The truth is what the scriptures that I posted said, that Jesus said that He came down from heaven and that if He ascended it would be to where He was before.
What it does say is that from Bethlem will come one whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity, from ancient days, from everlasting etc depending on your translation.
When the Son of God became a man, that is when YHWH became His God. (Psalm 22:10)
And yes He was and is a man but also...
So you are saying that Micah 5:2 has nothing to do with the origins of Jesus or the goings forth of Jesus, but is saying that He was prophesied about a long time ago.
That is probably how a Jew might have understood it, that He could not be Yahweh who is His God, but that is not true if the...
I can see a general evolution argument for anything appearing by chance and making a life form more fit and so improving over time. This general argument can be made about any complex system.
So an area of the skin was sensitive to light by accident and by accident had nerves to the brain to...
Well I suppose what you say is correct but it is still educated guesswork when it comes to origins, and even in trying to work out how other things in the past happened.
Even if the science is spot on in how it would have had to have happened if it happened naturally, it cannot be said that the...
John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but to do the will of Him who sent Me.
John 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like...
How was the flagellum motor shown not to be Irreducibly Complex?
I can imagine how it was theorised. While it is true that if we take away one part of the motor it is useless, what the ToE does is to suggest that something, anything will do, by chance appeared and sort of accidentally did the...
I see origins as something different.
I also think that you cannot objectively demonstrate that anything had an objectively demonstrable effect on how anything formed or initiated.
How can a spirit be tested by science?
Are you suggesting, as, presumably and atheist, that because spirits...
I wouldn't think so. Certain tests might confirm the chemistry of the production of RNA and DNA etc but cannot confirm that it could actually happen naturally and cannot confirm how those molecules may have become data carrying molecules for the use of life forms.
I'm sorry if you have a headache. I should have said "Solid evidence about origins does not turn the educated guesses into anything more than educated guesses".
No, testing does not confirm the origins of life or the universe.
Testing is good and necessary in science but testing cannot confirm or negate any naturalistic answer to origins.
Educated guesses remain educated guesses for the origins of life and the universe, no matter how many tests are done.
How can the origins of life and the universe be tested?
I don't think that the thread is strictly about science and that the existence of God is not to be brought up in this...
Jesus origin was before His birth as a man. And the passage below means nothing if it applies to all people, which it would if it just means that God foreknew them.
Micah 5:1 Now, O daughter of troops, mobilize your troops; for a siege is laid against us! With a rod they will strike the cheek of...
Solid evidence does not turn the educated guesses into anything more than educated guesses.
There are still many people who prefer the educated guesses to God and some see the educated guesses as the way God did things.
The only possible answers are educated guesses which many people prefer to believe as if it is science, and to leave God out of the picture altogether.
So you don't believe what Newton and other scientists have said because they had the same belief about God and the universe?
And where does this link say that ASA has confirmation bias?
So God and spirits are rejected because science has not got tests for spirits and cannot confirm or deny...
No you just close your eyes to the difference between the 2.
And others don't see what is there because of confirmation bias against those things.
It might be rational when trying to find out how nature works, but not when it comes to finding God and wanting evidence in nature for a spirit...