"THE LORD'S DAY IS THE SABBATH DAY NOT SUNDAY ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURES

[3rdAngel]

I made it clear in the post the you complained about being out of context.

At any rate I do not think that this is going anywhere. Even if we accept your argument the Commandments in Exodus 34 are totally different ones and the ones that would have been in the Ark of the Covenant.

You cannot show me can you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You cannot show me can you.

What? This makes no sense.

I am not sure what you are saying. I can quote the verses to you, but I cannot force you to understand them.

 

[3rdAngel]

What? This makes no sense.

I am not sure what you are saying. I can quote the verses to you, but I cannot force you to understand them.

Ok dear friend I lets talk more when you want to address my posts to you. Until then lets agree to disagree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

YawwnZzz. . Ok dear friend I lets talk more when you want to address my posts to you. Until then lets agree to disagree.

I have seen this problem before with people with an irrational belief. And this is what can cause new sects to form where two people disagree about an interpretation. One may be wrong or even both may be wrong, but they can never understand their opponents point of view. They cannot afford to because then they would have to admit that they are wrong. This is what happens when one wants to believe rather than wanting to know.

 

[3rdAngel]

I have seen this problem before with people with an irrational belief. And this is what can cause new sects to form where two people disagree about an interpretation. One may be wrong or even both may be wrong, but they can never understand their opponents point of view. They cannot afford to because then they would have to admit that they are wrong. This is what happens when one wants to believe rather than wanting to know.

Ok dear friend. We might leave it here. We will agree to disagree. For someone that does not believe in God you sure spend a lot of time talking about him. I am not interested in personal attacks from you. To me that is just a sign of someone that cannot keep to a discussion because they have no answers to what is being discussed with them. There is no need not to be respectful in our discussions. Being polite and addressing the posts contents and OP goes along way for friendly discussion in my view. I will leave you with the last say as I think you need it more than I do. Take Care.

Full context to our earlier discussion here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok dear friend. We might leave it here. We will agree to disagree. Take Care.

No, in this issue you are just wrong. There is no agreeing. If you saw me debate with others you will see that I have said that one can prove that specific versions of God does not exist.. I have also said that you cannot disprove a general God.

 

[blü 2]

I am not interested in playing build the paper tiger and tear it down. I never asked the question does a real God exist. I was an Atheist and God proved me wrong. So I know the arguments. I am challenging the claims of the member Subduction Zone that he has evidence that God does not exist. He made the claim so I asked him for the
proof. All I have heard so far is silence with him asking me to prove his claim that he has evidence God does not exist.

But if [he] doesn't even have a description appropriate to a real being, what real thing are we talking about when the subject is "God"?

Christians are not to do this. Yet many professing Christians do. Keep in mind even the Devil used scripture to try and tempt Jesus away from following God and His Word (see Matthew 4:6). There has always been people abusing and twisting the scriptures for their own advantage to their own destruction according to *2 Peter 3:16 because they do not understand them.

The scriptures mentioned in the NT are the Tanakh ─ the NT didn't exist when they were written.

 

[3rdAngel]

But if [he] doesn't even have a description appropriate to a real being, what real thing are we talking about when the subject is "God"?

Why would he? Follow the discussion he was making the claims that there is no God and has evidence for it. We are in a Christian forum. Full context to the discussion here.

The scriptures mentioned in the NT are the Tanakh ─ the NT didn't exist when they were written.

That does not mean that the new testament is not scripture. Everything in the new testament comes from the old testament scriptures pointing to Jesus as Gods' promised Messiah and God of creation. The definition of scripture is given in 2 Timothy 3:16 where it says "all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" unless your trying to argue that Gods' Messiah in Jesus was not inspired by God and did not speak Gods' Words. If that is your view I do not agree with it. If Jesus is Gods' promised Messiah and spoke Gods' Words then the new testament is also scripture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would he? Follow the discussion he was making the claims that there is no God and has evidence for it. We are in a Christian forum. Full context to our earlier discussion here.

That does not mean that the new testament is not scripture. Everything in the new testament comes from the old testament scriptures pointing to Jesus as Gods' promised Messiah and God of creation. The definition of scripture is given in 2 Timothy 3:16 where it says "all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" unless your trying to argue that Gods' Messiah in Jesus was not inspired by God and did not speak Gods' Words.

On my! You still cannot follow context. Did I say "God"? No I was referring to your make believe version of God. As you see I am not the only one that sees it this way. Not only that I specifically asked you where I sad that there is no God. I wanted to see that I made such a claim.

You keep assuming that your God is the right one. That is an assumption that you have not been able to justify.

And worse yet, I bet that you do not understand the Bible verse that you referred to. Literalists almost never can understand that one. You surely do not understand 2 Timothy 3 18.

 

[3rdAngel]

On my! You still cannot follow context. Did I say "God"? No I was referring to your make believe version of God. As you see I am not the only one that sees it this way. Not only that I specifically asked you where I sad that there is no God. I wanted to see that I made such a claim.

You keep assuming that your God is the right one. That is an assumption that you have not been able to justify.

Stop making paper dragons... I have not made any assumptions.

Full context to the discussion here for all to see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stop making paper dragons... I have not made any assumptions.

Full context to the discussion here.

Sure you have. You keep repeating the same error.

I never said that I could refute God. Your God is not the only one in the biz.

 

[3rdAngel]

Sure you have. You keep repeating the same error.

I never said that I could refute God. Your God is not the only one in the biz.

Sorry I do not believe you

Full context to the discussion here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry I do not believe you

Full context to the discussion here.

You can check my posts when I have argued the concept before.

It is both foolish and rude to say "I don't believe you" to someone that constantly tells you how you can check to see if he is telling the truth or not.

 

[Soapy]

Your settings might have caused those sites to give you the American spelling:

Learn English: Practise or practice?.

The noun is spelled the same as here, but he used the word as a verb.

"In Australian and British English, 'practise' is the verb and 'practice' is the noun. In American English, 'practice' is both the verb and the noun."

It is not wise to try to correct the language that a native speaker uses.

Oh, you mean like how people don’t know the difference between ‘Then’ and ‘Than’?

But, 0k. But how is ‘Practise’ related to ‘Practical’?

 

[blü 2]

Why would he? Follow the discussion he was making the claims that there is no God and has evidence for it. We are in a Christian forum. Full context to the discussion here.

My observation applies to all the gods I'm aware of, including the Christian god. In what sense can any god, Christian god included, be said to be real and yet have no definition or description appropriate to a real being?

That does not mean that the new testament is not scripture.

But it means that any reference to 'scripture' in the NT refers only to the Tanakh, not the NT. There is no coherent meaning to the idea of 'Christian scripture' till the 4th century CE. Whatever later people thought, it's not what the authors of the NT could have thought ─ they were Jews and Scripture meant the Tanakh.

If Jesus is Gods' promised Messiah and spoke Gods' Words then the new testament is also scripture.

As I said, not in the minds of the authors of the NT.

 

[3rdAngel]

My observation applies to all the gods I'm aware of, including the Christian god. In what sense can any god, Christian god included, be said to be real and yet have no definition or description appropriate to a real being?

I personally do not think your observation is relevant or even that it is an observation if I am being honest with you. Its kind of like me eating an apple and asking you what does the apple taste like. There is a saying, "There is he that has had the experience and no explanation is necessary (me eating and tasting the apple - finding God is real) and there is he that has not had the experience and no explanation is possible (me asking you what my apple tastes like - you not finding God is real). We can never find God while we walk the path of sin and unbelief when faith is the condition to knowing God according to the scriptures.

But it means that any reference to 'scripture' in the NT refers only to the Tanakh, not the NT. There is no coherent meaning to the idea of 'Christian scripture' till the 4th century CE. Whatever later people thought, it's not what the authors of the NT could have thought ─ they were Jews and Scripture meant the Tanakh. As I said, not in the minds of the authors of the NT.

I do not believe that is true at all. 2 Timothy 3:16 is simply a definition of what scripture is. Scripture is defined as being God's words for mankind inspired by God. This definition makes all the words of Jesus and the Apostles and therefore the NT scripture. I would disagree it was not in the minds of the NT authors. John calls Jesus God in John 1:1-4; 14 as does Paul and the other Apostles fitting the bibles definition of scripture.

 

[blü 2]

I personally do not think your observation is relevant. Its kind of like me eating an apple and asking you what does the apple taste like. There is a saying, "There is he that has had the experience and no explanation is necessary (me eating and tasting the apple - finding God is real) and there is he that has not had the experience and no explanation is possible (me asking you what my apple tastes like - you not finding God is real). We can never find God while we walk the path of sin and unbelief when faith is the condition to knowing God according to the scriptures.

I simply point out that the view you propose is consistent with God being an idea coupled with an internal emotional experience. I define "real" as "having objective existence ie existing in the world external to the self". It seems obvious to me that if God were "real" in that sense, [he]'d have a definition and description appropriate to a real entity, just as real animals and birds and fish and insects and microorganisms and so on do.

I do not believe that is true at all. 2 Timothy 3:16 is simply a definition of what scripture is.

2 Timothy 3:16 says:

All scripture (γραφή - picture, drawing, writing, document, but in this context also 'scripture')
is inspired by God (θεόπνευστος)
and [implicitly and therefore]
profitable (ὠφέλιμος ─ helping, aiding, useful, serviceable, beneficial)
for teaching,
for reproof,
for correction, and
for training in righteousness.

(Note that no claim is made that γραφή is infallible, or to any extent free from error ─ merely that it can be useful for the purposes mentioned.)

I don't agree that this can refer to the NT ─ which doesn't exist at this time.

And I don't agree that this serves as a meaningful definition of "scripture". What objective test will tell me whether any particular body of writing is "inspired by God" or not? Or whether any part of it is NOT inspired by God? Without such a test, "scripture" is merely anything I'd like it to be, and never what I wouldn't like it to be.

 

[3rdAngel]

I simply point out that the view you propose is consistent with God being an idea coupled with an internal emotional experience. I define "real" as "having objective existence ie existing in the world external to the self". It seems obvious to me that if God were "real" in that sense, [he]'d have a definition and description appropriate to a real entity, just as real animals and birds and fish and insects and microorganisms and so on do.

As highlighted in the last post. You hold a view of someone that does not know God trying to talk to someone that does know God. As explained earlier it is like me taking a bite of an apple and asking you what does my apple taste like. You can never know it because you do not know God. We can never know God or find God unless we first come to God by faith which is the condition to knowing God. *Jeremiah 29:13; Hebrews 11:6. Take a bite of the apple what have you got to lose. There is many things we cannot see in life but we know are there one way or another (wind, electricity, sound waves, emotions etc). Just because we cannot see something does not mean it is not real.

2 Timothy 3:16 says: All scripture (γραφή - picture, drawing, writing, document, but in this context also 'scripture') is inspired by God (θεόπνευστος) and [implicitly and therefore]
profitable (ὠφέλιμος ─ helping, aiding, useful, serviceable, beneficial) for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (Note that no claim is made that γραφή is infallible, or to any extent free from error ─ merely that it can be useful for the purposes mentioned.) I don't agree that this can refer to the NT ─ which doesn't exist at this time. And I don't agree that this serves as a meaningful definition of "scripture". What objective test will tell me whether any particular body of writing is "inspired by God" or not? Or whether any part of it is NOT inspired by God? Without such a test, "scripture" is merely anything I'd like it to be, and never what I wouldn't like it to be.

There is nothing you have posted here that from the Greek that is in disagreement with what I posted to you earlier. In fact you ignored a very important section. I think you missed the point of my last post while ignoring the definition of scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 and that is πᾶς γραφή θεόπνευστος which you ignored states that all scripture or the definition of scripture is that it is God breathed or inspired by God. 2 Timothy 3:16 here is simply a definition of what scripture is. Scripture is defined as being God's words for mankind inspired by God. As posted earlier this was in the minds of the Apostles and the NT authors. John calls Jesus God in John 1:1-4; 14 as does Paul and the other Apostles fitting the bibles definition of scripture. Therefore all the NT is God's inspired Words that have their origin from the old testament scriptures and their fulfillment in the NT scriptures. This definition makes all the words of Jesus and the Apostles in the NT scripture according to 2 Timothy 3:16.

Take Care.

 

[blü 2]

As highlighted in the last post. You hold a view of someone that does not know God trying to talk to someone that does know God. As explained earlier it is like me taking a bite of an apple and asking you what does my apple taste like. You can never know it because you do not know God. We can never know God or find God unless we first come to God by faith which is the condition to knowing God. *Jeremiah 29:13; Hebrews 11:6. Take a bite of the apple what have you got to lose. There is many things we cannot see in life but we know are there one way or another (wind, electricity, sound waves, emotions etc). Just because we cannot see something does not mean it is not real.

We are agreed, then, that God does not exist external to the individual mind.

I think you missed the point of my last post while ignoring the definition of scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 and that is πᾶς γραφή θεόπνευστος which you ignored states that all scripture or the definition of scripture is that it is God breathed or inspired by God.

I don't think I missed the point. I think you missed the point, in failing to provide the test, necessarily objective, that will tell the reader whether what she or he is reading is god-inspired or not. Without such a test, "God-inspired" is just an opinion, not a factual state of affairs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, you mean like how people don’t know the difference between ‘Then’ and ‘Than’?

But, 0k. But how is ‘Practise’ related to ‘Practical’?

Weird questions. Just own up to your error. You tried to claim that a person that understood his own language better than you do that he was wrong

In America we tried to "fix" the English language at one point. It did not take long to realize that we could not do so. "ough" alone is a huge problem. But as a result we dropped some of the superfluous "u"s changed the endings of some words from "re" to "er". Made much more liberal use of the letter "z", and a few other "corrections". Yet I still see you using a "u" in savior. There is no real reason to have it in the US. You are probably just copying your KJV Bible.

I was so tempted to "correct" your spelling of "saviour". after that post of yours. <and Google is trying to get me to change it too>