Did Jesus say he was God???

[Shermana]

YOU WROTE:
First you claimed angels were created on the 2nd to 5th day of the creation in Genesis, then when challenged you said, “Angels may have been created before the Creation of the world itself. It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.”

THIS IS A MIDRASH INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1:1-2

I forgot to mention how incorrect R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos is when he states that “Seven things were created before the world was created. They are: The Torah, Gehinnom, the Garden of Eden, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, Repentance, and the Name of the Messiah” (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter III, p. 10-11). If one believes in the truth of the Holy Book, then one would ignore such ridiculousness. R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos is creating fictions when he says that these things existed prior to creation. Where is your proof R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos/SHERMANA? “To which of the holy ones will you appeal?” (Job 5:1). As R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos/SHERMANA should know, the Holy Book only says, “When God began to create the heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1). There is no mention of these things existing before the creation.

NOW, TELL ME IF YOU DID NOT BLASPHEME THE WORD OF GOD WITH YOUR DELUSIONAL ANGEL'S THEORY.

DO YOU ALWAYS INTIMIDATE PEOPLE ONLINE? YOU MUST BE OUT OF YOUR MIND. I FACED PEOPLE LIKE YOU EVERYDAY AND YOU THINK YOU CAN SCARE WITH YOUR TACTICS ONLINE?

Holy moly.

Wow.

So apparently I'm trying to scare you and intimidate you, in addition to the fact you bring up one particular Midrash as if that somehow trumps what I said, and I'm not entirely sure why you bring that up.

When did I intimidate you exactly? Telling me I'm out of my mind appears to be some pretty blatant projection on your part. I simply offered you a deal. Let the one of us who is blaspheming God's word lose all they own. What's the intimidation with that? You are refusing to debate rationally, so that's how I settle it when this happens.

This is great stuff.

If only you didn't represent the average Trinitarian apologist. Seriously, why does it seem like almost every Trinitarian acts like this eventually?

Now like I said, when I'm dealing with irrational people who refuse to debate properly, I simply offer them a deal: Let the one blaspheming God's word lose everything they own and let the other of us acquire equal value of all they own. That's not intimidation. That's called putting your money where your mouth is. Say Amen and let it be on.

Now listen, even most Trinitarian scholars today are saying that Genesis 1:26 is talking about the Angels and calling for their fellow Trinitarians to lay off using that verse as a "proof text", so this "delusion" is pretty widespread.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I know the bible says nothing about angels existing before creation of the Universe...but it doesn't say nothing else did.

Also interesting it says the spirit of the lord hovered over the waters...was there more to the lord?

 

[absols]

false, in the bible and the coran it is clearly said that god created the universe of nothing

n about the waters...wat is that how the water is any reference to justify smthg over it

 

[Shermana]

false, in the bible and the coran it is clearly said that god created the universe of nothing

n about the waters...wat is that how the water is any reference to justify smthg over it

How does it "clearly" say the universe was made of nothing, when the word for "Create" is more or less "Formed".

 

[absols]

it does nothing to do with what it said about god being able to get what it wants

in the bible and in the coran it is clearly said, that first was nothing but then it was god will

god is infinite pervert liar, he keeps claiming the opposite to the mean so he could get faster fresh at the end, like to keep wat he knows for him secret so he can get the most

like he claim being able to get what it wants while he means that he wants what he can get

he claim first was nothing but then it was god will, means first was the will which killed all wat is truly present

 

[Shermana]

it does nothing to do with what it said about god being able to get what it wants

in the bible and in the coran it is clearly said, that first was nothing but then it was god will

god is infinite pervert liar, he keeps claiming the opposite to the mean so he could get faster fresh at the end, like to keep wat he knows for him secret so he can get the most

like he claim being able to get what it wants while he means that he wants what he can get

he claim first was nothing but then it was god will, means first was the will which killed all wat is truly present

Where does it say there was nothing. It says the Earth was a formless void.

 

[absols]

Where does it say there was nothing. It says the Earth was a formless void.

since when god would use such scientific word for nothing
formless void haha as if god could even give the concept of forms or void out

while void is the certainty of nothing always

 

[Shermana]

since when god would use such scientific word for nothing
formless void haha as if god could even give the concept of forms or void out

while void is the certainty of nothing always

Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Strong's Hebrew: 8414. ??????? (tohu) -- formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

Example use:

NAS: And in the howling waste of a wilderness;

NAS: The city of chaos is broken down;


to bring it to nothing, and a plummet, unto desolation.

http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/8414.htm

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

since when god would use such scientific word for nothing
formless void haha as if god could even give the concept of forms or void out

while void is the certainty of nothing always

Your argument rests on the supposition that God does not exist. Similarly, I can claim that hula-hooping unicorn/daisy hybrids detest coffee because we both know no such things exist (unless you want to get into string theory). But even though, in my opinion, hula-hooping unicorns do not exist, if debating one who believes that they do exist, I would automatically assume certain attributes of them to be true for the sake of argument, such as the presumption that they have horns, or that they like to hula-hoop.

What I'm trying to say here is that you should assume the theists' position as valid before you demonstrate the percieved fallacy of it, which you shouldn't even be doing in this thread anyway. But if you were in the right section, you should debate like this:

1. (An) entit(ies)y created the universe.

2. I do not believe this because of:

3-(your arguments)


You're welcome.

 

[absols]

wat u just gave as being ur references to ur means confirm more wat i said

empty is in the sense of nothing when nothing is the only word that mean clearly no presence

empty is the concept of no presence, not void

void is not emptiness this is also what proves how far we differ

we all come of void and to when void is present source of free superiority and ends to true existence freedom

void is not empty void mean everything possible and nothing impossible like one space, so it is the opposite of empty it is full that is why it gives very precious exact perfect existence and its sources, the creme....

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

So...wait...you do believe a god exists? I can't read your posts well; your grammar is mostly unintelligible, so I can't understand you that well.

 

[absols]

Your argument rests on the supposition that God does not exist. Similarly, I can claim that hula-hooping unicorn/daisy hybrids detest coffee because we both know no such things exist (unless you want to get into string theory). But even though, in my opinion, hula-hooping unicorns do not exist, if debating one who believes that they do exist, I would automatically assume certain attributes of them to be true for the sake of argument, such as the presumption that they have horns, or that they like to hula-hoop.

What I'm trying to say here is that you should assume the theists' position as valid before you demonstrate the percieved fallacy of it, which you shouldn't even be doing in this thread anyway. But if you were in the right section, you should debate like this:

1. (An) entit(ies)y created the universe.

2. I do not believe this because of:

3-(your arguments)


You're welcome.

no cheri keep ur lousy ways to ur limited self wills in jubilating by the pretense of inventin smthg that could sound more right then others poor individuals expressions all struggling for the same goal to ur kind alone

my way is the truth bc i dont want anything when i have me and the more truth is the more im free

the truth miss is wat any sees of the ends bc any is free and bc ends are done by none so only true existence is obvious that everyone sees

that is why ur overinsistent wills dont reach anywhere but to become a clear evil wills to abuse others weakness in getting too emotionnal in arguments about everything or in lacking reality in tryin to mean seriously all

humans that we are sees everything in personnal ways they belong to, but it says how any know everything even though it wont say it, everything is not humans humans are individual existence ways

i reply to any of wat i see he knows and believes while i admit that it has a form of obvious existence which i can show also rejectin since im free

 

[absols]

So...wait...you do believe a god exists? I can't read your posts well; your grammar is mostly unintelligible, so I can't understand you that well.

i dont believe, for me it is obvious and i said in all my posts while my point is that god by definition is evil ends by offending existence living rights and steppin on true values as the way

true value is truth, when truth is positive superiority objective certainty

 

[BornAgain]

it does nothing to do with what it said about god being able to get what it wants

in the bible and in the coran it is clearly said, that first was nothing but then it was god will

god is infinite pervert liar, he keeps claiming the opposite to the mean so he could get faster fresh at the end, like to keep wat he knows for him secret so he can get the most

like he claim being able to get what it wants while he means that he wants what he can get

he claim first was nothing but then it was god will, means first was the will which killed all wat is truly present

You kept on saying "in the bible and the coran it is clearly said"
Post the verse or verses from the bible so I can argue with you correctly.

 

[absols]

u prove the useless will u mean to b

why do u want to argue with me and how u agree to disagree??? bc u have no intention watsoever to b useful in ur life

wat u think about that silly matter is clear

wat i think about the same matter is clear too

u try to justify ur reasons being an objective reference

me too

which doesnt matter bc it is wat u think that matter not the justification from any reference this is only a support positive

 

[BornAgain]

Now like I said, when I'm dealing with irrational people who refuse to debate properly, I simply offer them a deal: Let the one blaspheming God's word lose everything they own and let the other of us acquire equal value of all they own. That's not intimidation. That's called putting your money where your mouth is. Say Amen and let it be on.

Irrational because I do not agree with your delusional angel’s theory. You run out of argument so you insert this non-sense like betting, as you did to me before, to divert the RF readers from your lack of knowledge on how to debate knowledgeably.

I proved you wrong about your non-sense theory with your midrash interpretation of Genesis 1:1 and 1:26.

You think that your words are so divine that God will listen to you. You do not represent the Jewish Midrash exposition of Genesis at all. You represent nothing but you ego.

Now listen, even most Trinitarian scholars today are saying that Genesis 1:26 is talking about the Angels and calling for their fellow Trinitarians to lay off using that verse as a "proof text", so this "delusion" is pretty widespread.

Yeah sure!

Scholars says this, scholars says that.

What else is new?

What happen you run out of argument that you kept in your shoe box.

 

[BornAgain]

u prove the useless will u mean to b

why do u want to argue with me and how u agree to disagree??? bc u have no intention watsoever to b useful in ur life

wat u think about that silly matter is clear

wat i think about the same matter is clear too

u try to justify ur reasons being an objective reference

me too

which doesnt matter bc it is wat u think that matter not the justification from any reference this is only a support positive

What do we have here? A modern day wanna be Greek Philosopher. Try reading The Republic to enhance your expertise on how to debate the right way.

are you copying and pasting this things u r saying? u r not like singing here, r u? or r u rapping.
i think u r in a wrong place, perhaps the time is right but the place really is not.

u r just doing the opposite of wat u r saying, or wat i'm saying, u know doing the reverse thing like agree and disagree, clear and unclear, wat I think and wat u think. Wat do u think?

R u thinking wat I’m thinking, I don’t think so bcause u do not agree so u disagree wat is clear to you that is unclear to me, but really very clear to me because it is really unclear to u and that is perhaps the reason y I can not agree with because u really disagree with me.

I’m really hoping since u disagree with me that u understand that I can not agree with u even if u disagree with me.

I hope this is as clear to you as it is unclear to me.

 

[absols]

u r really too done ... lost in the will to impress talkin fluently wat is meant to talk about

i said argue not agree

i said comparing sources is stupid wat matter is wat u mean opposite to mine

so again the argue u r found about me not

bc u r useless while im present only where the true present is

 

[BornAgain]

u r really too done ... Lost in the will to impress talkin fluently wat is meant to talk about

i said argue not agree

i said comparing sources is stupid wat matter is wat u mean opposite to mine

so again the argue u r found about me not

bc u r useless while im present only where the true present is

good night irene!

 

[savagewind]

What do we have here? A modern day wanna be Greek Philosopher. Try reading The Republic to enhance your expertise on how to debate the right way.

are you copying and pasting this things u r saying? u r not like singing here, r u? or r u rapping.
i think u r in a wrong place, perhaps the time is right but the place really is not.

u r just doing the opposite of wat u r saying, or wat i'm saying, u know doing the reverse thing like agree and disagree, clear and unclear, wat I think and wat u think. Wat do u think?

R u thinking wat I’m thinking, I don’t think so bcause u do not agree so u disagree wat is clear to you that is unclear to me, but really very clear to me because it is really unclear to u and that is perhaps the reason y I can not agree with because u really disagree with me.

I’m really hoping since u disagree with me that u understand that I can not agree with u even if u disagree with me.

I hope this is as clear to you as it is unclear to me.

I'm saving this one! LOL