Jesus is God.

[Muffled]

1 John 3:20 "God knows all things" ok so here is a quality of god.

Matthew 24:36
"only the father knows the day and the hour"
That means that the son and the spirit did not know the day or the hour, thus cannot be god.

No I believe it does not mean that.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus is separate from god, this is what the bible teaches in light of these passages:
1. John chapter 1:1 (depending if you render God or a god)
2. Philippians 2:5-7 This is telling us that the person of Jesus Christ emptied himself and did not see equality with god a thing to be grasped. Now the question become When did Jesus empty himself? and when did the person of Jesus come into existence? When did Jesus become Jesus at birth? Was god called Jesus before he was manifest on earth?
3. John 17:5 now father glorify me (Jesus) with the glory I (Jesus) had before the world was. Who or what was at the fathers side before the world was?

4. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 here there are 2 persons talked about, the father, and the son. and the son is subjecting himself to the father. Revelation 3:12 Jesus while in heaven calls the father his god, so he must exist alongside the father.

5. Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is the exact copy of god. greek word charaktér= a reproduction of god

I believe there are no passages that teach that.

 

[Muffled]

What I am telling you is common sense, a child could understand:
1. God is omniscient, Omnipotent, and omnipresent anything less and he is not god.
2. The Bible my final authority says that only the father knows all thing Matthew 24:36 only the father. But the 1 John 3:20 says God knows all things.
3. The Bible does not teach a Trinity.

The Bible does teach The Trinity. If you are teaching something else it isn't from the Bible but from your own mind.

 

[anonymous9887]

It need not be an either/or dichotomy. I have no doubt that there are truths found within the scriptures but also falsehoods and half-truths.

my point being is, the truth found in the bible is it mere observation of a man? Because if we are going off his words, how can he possibly know future events to come in complete accuracy? If its not by divine inspiration then what formula did the man use to make these accurate predictions?

 

[metis]

my point being is, the truth found in the bible is it mere observation of a man? Because if we are going off his words, how can he possibly know future events to come in complete accuracy? If its not by divine inspiration then what formula did the man use to make these accurate predictions?

The rather uncomfortable fact is that we cannot objectively verify any answers to the above, and beliefs are, well, just beliefs.

Therefore, if a person says "I believe...", I generally don't have a problem with that, but it's when they go beyond that to cite their religious beliefs as if they were facts is where I do have a problem. Beliefs are generally fine & dandy, but we should also realize their limitations, especially if there is little or no objectively-derived evidence to support them.

 

[anonymous9887]

That only "works" if the interpretation of the supposed prophecies are correct, plus whether the subject in these supposed prophecies actually referred to a messianic leader or maybe someone else.

Like with real estate where it's location-location-location, with scriptural analysis it's interpretation-interpretation-interpretation. I assume you've been involved in biblical discussions, so how many times have you seen two or more people disagreeing on how a particular verse or narrative should be rendered?

Also, let me just ask to which extent do you believe that the scriptures were "divinely inspired", plus why do you take that position versus another? For example, is every word 100% accurate? or is it just the narratives? or is it some of the narratives? or is it that the only divine inspiration was that the authors were encouraged to write about what they believed? or...?

yes many people have many different interpretations on a text, but now you have to question the persons knowledge of the scriptures all together. I dont know the person or if he has feelings attached to the position that he is taking, all we can do is discuss the topic with all the scriptures relevant to the topic and make a choice. Not all people are reasonable, even scholars are unreasonable, I believe that attitude has a lot to do with their misunderstandings. If people looked at anything whether Quran, the Veda's, bible(Hebrew and/ or Greek) and any other writing, they should be given a chance, but now we have to come up with a criteria which to judge the writings. Open mind as oppposed to shutting everything down.


I believe the bible has:
1. History
2. Poetry
3. Prophecy
4. non viable scribal errors
5. Viable scribal errors still dont change the text very much either.
6. god's overall message in there
7. with the variants I would say the bible is at 95% accuracy

 

[anonymous9887]

The rather uncomfortable fact is that we cannot objectively verify any answers to the above, and beliefs are, well, just beliefs.

Therefore, if a person says "I believe...", I generally don't have a problem with that, but it's when they go beyond that to cite their religious beliefs as if they were facts is where I do have a problem. Beliefs are generally fine & dandy, but we should also realize their limitations, especially if there is little or no objectively-derived evidence to support them.

This is where I differ from your view. Because when you study the bible for example and you find the accuracy in the bible, you realize that man could not have possibly wrote it. We have things that we can observe that can verify facts in the bible, have you looked at all the evidence, including but not limited to archaeological evidence? If you tell me you have looked at all there is to look at then decide it cant be true then okay. But if you haven't, you haven't given the bible a fair chance fair chance.

 

[anonymous9887]

I believe there are no passages that teach that.

Well im showing them to you.

 

[metis]

...7. with the variants I would say the bible is at 95% accuracy

It is virtually impossible to even get close to verifying that as we do not have the originals to go by, which we would have to have to get to that number.

Because of my former occupation (I'm retired), I had to study myriads of religions with all sorts of teachings and histories, and I have yet over my 71 years to meet a fellow anthropologist who tends to take a my-way-or-the-highway approach to religion. We know that we simply cannot verify or deny most religious beliefs.

Let me give an example: "This universe was made by the Cosmic Godzilla who formed planets from his spit-wads and stars to his spit-wads set aflame by his burning breath." Prove me wrong.

Or show why there cannot be numerous gods.

So, to repeat, I don't have a problem with belief, but I do with certainty about one's belief.

 

[anonymous9887]

The Bible does teach The Trinity. If you are teaching something else it isn't from the Bible but from your own mind.

The word trinity is not even in the bible.

According to your theology the Jesus and the holy spirit are not all knowing but they are still god Matthew 24:36.

God(the father) knows all things the bible teaches this. 1 John 3:20
the holy spirit and Jesus do not know the day or the hour. They don't know all things.
So they cannot be god because they don't know all things.
You don't want to accept what the bible is teaching. Im just quoting passages. 1 John 3:20, Matthew 24:36 not my words.

 

[metis]

This is where I differ from your view. Because when you study the bible for example and you find the accuracy in the bible, you realize that man could not have possibly wrote it. We have things that we can observe that can verify facts in the bible, have you looked at all the evidence, including but not limited to archaeological evidence? If you tell me you have looked at all there is to look at then decide it cant be true then okay. But if you haven't, you haven't given the bible a fair chance fair chance.

I studied theology here and in Israel, plus taught it for many years, so I not only gave it a fair chance, I still read it every day and meditate on its many inspirational messages. But I also do the same with Buddhist and Hindu texts, plus some others.

I never have believed that any religion or philosophy has some sort of monopoly on the Truth.

 

[anonymous9887]

It is virtually impossible to even get close to verifying that as we do not have the originals to go by, which we would have to have to get to that number.

Because of my former occupation (I'm retired), I had to study myriads of religions with all sorts of teachings and histories, and I have yet over my 71 years to meet a fellow anthropologist who tends to take a my-way-or-the-highway approach to religion. We know that we simply cannot verify or deny most religious beliefs.

Let me give an example: "This universe was made by the Cosmic Godzilla who formed planets from his spit-wads and stars to his spit-wads set aflame by his burning breath." Prove me wrong.

Or show why there cannot be numerous gods.

So, to repeat, I don't have a problem with belief, but I do with certainty about one's belief.

Okay that Could be one criteria.
If someone makes up a story and wants us to take it as fact but only tells us a story then I would declare it as uninspired. Because the creator of the universe would provide a factual story along with verifiable proof. God revealing things only he could have known at the time. Job 26:7 The earth is suspended upon nothing, even though this was not the popular belief in Job's time.

 

[metis]

Okay that Could be one criteria.
If someone makes up a story and wants us to take it as fact but only tells us a story then I would declare it as uninspired. Because the creator of the universe would provide a factual story along with verifiable proof. God revealing things only he could have known at the time. Job 26:7 The earth is suspended upon nothing, even though this was not the popular belief in Job's time.

We gotta stop from meeting like this because people will begin to ask questions.

Anyhow, as to the above, our first duty in order to verify what you are asserting is to prove that there's a "God" and that this "God" has actually done what you are saying he/she/its done. The writing of the scriptures is a very complicated set of questions & answers, and as time has gone on and our studies continue, it's even far more complicated than what we even though only a century ago.

I can elaborate on the above but I have to leave for the day, so...

Take care.

 

[anonymous9887]

I studied theology here and in Israel, plus taught it for many years, so I not only gave it a fair chance, I still read it every day and meditate on its many inspirational messages. But I also do the same with Buddhist and Hindu texts, plus some others.

I never have believed that any religion or philosophy has some sort of monopoly on the Truth.

So basically, what are we looking at when we think inspiration?
1. When something is inspired of god , it means that the manuscripts are reflecting god's thoughts and knowledge.
2. If you tell me Buddhist and other religions based on human concept and good morals is only what those manuscripts contain, then can we call something inspired something that a man compiled from his own experience and observation? I would say no because he used the power of wisdom and observation. So yes writings from god should contain good morals, but by itself proves no divine inspiration(because it is something that can be observed).
3. So the main question I ask myself is "where did these writings originate from?". Did they originate from god's thoughts or man's. Why are these text different from all the other text's? Does this text provide something unique that separates it from all the other books?
4. So far we have Identified 2 measures:
- Does this book provide information that would not be known otherwise?
- Does it provide very practical wisdom?
5. So bottom line let us continue with the conversation and lets find a reasonable measure together. A book that Just has stories that cannot be verified is not sufficient enough to claim it is truth or of divine origin, this does not reflect the intelligent creator of the universe. A book solely with morals is also not enough because it is observable, but if you know of a book that contains both of these then we can continue observing the book until we establish another criteria that proves that the book was not of divine inspiration.

 

[anonymous9887]

No I believe it does not mean that.

ok so tell me what it means for nobody to know the day or the hour not the angels in heaven, nor the son, but "ONLY" the father.

Please explain that to mean.
Please provide any form of evidence whether manuscripts or references, or if your saying thats not what a word means provide evidence it means something else. Otherwise you are expecting me to believe your thoughts if you are arguing for the trinitarian position.

 

[anonymous9887]

We gotta stop from meeting like this because people will begin to ask questions.

Anyhow, as to the above, our first duty in order to verify what you are asserting is to prove that there's a "God" and that this "God" has actually done what you are saying he/she/its done. The writing of the scriptures is a very complicated set of questions & answers, and as time has gone on and our studies continue, it's even far more complicated than what we even though only a century ago.

I can elaborate on the above but I have to leave for the day, so...

Take care.

BTW I love people to ask questions. ignorance and lack of research is the enemy in my eyes, regarding any matter.

Not sure what you meant, but ok

 

[metis]

So basically, what are we looking at when we think inspiration?
1. When something is inspired of god , it means that the manuscripts are reflecting god's thoughts and knowledge.
2. If you tell me Buddhist and other religions based on human concept and good morals is only what those manuscripts contain, then can we call something inspired something that a man compiled from his own experience and observation? I would say no because he used the power of wisdom and observation. So yes writings from god should contain good morals, but by itself proves no divine inspiration(because it is something that can be observed).
3. So the main question I ask myself is "where did these writings originate from?". Did they originate from god's thoughts or man's. Why are these text different from all the other text's? Does this text provide something unique that separates it from all the other books?
4. So far we have Identified 2 measures:
- Does this book provide information that would not be known otherwise?
- Does it provide very practical wisdom?
5. So bottom line let us continue with the conversation and lets find a reasonable measure together. A book that Just has stories that cannot be verified is not sufficient enough to claim it is truth or of divine origin, this does not reflect the intelligent creator of the universe. A book solely with morals is also not enough because it is observable, but if you know of a book that contains both of these then we can continue observing the book until we establish another criteria that proves that the book was not of divine inspiration.

There's no where for me to go on the above because we're on two different planes.

So, let me just say, and I may be repeating myself, that I really do not assume much of anything w/o some objectively-derived evidence to warrant such a leap of faith. Therefore, I tend to take the position of whatever happened, happened.

Secondly, I read the various scriptures and philosophies, select out that which seems to be more beneficial in an inspirational and moral way, and utilize those. I try my best to keep an open mind, and sometimes I've changed it, and some of these changes were quite major.

So, when I read the Bible, I do so from a pragmatic viewpoint in terms of what lessons are being taught and which of those can help me and possibly others. I don't have reason to believe in miracles, although I don't go so far as to claim there can't be any, so the questions like "Did that really happen?" is something that I simply do not get hung up on.

This is, in general, where I'm coming from, therefore the issue of "divine inspiration" is pretty much just academic to me. Thus, you can see why I said above that we are on "different planes".

 

[anonymous9887]

There's no where for me to go on the above because we're on two different planes.

So, let me just say, and I may be repeating myself, that I really do not assume much of anything w/o some objectively-derived evidence to warrant such a leap of faith. Therefore, I tend to take the position of whatever happened, happened.

Secondly, I read the various scriptures and philosophies, select out that which seems to be more beneficial in an inspirational and moral way, and utilize those. I try my best to keep an open mind, and sometimes I've changed it, and some of these changes were quite major.

So, when I read the Bible, I do so from a pragmatic viewpoint in terms of what lessons are being taught and which of those can help me and possibly others. I don't have reason to believe in miracles, although I don't go so far as to claim there can't be any, so the questions like "Did that really happen?" is something that I simply do not get hung up on.

This is, in general, where I'm coming from, therefore the issue of "divine inspiration" is pretty much just academic to me. Thus, you can see why I said above that we are on "different planes".

So you are basically saying that none of it can be proven either by logic or the physical evidence that exist's today? Right or wrong?
If that position that I stated is correct, have you seen all there is to see to prove the bible is the word of god?

 

[metis]

So you are basically saying that none of it can be proven either by logic or the physical evidence that exist's today? Right or wrong?
If that position that I stated is correct, have you seen all there is to see to prove the bible is the word of god?

Correct to the first point; incorrect to the second, imo. As long as there are other options than a theistic cause, and there certainly is, then we cannot assume either-- and I don't.

Also, even if one could establish a theistic causation, it certainly falls way short of giving us any information as to whether it even involves a single god, let alone whether this deity is being reflected in the Bible.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Well if God wanted to be like a man once I guess he might be born of a woman.
It's called a belief a single belief
you jumped to schizophrenia as if that was scientific.
Once again its a belief.

Think about it, Jesus got Mary pregnant and then had her give birth to him? That is impossible.