24:16, it simply states whatit does. “Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor childrenput to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.” (Deut 24:16)
Firstly, stop telling lies. I don't proffer to know everything in thebible. Secondly, conceding that the bible contains complexities and problemsfor the reader is not devil speak. Even Peter said Paul spoke difficult things- Thirdly, I take the view that Deut24:16 is a passage directed towards the children of Israel. Its direction does not apply to God.
Therefore, in using this passage that is inspired by Jesusas Yahweh God incarnate, Adam and Eve could not pass on the original sin totheir children and therefore mankind. ... Remember one thing, ..., the main things are the plain things in theBible and they are so.
You don't believe in original sin. you have not proved ityet. You confuse covenant headship with sin. Is this why you ran away from myquestion to you to discuss the difference between sin and sins?
“Jesus creating sin is most importantly a part of Creationbeing wholeheartedly connected to the Original SIN of Eve’s transgression.”
Sin was not part of the creation. At the end of thecreation,God called all that he created good and very good. If sin was part ofthis then sin is good. If this is the case, why does Jesus need to die forpeople's sin? In any event, sin is defined as "that which falls short ofGod's standards". So, if God created sin - can you explain how a perfectGod could do anything beneath his own perfect standards?
“So you say, prove it. Sin is not a thing. It is not partof the creation. Paul tells us that sin was introduced by humanity. the onlyway around this is to admit Paul was wrong. Will you do that?
“So you say, prove it. Sin is not a thing. It is not partof the creation. Paul tells us that sin was introduced by humanity. the onlyway around this is to admit Paul was wrong. Will you do that?
I did prove it in my previous post, whereas it must havebeen way over your head to comprehend its outcome. Since you state that sin ISNOT part of creation, then where did “original sin” come from subsequent to thefall of woman?
What did you prove? Did you prove Paul wrong? Seriously!So you don't believe that Paul's words are the words of God? You really have aproblem reading and understanding. Again let me repeat it - God did not createsin. It was not part of the original creation. Everything God made was good andvery good. Sin is by its definition not good. It is the error that fallsbeneath God's standard. So if God created sin in accordance with yourridiculous assertion - then God fell beneath his own standards and lied.
The original sin as taught by the church occurred whenAdam ate of the fruit. It is true that Eve ate prior to Adam - and it is alsotrue that first can mean original. (it does not always mean first inchronological order sometimes it has to do with authoritative order - a similarnotion is about how Jesus is the first born son - not meaning first inchronological order but in respect of pre-eminence.) In this case however - itis Adam who is held responsible for the original sin - by representation all ofhis covenant - wife and children. They became dead to God - covenantal death.But you still need to be able to distinguish between sin and sins. And you justkeep running away from the question. Adam committed the original sin as covenant head. Eve sinned like youand me. There is a difference. We don' t commit the original sin over and overagain. but we do sin. You need to be able distinguish between the two - and itseems you are unable to do so.
The original sin as taught by the church occurred whenAdam ate of the fruit. It is true that Eve ate prior to Adam - and it is alsotrue that first can mean original. (it does not always mean first inchronological order sometimes it has to do with authoritative order - a similarnotion is about how Jesus is the first born son - not meaning first inchronological order but in respect of pre-eminence.) In this case however - itis Adam who is held responsible for the original sin - by representation all ofhis covenant - wife and children. They became dead to God - covenantal death.But you still need to be able to distinguish between sin and sins. And you justkeep running away from the question. Adam committed the original sin as covenant head. Eve sinned like youand me. There is a difference. We don' t commit the original sin over and overagain. but we do sin. You need to be able distinguish between the two - and itseems you are unable to do so.
I have shown you that Paul contradicts himself with sayingthat it was man (Adam) that committed the original sin, but then says it was EVE as the origin of the originalsin! Then, where do you stand as theoutcome of Paul's said contradiction?
Well actually you did not show how Paul contradictshimself. You simply mixed up two completely different concepts - a common errorand mistake of ignorant people - and tried to suggest that one contradicts eachother. I have explained it. Now it isyour turn.
“At this specific time on the 6th day of Creation, no oneknew about the concept of sin, EXCEPT JESUS SINCE HE IS OMNISCIENT AND KNEW ITWAS FORTHCOMING WHEN THE FALL OF MAN / WOMAN HAPPENED!”
“The first people understood at this point that to disobey Godmeant death. It is inconceivable that they did not ask God what death was. I am not persuaded that they did notunderstand the concept of sin.
Firstly, it is not an absolute for A&E to ask Jesus whatdeath was in anyway whatsoever! Secondly, it is further not an absolute for A&E to understand theconcept of sin, where you base your entire argument upon PURE SPECULATION,
So you concede it is not an absolute - you agree that myposition is plausible. My position is not speculation. Adam knew it was wrongto eat the fruit. For him to know it was wrong meant he must have understoodthat concept. Furthermore - he knew it would bring him death. For that to be areal threat - he must have known what death was. so Adam knew wrong and rightbefore the fall - he knew about sin and he knew what it would bring. this isnot speculation - it is there in the bible - perhaps you should read it.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
The relavant passage is ex. 7:2-4"...you, and your brother Aaron must declare it to Pharaoh so that he will let the Israelites go out of his land. 3But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I will multiply My signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, 4 Pharaoh will not listen to you."Clearly Pharaoh has free will - he will hear Moses and Aaron and could indeed choose to free - or not free - the Israelites based on their declaration.However God intervenes to ensure Pharaoh will choose to not free the slaves. So while God has grants us free will, he can impose his will on us when it suits His purpose to do so. He is God, after all! Gods can of sort of thing (allegedly).
hi Keith,
I know the passage - but you need to understand the idiom here. Hardening Pharaoh's heart is not about causing Pharaoh not to comply. It was about taking off Pharaoh's natural restraints. In other words, his restraint had actually prevented Pharaoh from being as evil as could be. And perhaps there was an element therein in which God was hopeful that Pharaoh might repent and turn to God or was at least giving him the opportunity to do so. I think it is more likely that he restrained Pharaoh initially to protect both the Jewish people as well as the Egyptian people. Yet, as the passage indicates - Pharaoh hardened his own heart - and God hardened Pharaoh's heart - God let Pharaoh do what Pharaoh wanted. This of course led to the consequences of his actions.
In a way this is what happens with us today. Christians talk about the total depravity of sin. This does not mean we are as evil as we could be possibly be. It just means that we are so sinful that we are not holy. I use the analogy of a glass of water. We are the glass of water. And if we are without sin, we are a pure glass of water. Now if we take a drop of ink and drop it into the glass, what happens to the purity of the water? One drops spreads throughout the entire glass of water - the water becomes tainted. It does not all become ink - but how many people would drink it even if they knew there was only one drop? This is total depravity of sin. Sin taints or touches every part of the person, hence its totality. Yet it does not make the person all evil. Yet, God wont drink the water - and we wont be considered holy. This is the picture of all humanity - yet some individuals if left to their own devices become more and more tainted - because of his jealousy, because of his anger, because of a whole lot of reasons - and while God prevented this becoming to bad - for the sake of his people - eventually he let Pharaoh do what he wanted to.
In any event - Pharaoh' will so far as we are concerned was free - and therefore he was responsible for his own actions. God rightly and justly judged him and Egypt.
the issue of free will is complex. What does free will mean? I think it is very difficult to define. In our society for instance - we have free will - or don't we? We could all run naked down the street - but we don't. Why not? What restrains us? Our governments restrain us - our morals restrain us - our cultures restrain us - the weather restrains us - so many things. We could all kill someone else - but we don't - what restrains us from doing so?
On another level - free will cannot make me do impossible things. I have the free will to fly - but I don't have the ability to do so. I have the free will to twist and distort and persuade and do magic - but I don't have the ability or capacity.
In our legal systems we recognise intention and culpability. The state must prove intention, whether that be premeditated, or recklessness, or negligence to prove a crime. Yet, things like accident, or automatism, or mental health issues can rebut and refute this.
Pharaoh was totally responsible for his sin. and whether God hardened his heart or not - whether this let his restrains of or made it more unlikely to resist - it was still up to Pharaoh. The bible does not say expressly that God made him do it, even though God knew he would do it.
I have asked the author to distinguish between first and second causes. He has not done it yet. I doubt he has the ability to understand and differentiate between the two. Yet, the bible clearly talks about both. Like free will and determinism, both are laid out in the Scriptures side by side - I don't have to understand how they meet or don't meet. Sometimes this causes me pain in the brain - but mostly I ask myself - why is it necessary for me to understand these things. God is not a human that I could understand him. And if I could understand him, then probably he is not a god.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“I am amused that you think that using a small letter in a pronoun is likely to incur the wrath of God on me and yet you seem to have no trouble defaming and lying about God.”
you talk so much nonsense - it is strangely puzzling.
As a TRUE Christian, I have absolutely no trouble in calling Jesus out when He turns into a serial killer of innocent fetus’, babies, children, and where He turns into a brutal abortionist in the book of Hosea. Notwithstanding, His penchant for condoning slavery and the beating of slaves in the New Testament writings. Unfortunately, you are guilty of the following inspired words of Jesus/Yahweh/Spirit: "Respect everyone, and love your Christian brothers and sisters. Fear God, and respect the king.” (1 Peter 2:17) You respect the KING which equals Jesus, by using His name!
I reject your assertion that because I did not use a capital in him that I have disrespected Jesus.
“I am pleased that God is not only just and holy but also compassionate and merciful.”
Why are you so scared to rephrase your Satanic quote above to state the truth? Biblically speaking, it should read ; “I am pleased that Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, is not only a blatant serial killer of innocent children, and where He caused abortions, and condones slavery and the beating of slaves, but also is compassionate and merciful”
I have no reason to rephrase as I don't believe your incorrect assertions. God is holy and just. He is compassionate and merciful.
“Would you care to define vindictiveness and how it relates to the death of every firstborn son and animal in Egypt?”
In the bible narrative of Pharaoh, our Jesus took out revenge upon him by blatantly and wrongfully murdering innocent 1st born children that knew not of what Pharaoh did to displease our serial killer Jesus until they were brutally murdered. Notwithstanding, Jesus also murdered the innocent 1st born of all animals in Egypt to add to the frosting of being a vindictive God. You can insidiously call it Judgment all day long until you are blue in the face, but the end results was murder, plain and simple, without any further sickening apologetics that makes using the term Judgment as being psychotic! Jesus was MURDERING THE 1ST BORN OF INNOCENT CHILDREN THAT KNEW NOT OF PHARAOHS ACTS THAT DISPLEASED JESUS = VINDICTIVE JESUS THE CHRIST, PERIOD!
judgment is distinguished from vindictiveness. Judgment and just is logically and definitively impossibly incompatible with murder. Just because you are unable to distinguish such things does not make me incorrect. Calling something murder just because it suits you does not make it murder. Murder has a definition. you reckon you can google vindictiveness - can you google murder. Perhaps you might learn something.
“God's judgment on Egypt was not simply because God was upset with Pharaoh.”
Okay, then what was the additional reason that Jesus was upset in this scenario? Don’t leave us “hanging” for your deceiving apologetic rendition of an answer, the suspense is too much, tell us!!! WAITING!
God's holiness. Egypt's sin against God. God's perfect judgment. God sent Jesus to deal with sin because sin offended God's holiness. This is more than simply being upset with humanity. It goes much deeper than this. I thought you said you were a real Christian - and yet you don't seem to comprehend basic 101 concepts like holiness, sin, and judgment.
“God did not cause Pharaoh's sin. When the bible talks about Pharaoh's heart being hardened - this is not God making him do something - it is God allowing Pharaoh the freedom to do what Pharaoh wants to do. The word in the Hebrew is akin of "letting go of restraints". Prior to this time, God has been preventing Pharaoh from doing what he wanted to do. He had been holding him back as it were. Hence there is not a sense of vindictiveness in this story. “
Jesus most certainly allowed Pharaoh to sin because Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, and not by chance, decides what happens in human affairs “The lot is cast into the lap, but it's every decision is from the LORD.” (Proverbs 16:33)
There is a distinction between causing Pharaoh's sin and allowing Pharaoh to sin. Again it would be helpful if you googled - first and second causes which you seem unable to grasp.
“When the bible talks about Pharaoh's heart being hardened - this is not God making him do something - it is God allowing Pharaoh the freedom to do what Pharaoh wants to do.”
WRONG! Pharaoh DOES NOT have the freedom of what he wants to do or not do, because Jesus is omniscient and knows beforehand in what Pharaoh will do at any given time! Therefore, Pharaoh DOES NOT HAVE FREE WILL but he is only a puppet that Jesus is operating to His wants by being omniscient!
Pharaoh does have free will. God never prevented Pharaoh from using his free will. He did restrain him for a while in relation to his own consistency - which is good for all involved. But eventually, he let Pharaoh do exactly what he wanted to do. This is the meaning of the idiom of hardening or softening his heart. I am surprised you did not know this. But then again - you are pretty dimwitted. Rejecting Pharaoh's free will is something you have to establish. I do believe in free will and am clear the bible teaches it. God is just. This is what his bible teaches.
Jesus being omniscient and knowing first hand in what Pharaoh will do is dealing the death blow to your perceived knowledge of Pharaoh’s having free will, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?:
these are all wonderful verses and each of them are totally consistent with my position. God knows all things - we cannot hide anything from him. His understanding has no limit. He knew who would betray him and who would believe. How do any of these things contradict me? First you need to be able to distinguish between first and second causes- and provide a jolly good refutation.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“Romans 5:12 clearly states that sin entered the world through one man (not God). (“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned)
NO, it was not Adam as a man that transgressed first to give ONLY the future Jews Original Sin!
Hmm, so you have no qualms in contradicting the bible. Ok. You seem happy to add what is not in the bible. Are you sure you are a Christian?
It was Eve that transgressed first to initiate the Original Sin!
So tell us is Genesis right or is Paul right?
“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1 Timothy 2:14).
And now you are siding with Paul. Wow! you really don't know your ups from your downs.
To prove that Eve was the cause of Original Sin, and NOT Adam
Paul said sin entered the world through one man. Are you saying Paul was wrong? Yes you are. Of course, you show a very shallow understanding of the original sin. But that does not surprise me. The shallowness is consistent with the rest of your discussions. It would be interesting to see if you are able to distinguish between the biblical understanding of sin and sins. A big clue is that we are not talking about plural verses singular, but something else - I wonder if you know?
you are still having a hard time where Deuteronomy 24:16 states: “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.”
Oh dear, it is a problem admitting I don't know everything. (meep meep) Ok, unlike you, I don't put myself on the same level as God. I don't have an answer for all the problems and complexities of the Bible. I don't need to pretend to either. Nor does it mean I run of and find an impossible doctrine such as God is evil.
Therefore, your Romans 5:12 passage is moot to my godly Deuteronomy 24:16 passage because Adam and Eve sinned first, and since Deuteronomy 24:16 states that children ARE NOT to be put to death for their Fathers sin, in the manner that Jesus said if they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, then Adam and Eve’s children are without Original Sin, and subsequent children as well, HUH? Therefore the Original Sin only applied to Adam and Eve????!
That does not even make sense. Go back and read it again. One passage is not more godly than the other. Nor do they need to contradict each other. A question might also be asked as to whether laws God was applying to humanity must ipso facto apply to God. I have not been persuaded that they must. This is your argument - therefore the burden is on you to prove it. I think the Bible clearly states that God is not subject to the rules and laws of man.
“God is not the author of sin. Nor is he the creator of sin. Sin is not part of creation. Sin is not a thing. Sin is defined as that "which falls short of a defined standard". It is impossible logically for God to fall beneath his own standards. Sin is error. God is perfect. Surely you have read that God is perfect? “
Jesus creating sin is most importantly a part of Creation being wholeheartedly connected to the Original SIN of Eve’s transgression.
So you say, prove it. Sin is not a thing. It is not part of the creation. Paul tells us that sin was introduced by humanity. the only way around this is to admit Paul was wrong. Will you do that?
Within the sixth day our Yahweh/Jesus/Spirit God created Adam and told him not to eat from the tree of knowledge or else he would die. (Genesis 2:15)
Yes, totally agree that God told humanity not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This was the covenant of works.
At this specific time on the 6th day of Creation, no one knew about the concept of sin, EXCEPT JESUS SINCE HE IS OMNISCIENT AND KNEW IT WAS FORTHCOMING WHEN THE FALL OF MAN HAPPENED!
The first people understood at this point that to disobey God meant death. It is inconceivable that they did not ask God what death was. I am not persuaded that they did not understand the concept of sin.
Now, did Adam know of sin? NO! Did Eve know of sin? NO! Did the animals know about sin? NO! All of these bible characters only knew about not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge or else they would die. They absolutely knew NOTHING about sin, period!!!
Well that is your speculation. I somehow think that if God is going to tell them that if they disobey him they get death, that both Adam and Eve would very much have had that discussion with God. And it would be a proper discussion about sin, death, the covenant of works etc. Is it described bit by bit in the story of Genesis? Obviously not. It does not describe many other things as well. They knew what sin was - they knew what it deserved. They intentionally did it anyway.
WAIT! The passage above includes the notion of sin being created by Jesus’ omniscient modus operandi, therefore Jesus created sin! 2+2=4 again!a
no - wrong again. but that is ok. Sometimes for the simple these things do take some time to understand. Jesus did not create sin. Sin is not part of the created order. It is something altogether different. Can you send me a box of sin, please? Or tell its colour? Or what is smells like? Or how big or small it is? It does not fit into the visible categories - but nor does it fit into other categories. Sin is not a thing. Therefore it is impossible for it to be created.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I think the bigger question is why do you feel the need to have your sins forgiven?
Define SIN
Anything that falls shorts of God's perfect standards.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Your direction in relation to God stating each person ought to be put to death for their own sin is worth looking at for a moment. This is because there is the implication that God punished all of the animals and babies and indeed many other people because of Pharaoh's sin against God. And probably at face value this appears to be the case. Yet, we know from reading the passage that the Jews as a whole were made subject to many of the Egyptians and their whims because the Jews were their slaves. I don't find that a particularly satisfying answer of course. We also know that every person - born or not born is sinful from the moment they are conceived according to David in Psalms. Yet even if we could rely upon that as justification for their just judgment - it does not explain why the animals needed to be put to death as well. And the answer is I don't have an answer that satisfies me. Yet, I don't need an answer - so far as I weigh it up with the fact that God is good and does not sin. Clearly if God is vindictive and whimsical and arrogant and unjust then he cannot be good and just. Yet none of the passages you have provided actually provide evidence of him being vindictive. In fact the overall and overwhelming picture of God in the bible is that he is both Holy and Merciful. This is the primary view of God and not the minority picture you are presenting.
YOUR REVEALING QUOTE: “although you will still need to explain why you still only rely on some parts of the bible while clearly leaving the remainder behind”We all know about the niceities of Jesus within the scriptures, and where He is all loving and forgiving, that is a given, BUT, when our Jesus turns into a brutal serial killer of the innocents and contradicts His all loving and forgiving nature, this stands out from what we were taught in Sunday School and subsequently into adulthood. Therefore this type of contradicting Jesus is to be shown as well for the sake of many. You understand, don’t you? Sure you do.Please, I'll await a meaningful and cogent answer to my statements above that will show you living in the 21st century of morals and ethics, okay? Your new arrival within this forum allows me to take a break from the equally bible ignorant Stephen, and Dr. "C&P" Franklin, for that,correc I thank you.
In other words, you don't have a response. You as I indicated in the previous section try and paint a picture using a very small part of the bible and then you give this small part a great big weight - while simultaneously denying the rest and what would be substantially the weightier part. I concede that there are many parts in the Bible which I do not understand and which give me pause for thought. But there are many other parts - and indeed the majority which contradict your incorrect view in relation to the God of the Bible.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR BIBLICALLY IGNORANT QUOTE IN YOUR POST #17: “The bible also describes God as good. It also says he is not the author of sin.”Since you had the laughable ignorance of posing that Jesus is not the author of sin, which is "logically" wrong, I am going to go real slow in your behalf so you can hopefully understand that Jesus did create sin in the Garden of Eden, okay? You can thank me later for this enlightenmen, although it is discouraging for a TRUE Christian like myself to accept this outcome.First and foremost, Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate (1 Timothy 3:15-16), is omniscient (1 John 3:20), and He created EVERYTHING (Colossians 1:16), therefore, when Jesus is omniscient, He knew beforehand that Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden were going to be the first to use His inception of sin at the onset of His creation.In essence, not only did Jesus know that A&E were going to sin, but He set up Adam and Eve by placing the serpent with vocal cords within the confines of the Garden to tempt the first couple with Jesus’ newly founded and never used before notion of sin. Then since Eve transgressed and partook of the forbidden fruit and handed it to Adam, she was firsts to commit the Original Sin, and subsequently, Jesus cursed her with pain on her child bearing years with the added precept of Adam shall rule over her. Ouch!Now, put your thinking cap on, who CREATED the yet to be used sin in the first place at the onset of the Hebrew peoples Creation? YES, it was Yahweh/Jesus, therefore deducing it to its irreducible primary, Jesus created sin, and then used it at the onset of His Hebrew creation by allowing Eve to transgress against Him! 2+2=4.
Romans 5:12 clearly states that sin entered the world through one man (not God). God is not the author of sin. Nor is he the creator of sin. Sin is not part of creation. Sin is not a thing. Sin is defined as that "which falls short of a defined standard". It is impossible logically for God to fall beneath his own standards. Sin is error. God is perfect. Surely you have read that God is perfect?
Nor does it seem that you have an appreciation for the Reformed view of first and second causes. That provides a valid explanation for much of your inaccurate picture of God. You can go and read about it and produce your refutation. I am content until you do.
YOUR BIBLICAL IGNORANT QUOTE #2: “If his executions or judgments were carried out in a vindictive manner or a whimsical manner or an arrogant manner or an unjust manner - then perhaps your views may have some merit”First off, please show respect to our Jesus and capitalize the pronoun “His,” because Jesus is watching you disrespect Him, understood? (Hebrews 4:13).Now, addressing your continued biblical ignorance, I will bring forth one of many examples of our Jesus being what you stated He is allegedly not in your quote above, with vindictiveness coming to the forefront in His behalf. In Exodus 12:29, our Yahweh/Jesus intentionally murdered every first-born child of every family in Egypt, including the first born of livestock, simply because he was upset with Pharaoh. The irony is the fact that our Yahweh/Jesus caused the Pharaoh’s actions in the first place. Nonetheless, when is it ever loving and forgiving for our Jesus as Yahweh God incarnate to brutally murder innocent first born children that knew not of Pharaoh’s actions that upset our Yahweh/Jesus? Besides, our Jesus contradicted His inspired words this case by not following this passage: "Fathers are not to be put to death for their children or children for their fathers; each person will be put to death for his own sin.” (Deut 24:16)Since TRUE Christians need a laugh now and then, what is your latest Satanic apologetic spin doctoring to the biblical axioms above, but when giving them, remember, you have to try remain intelligent looking in the aftermath, okay? TRUE Christians like myself just have to accept that our Jesus was truly a SOB brutal serial killer at times.To save us both from further embarrassment towards our Jesus as Yahweh God incarante, I will NOT bring forth in detail the actions of our Lord when He Murdered innocent zygotes, fetus’ and babies in the Great Flood as their mothers watched in horror, and when He unjustly murdered innocent fetus’ within the womb of the women of Ephraim because He was not pleased with them and their husbands, and if said women gave birth, Jesus would murder the babies afterwards. Vindictive? Yes, the true definition of this word.
I am amused that you think that using a small letter in a pronoun is likely to incur the wrath of God on me and yet you seem to have no trouble defaming and lying about God. I am pleased that God is not only just and holy but also compassionate and merciful.
In respect to your responses to my statements, I make the following comments:
Would you care to define vindictiveness and how it relates to the death of every firstborn son and animal in Egypt? God's judgment on Egypt was not simply because God was upset with Pharaoh. Secondly, it was not murder. It was Judgment. Judgment by definition carried out by justly is not and cannot be murder. Moreover it cannot by definition be vindictive either. God did not cause Pharaoh's sin. When the bible talks about Pharaoh's heart being hardened - this is not God making him do something - it is God allowing Pharaoh the freedom to do what Pharaoh wants to do. The word in the Hebrew is akin of "letting go of restraints". Prior to this time, God has been preventing Pharaoh from doing what he wanted to do. He had been holding him back as it were. Hence there is not a sense of vindictiveness in this story.
more to come.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I hear you.But you have to go somewhere or do something to clean the sins don't you?The Catholics have the best sin removers don't they? confession booths.Buttttttt the being " Born again " thing. That eliminates all, doesn't it.?
I am pleased you can hear me.
I think the bigger question is why do you feel the need to have your sins forgiven?
Are you wanting to please God somehow or make restitution for your sins?
What is the point of having your sins removed?
Once you have answered those questions - then perhaps we can move onto how or where or who might remove your sins.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR QUOTE COMICALLY DESCRIBING YOURSELF: “I disappear for a short time and we get all sorts of imbeciles on here.”Yes, it takes an imbecile like you to use the paradox where Jesus is shown throughout the bible as a serial killer as Yahweh God incarnate, and yet He is entirely just and good, and all the while it is postulated by FAKE Christians that Jesus is all loving and forgiving. Surely you jest? To save face, please tell us you were just kidding!The situation that you have embarrassingly described relative to Jesus is as empty and bereft as your biography page, where when a member of DebateArt leaves off their modus operandi from this page, speaks volumns.Enjoy your return, where I am sure you will remove one foot to insert the other again in the near future.
So I guess that lets me of the hook then. Given I never tried to show a paradox or use a paradox. You seem to have lots of pleasant things to say about Christians - fake or not and your god appears to be a warped kind of monster.
The bible clearly describes God as holy. The bible also describes God as good. It also says he is not the author of sin. True it also presents God as judge of the world - which when he executes his judgment brings about the death, perhaps execution of millions of people. Yet ordering or even carrying out the sentence does not of itself - characterise him as brutal or evil or a murderer.
If his executions or judgments were carried out in a vindictive manner or a whimsical manner or an arrogant manner or an unjust manner - then perhaps your views may have some merit (although you will still need to explain why you still only rely on some parts of the bible while clearly leaving the remainder behind - especially his characterisation of himself as holy and good and merciful and full of grace) but there is not one shred of evidence in all of the bible that any act that God judged or executed was done unfairly or unjustly or with an evil intent. Not one. And I would include here - the deaths of the vegetation at the flood, the animals, and indeed the young children.
To suggest otherwise requires you to prove that God acted unjustly and with evil intent. So far from the little I have read of your posts - you don't even come close to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Yes I believe in free will. Whatever that means.Does this mean you don't believe in free will?
you might as well ask - and then perhaps I will elaborate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Christian doctrine is that Jesus established a new covenant between mankind and God, replacing the old covenant between God and Israel.A theological issue that raises is the relationhip between God and Israel. When the new covenant was established, either the Jews continued to have a relationship with God under their old covenant (dual theology) or they lost their relationship with God (replacement theology).Christian Preterists point to the destruction of the Jewish state around AD70 as evidence that god did indeed break wth the Jews. The historical/social/poitical issue is whether dcoctrines such as preterism are a) causes of or ) caused by anti-semitism
Hi Keith,
fascinating question. Interestingly, I hold to covenant theology - but not to replacement theology. Christian doctrine does not teach that Jesus established a new covenant but rather that there were two covenants. (yes I know the arguments otherwise - we will get to those in due course) the first was the covenant of works - which Adam broke and subsequently all of humanity received (covenantal) death. Hence God established a second covenant - the one of grace. This covenant was confirmed by Noah, the Abraham, then David, then finally and most fully Jesus. In actuality Jesus was the fulfillment of all of these covenant of graces - but more importantly unlike Adam, Jesus himself was able to keep the covenant of works which enable him to be the perfect lamb.
It was on this basis that we can talk about a new covenant that Jesus introduced at the Last Supper. More about that later.
Your point seems to be about the Jewish state - the called out people of God in the OT v the suggested replacement, namely the church and how this leads to anti-semitism. some theologians have taken this view - such as Luther.
the OT - see the minor prophets, such as Hosea actually state that God divorced Israel - hence it is unfair to suggest it started with the Christians. In fact if you read any of the OT prophets - the Jews brought their judgment quite fairly upon themselves and it would not be too difficult to find that many nations in the OT prior to Christianity wanted to destroy Israel from very early on.
Christians don't argue seriously that the church replaced Israel. If you understand Jewish language - you would find that Jesus is termed the new Israel. He was and is a Jew. The church was never about a national position - it was about a multinational position - and this flowed initially from Abraham - father of many nations. Hence churches around the world are some of the most multi-national organisations in the world. It is no fluke that the predominant multi-national countries are those with the strongest Protestant backgrounds.
so it is a little misleading to say that preterists say God broke with the Jews and replaced them. It is more accurate to say that God took the Jewish nation as a springboard and spread itself. Don't forget that the early church was predominantly Jewish - most of the books of the NT were written by Jews.
God did not break with the Jews. Although he did judge the Jewish world because it rejected Jesus. Yet, as it did in the OT it took the remnant of Jews and used them to take his glorious gospel into all of the world.
Some Christians - took an unbiblical view that it was the Jews who killed Jesus. They say the church has replaced the Jews as God's called. Yet this is a false narrative. There is a very strong Jewish element within the Christian church. This comes in many forms - and there are many reformed - preterist Christian Jews. (Now admittedly many Jews would say you cannot be Christian and a Jew at the same time) Yet many people would say that the Jewish world at the time of Christ and leading into the destruction of the Temple changed dramatically to the extent that the Jewish world divided into two. Those who had to live religiously despite the heart of their religion - the temple being ripped asunder from them. And those other Jews who saw the hand of God substantially transforming the temple from a building to a people. the former became the modern Jews. the latter becoming the Christians. Ironically this makes the modern Jew the younger brother of the Church because the church at Pentecost was born before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.
Yet, I would totally agree that the anti-semiticsim demonstrated in some quarters in the church is insidious and needs to be stamped out.
Created: