Is God a man?

[YoursTrue]

You see, that is just not true--you are misrepresenting me. But although I keep explaining this to you, you just don't listen.

By your standards, you don't believe in the Good Samaritan, so I guess that means you think Jesus was a liar. No, I don't actually believe that about you. I'm simply subjecting you to your own nonsensical reasoning. If its good for me, then it's good for you as well.

I think you have that a bit skewed. In the meantime, what's the point of quoting scripture if you don't believe it as outlined? What's the need for a Messiah, in your opinion? I wonder why someone other than being bound to family tradition would celebrate holidays like Christmas, Easter, and Passover if they think the Bible is based on myths. And since many do not believe Jesus existed as written, why mention the "Good Samaritan" as if that's a parable or story but the rest of the gospels and Tanakh are based on myths?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..as fully God, then He could rise again in victory over death and sin...

It doesn't make any sense to me .. unless you think that God is a person.
Personally, I don't know any person who can create universes, and maintain them.

In any case, what is "a soul"?
Doesn't it belong to G-d, or is "from G-d" and will return to G-d?

Do you think that a non-material soul was created? Created from what?
As G-d is responsible for an apparently inexhaustible supply of souls, to say a person can be G-d
implies that this person consists of an infinite number of souls. Huh??

 

[InChrist]

It doesn't make any sense to me .. unless you think that God is a person.
Personally, I don't know any person who can create universes, and maintain them.

In any case, what is "a soul"?
Doesn't it belong to G-d, or is "from G-d" and will return to G-d?

Do you think that a non-material soul was created? Created from what?
As G-d is responsible for an apparently inexhaustible supply of souls, to say a person can be G-d
implies that this person consists of an infinite number of souls. Huh??

I believe the soul in humans began initially when…

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Genesis 2:7

I don’t think a human or any human can be God.
I’m saying that God, if He so chooses, could indwell human form, as I believe He did in the Person of Jesus Christ; the unique One and only Being-fully God/fully human, therefore Savior to bring reconciliation between God and humanity.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I’m saying that God, if He so chooses, could indwell human form, as I believe He did in the Person of Jesus Christ; the unique One and only Being-fully God/fully human, therefore Savior to bring reconciliation between God and humanity.

Repeating this does not address the issues that I have raised.

 

[InChrist]

Repeating this does not address the issues that I have raised.

Maybe I don’t fully understand the specific issue you brought up. Could you clarify it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Maybe I don’t fully understand the specific issue you brought up. Could you clarify it?

Perhaps read post #102 again, for example, and formulate a reply?

 

[Comradio251]

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man...nor a son of man.
1 Samuel 15:29 for he is not a man
Hosea 11:9 I am God and not a man
Job 9:32 For he is not a man

So four times, FOUR, the Tanakh repeats the same teaching. Wouldn't you think that makes it rather important?

I agree with you. I use to make this argument all of the time but many Christians insist that Jesus is God still. I've read the entire Tanakh too.

JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh 1999. 2,023 pages

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I’m not saying…someone can simultaneously be x and x. I am saying that

You are saying that God simultaneously is both not a man and a man. That's x and not x.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

what's the point of quoting scripture if you don't believe it as outlined?

Again, you are falsely accusing me of not believing the sacred texts, despite me clarifying this to you on a number of occasions. Until you admit that I do indeed "believe" the scriptures, albeit in a different way from you, I cannot reply.

 

[Soapy]

That’s not what I’m saying or believe, nor believe the scriptures teach. Jesus was/is fully God/fully human. The only such Being in existence, the Only Mediator between God and man. So in His humanity He knew the full human experience, suffering, and death. Yet, because He was God, He Alone had the capability to bear the sins of the world and rise again in victory over death and sin.

That’s not what the scriptures says.

And yuh dud t answer the questions I asked if you … for reasons you know well.

Why didn’t Jesus know the day of his return if he was God?

And it wasn’t God who would be returning, is it?

And his did God raise God from the dead … and seat God next to God… God, who says, ‘Beside(s) me there is no other God… no, I know not one.’?

And how is God the ‘lamb looking as though slaughtered’ standing in front of the throne on which God is seated?

Please, please, please answer these questions to show that you are a credible poster… thanks.

 

[Soapy]

Unless, it makes sense from God’s infinite perspective…

If, as I believe the scriptures reveal, Jesus was fully human, then He could humanly die, which He did on the cross. Yet, as fully God, then He could rise again in victory over death and sin. Thereby, being the only Mediator between God and man offering eternal life.

So your God died but you say that because he was God he could rise again… Raised up again BY GOD who didn’t die!!!?

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, you are falsely accusing me of not believing the sacred texts, despite me clarifying this to you on a number of occasions. Until you admit that I do indeed "believe" the scriptures, albeit in a different way from you, I cannot reply.

Many claim there was no such account of Moses and the Jews in the wilderness. They say it's a myth. Ok. So how to believe anything after that? Why? Especially in terms of genealogy. You're not the only one that doesn't like to be explicit. I find it interesting to see how people think. Sorry if I bothered you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, you are falsely accusing me of not believing the sacred texts, despite me clarifying this to you on a number of occasions. Until you admit that I do indeed "believe" the scriptures, albeit in a different way from you, I cannot reply.

Maybe you can repeat. Did Moses exist? Were the Jews following Moses through the Red Sea?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Many claim there was no such account of Moses and the Jews in the wilderness. They say it's a myth. Ok. So how to believe anything after that? Why? Especially in terms of genealogy. You're not the only one that doesn't like to be explicit. I find it interesting to see how people think. Sorry if I bothered you.

Again, until you admit that I do indeed believe in th Torah, albeit in a different way than you, I cannot continue to answer your questions.

 

[InChrist]

You are saying that God simultaneously is both not a man and a man. That's x and not x.

You think that’s what I’m saying, but that is not what I’m saying.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Maybe you can repeat. Did Moses exist? Were the Jews following Moses through the Red Sea?

Okay, I will repeat for the dozenth time. IT IS NO DIFFERENT than you believing in the Good Samaritan. You fully acknowledge that the Good Samaritan was not historical, yet you absolutely believe the story in what it teaches, that we should extend our hand in compassion to all regardless of ethnicity.

When you can acknowledge that this is a form of belief, then we can return to our discussions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, I will repeat for the dozenth time. IT IS NO DIFFERENT than you believing in the Good Samaritan. You fully acknowledge that the Good Samaritan was not historical, yet you absolutely believe the story in what it teaches, that we should extend our hand in compassion to all regardless of ethnicity.

When you can acknowledge that this is a form of belief, then we can return to our discussions.

In other words, no real answer from you. It is, by the way, quite a bit different. If you can't see the difference oh well.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Maybe you can repeat. Did Moses exist? Were the Jews following Moses through the Red Sea?

Okay, I will repeat for the dozenth time. IT IS NO DIFFERENT than you believing in the Good Samaritan. You fully acknowledge that the Good Samaritan was not historical, yet you absolutely believe the story in what it teaches, that we should extend our hand in compassion to all regardless of ethnicity.

When you can acknowledge that this is a form of belief, then we can return to our discussions.

In other words, no real answer from you. It is, by the way, quite a bit different. If you can't see the difference oh well.

still waiting

 

[InChrist]

It doesn't make any sense to me .. unless you think that God is a person.
Personally, I don't know any person who can create universes, and maintain them.

In any case, what is "a soul"?
Doesn't it belong to G-d, or is "from G-d" and will return to G-d?

Do you think that a non-material soul was created? Created from what?
As G-d is responsible for an apparently inexhaustible supply of souls, to say a person can be G-d
implies that this person consists of an infinite number of souls. Huh??

I think the eternal God is a personal Spiritual Being able to create and sustain the universe; not a created human person. Yet, humans are made in God’s image with personalities.

I think that the eternal Son of God entered into one human form; the Person Jesus Christ.

I don’t know what you mean when talking about …

G-d is responsible for an apparently inexhaustible supply of souls, to say a person can be G-d
implies that this person consists of an infinite number of souls.”

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, I will repeat for the dozenth time. IT IS NO DIFFERENT than you believing in the Good Samaritan. You fully acknowledge that the Good Samaritan was not historical, yet you absolutely believe the story in what it teaches, that we should extend our hand in compassion to all regardless of ethnicity.

When you can acknowledge that this is a form of belief, then we can return to our discussions.

Certainly I realize that you believe the account of Moses in the wilderness is a myth. I just wonder why someone cites from a book that they think is based on myths. What parts might you say are not mythical?