Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men? [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

Richard Amiel McGough

08-24-2012, 03:34 PM

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
I am a Christian and have the deepest respect for God's inspired Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible. I invite fellow Christians to participate in the questions for discussion. Two of the most basic teachings in Christendom are as follows:

1. THE TRINITY
The teaching that God is split up into three individual persons that are combined into one "Godhead" (Father, Son, and holy ghost/holy spirit). All three of these persons are said to be CO-EQUAL (meaning they have the same amount of power) and CO-ETERNAL (meaning they have always existed at the same time and none of them can die).

2. HELLFIRE
The teaching that God will burn a person's soul in everlasting hellfire for committing wicked deeds. In other words, God will supposedly punish people forever in fiery flames of hell--despite the fact the crimes the persons committed were only done during the persons' brief human lifespan.

Hey there Alter2Ego, :yo:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

It looks like you have much to contribute to our conversations. :thumb:

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Are there scriptures in the Bible to support the teachings of Trinity and hellfire? If so, present the scriptures by giving Bible book, chapter, and verse and also explain why you believe the scripture you present is talking about Trinity or literal hellfire.

There are many Scriptures that have led devout Bible-believing Christians to believe in the Trinity. Specifically, all the verses that present Christ as Creator and Lord (e.g. John 1, Colossians 1, Philippians 2, etc.). I presume you are familiar with them. This issue was hashed out in great detail by the church in the first few centuries. Have you studied the history of how the doctrine developed?

As for hellfire - This is much less clear. Scripture gives a wide variety of possibilities spanning everything from annihilation of the wicked, eternal hellfire, to universal salvation. After many years of study I concluded that the Bible is not sufficiently lucid on this point for anyone to know the truth with certainty.

2. Why are these teachings found in pagan/false religions that never worshipped the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible? For instance there were pagan trinities at least 200 years before Jesus came to the earth as a human as well as during the 1st century AD when Jesus Christ was on earth.

In the 2nd century B.C.E. (two centuries before Christ came to the earth), Egypt had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Horus, (2) Osiris, and (3) Isis.

I'm not sure if there is any meaningful correlation between those pagan "trinities" and the Christian doctrine. But even if there are similarities, there is absolutely no reason to think that the Christian doctrine was based on the pagan trinities in any way at all. This is totally obvious to anyone who has studied the history of Christianity. The doctrine of the Trinity was motivated entirely by two things: 1) Early Christian practice of worshiping Christ as God, and 2) tensions within Scripture which appear to present Christ as both God and Man. I have never seen any evidence that would suggest that he early Christians were copying the trinity from pagan religions. Why would you suggest such a thing?

3. If the Trinity and hellfire are Bible teachings, why is it that Jesus and his apostles who followed him around never taught anyone about the Trinity and literal hellfire?

Many Christians would disagree with your assertions. Many see Christ's statement "Before Abraham was, I Am" as direct assertion that he was Yahweh.

Likewise, the question of whether Christ and his apostles taught about "literal" hellfire is a question of interpretation. The same question could be raised on many points. For example, the Catholics take Christ's words "This is my flesh" as literal but Protestants do not. So it makes no sense to merely assert that you non-literal interpretation is correct without providing evidence.

4. How is it that both the Trinity and hellfire teachings did not become "Christian" teachings until the Roman Catholics copied both of them from pagan/false religions--AFTER the resurrected Jesus Christ returned to heaven?

You will need to provide evidence that the "Roman Catholics" copied the doctrine of the Trinity. I've been studying these topics for decades and have never seen any evidence supporting that assertion.

5. If hell is a place of literal fiery torment, how is it that the Bible says Jesus went to hell for the entire three days that he was dead?

"He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that HIS SOUL WAS NOT LEFT IN HELL, neither his flesh did see corruption." (Acts 2:31--King James Version)

The Bible does not say that Jesus went to "hell." That's a translational error. The text says "hades" in the Greek and "sheol" in the Hebrew (which was being quoted).

6. If hell is a place of literal torment, why is it that the word "hell" also means "Sheol" and "Hades" and "the grave"?

Good question. That's why I think there is much confusion about hell.

7. Does the Bible teach that humans have an immortal soul that survives the death of the person so that the soul can then be burned in eternal flames? If so, please present scriptures to this effect to prove it.

The Bible is not lucid on this point.

8. Are the words "Trinity" and "Godhead" in the Bible? If so, were those words part of the original writings?
The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. The word "Godhead" is a translation of the Greek theiotes which could just mean "divinity" or "divine nature" or "deity" which is how many modern translations render it.

Interesting questions!

Richard

Alter2Ego

08-25-2012, 02:34 PM

Hey there Alter2Ego, :yo:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

It looks like you have much to contribute to our conversations. :thumb:
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Hello, and thanks for the welcome. It's kind of you to say that I might be able to contribute to the conversation on this forum.

There are many Scriptures that have led devout Bible-believing Christians to believe in the Trinity. Specifically, all the verses that present Christ as Creator and Lord (e.g. John 1, Colossians 1, Philippians 2, etc.). I presume you are familiar with them.
Thanks for the heads up, Richard, But I'm well aware that members of Christendom are notorious for believing Jehovah is a 3-prong god (Trinity). Perhaps a fellow Christian will one day quote a verse of scripture and--while paying attention to context (the surrounding words, verses, and chapters)--show where it specifically says God is three different persons or three different gods combined into the fabricated "Godhead."

BTW: None of the scriptures you presented above can be used as support for the pagan trinity.

Alter2Ego

08-25-2012, 11:32 PM

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Are there scriptures in the Bible to support the teachings of Trinity and hellfire? If so, present the scriptures by giving Bible book, chapter, and verse and also explain why you believe the scripture you present is talking about Trinity or literal hellfire.
This issue was hashed out in great detail by the church in the first few centuries. Have you studied the history of how the doctrine developed?
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
The trinity dogma is very familiar territory for me. I've discussed it at several other forums, many of which I no longer participate at. And yes, I'm well aware of how the dogma got started.

Alter2Ego

08-26-2012, 12:14 AM

2. Why are these teachings found in pagan/false religions that never worshipped the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible? For instance there were pagan trinities at least 200 years before Jesus came to the earth as a human as well as during the 1st century AD when Jesus Christ was on earth.

In the 2nd century B.C.E. (two centuries before Christ came to the earth), Egypt had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Horus, (2) Osiris, and (3) Isis.
I'm not sure if there is any meaningful correlation between those pagan "trinities" and the Christian doctrine.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Perhaps you will eventually see the correlation between the pagan trinities and Christendom's trinity during my discussion with fellow Christians on this topic.

But even if there are similarities, there is absolutely no reason to think that the Christian doctrine was based on the pagan trinities in any way at all. This is totally obvious to anyone who has studied the history of Christianity.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
You said you've studied the history of Christianity but can't see the connection between pagan trinities and Christendom's trinity. And so, based upon your inability to see the connection between the two, you are now opining that nobody else who has studied the history of Christianity can see the connection. That's your opinion. You do realize opinions are not facts; right? I have studied the history of Christianity, and the link between the pagan trinities and Christendom's trinity is abundantly clear to me.

David M

08-26-2012, 01:00 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:

[COLOR="#000080"]ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
You said you've studied the history of Christianity but can't see the connection between pagan trinities and Christendom's trinity. And so, based upon your inability to see the connection between the two, you are now opining that nobody else who has studied the history of Christianity can see the connection. That's your opinion. You do realize opinions are not facts; right? I have studied the history of Christianity, and the link between the pagan trinities and Christendom's trinity is abundantly clear to me.

Hello Alter2ego
Here is a topic we agree on though I have not done the research into pagan trinities as you have done. I trust we can resolve the differences we have on other matters of God's word in order that we might both get nearer to all the truth of God's word. I look forward to you presenting your case on these matters.

All the best,

David

Alter2Ego

08-26-2012, 02:53 AM

Hello Alter2ego
Here is a topic we agree on though I have not done the research into pagan trinities as you have done. I trust we can resolve the differences we have on other matters of God's word in order that we might both get nearer to all the truth of God's word. I look forward to you presenting your case on these matters.

All the best,

David
ALTER2EGO -to- DAVID M:
I am sure we will have very fruitful discussions. But it is important that we allow God's Word, the Bible, to resolve differences. If that does not happen, we will simply disagree but will do so respectfully.

Looking forward to our dialogues.

Alter2Ego

08-26-2012, 05:00 AM

Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

3. If the Trinity and hellfire are Bible teachings, why is it that Jesus and his apostles who followed him around never taught anyone about the Trinity and literal hellfire?
Many Christians would disagree with your assertions. Many see Christ's statement "Before Abraham was, I Am" as direct assertion that he was Yahweh.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
I am sure they will disagree with me, being that trinity and hellfire are the basic doctrines of Christendom. However, you referred to an out-of-context verse in your quotation above. To make matters worse, the expression "Before Abraham was, I Am" is a deliberate translation blunder by Trinitarian Bible translators. That verse can easily be debunked.

Alter2Ego

08-26-2012, 05:34 AM

I have never seen any evidence that would suggest that he early Christians were copying the trinity from pagan religions. Why would you suggest such a thing?
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
I presented evidence in my OP of the Catholics (who I don't regard as "early Christians") copying the trinity from pagans, and here you are saying you've never seen any evidence. I can't make people accept evidence if they choose not to; now can I?

BTW: Which early Christians are you referring to? I clarified in Question 3 of my opening post that those who accompanied Jesus Christ in the Bible did not promote the trinity and hellfire dogmas. Those are the early Christians I was referring to. I also stated in Question 4 of my opening post that the Catholic Church began formulating the pagan trinity after Jesus Christ returned to heavenly life, meaning the Catholic Church is responsible for the pagan Trinity making its way into Christianity.

sylvius

08-26-2012, 06:31 AM

the expression "Before Abraham was,[/COLOR] I Am" is a deliberate translation blunder by Trinitarian Bible translators. That verse can easily be debunked.

Please explain !

duxrow

08-26-2012, 06:54 AM

Trinity
:talk002:
2Cor5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Looking forward to our 'New one'.!

1Thes5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We're a Trinity, too!

Heb4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the <u> dividing asunder of soul and spirit</u>, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
If they can be divided, they aren't the same, but different.

Mark5:13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand) and were choked in the sea.
Guess the pigs preferred death to being unholy occupied.:thumb:

David M

08-26-2012, 08:54 AM

Mark5:13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand) and were choked in the sea. :thumb:

Guess the pigs preferred death to being unholy occupied.

This episode used to make me wonder why so many pigs and why kill the pigs? Until I was informed that it was not proper for the Jews to keep pigs as pigs were not to be eaten according to the law given to Moses. The owner of the pigs could not complain for having his herd destroyed. We are being taught a lesson here besides witnessing a miracle of healing.

All the best.

David

Alter2Ego

08-26-2012, 09:28 AM

You will need to provide evidence that the "Roman Catholics" copied the doctrine of the Trinity. I've been studying these topics for decades and have never seen any evidence supporting that assertion.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
The finger of blame points directly at the Roman Catholic Church and their crucial involvement at the 325 AD Council of Nicaea, and then their involvement at the 381 AD Council of Constantinople. I thought you said you studied these topics. Yet, you missed those two landmark events that culminated in the official formulation of Christendom's Trinity and the direct involvement of the Catholic Church! I find that surprising based on your statements about being well informed on these matters.

duxrow

08-26-2012, 10:25 AM

:sCh_christian:Hey Silvius, Nevermind the ignorance about the "I AM" -- the many times used by Jesus in John's Gospel pretty well establishes it as being correct.

And as for Landmarks: The Law was established by Moses who came as a baby about 2KBC, and Calvary was the 2nd Landmark. David's Dynasty began about 1,000 BC -- smack in the middle of the two 'Landmarks'.:D

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2012, 10:30 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Perhaps you will eventually see the correlation between the pagan trinities and Christendom's trinity during my discussion with fellow Christians on this topic.

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
You said you've studied the history of Christianity but can't see the connection between pagan trinities and Christendom's trinity. And so, based upon your inability to see the connection between the two, you are now opining that nobody else who has studied the history of Christianity can see the connection. That's your opinion. You do realize opinions are not facts; right? I have studied the history of Christianity, and the link between the pagan trinities and Christendom's trinity is abundantly clear to me.
It is not my opinion. You presented nothing from Christian history to support your assertions. You have not given any evidence whatsoever that the doctrine of the trinity was copied from paganism. All you did was post some pagan trinities and declare that the connection is "obvious." That logic is entirely fallacious. Everyone knows that two things can have some superficial similarities without the one being copied from the other. If you disagree, then you need to reject the virgin birth and resurrection as copied from pagan religions since those ideas existed before the Bible.

Anyone who knows anything about the history of Christianity knows with perfect certainty that pagan trinities had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the doctrine. This is totally obvious because we have records of the arguments between the Christians who did and did not support the doctrine and none of those arguments ever had anything to do with pagan trinities. The arguments were based entirely on Scripture and Tradition. If you disagree, then you need to give EVIDENCE from early Christian writings that support your point. But you can't do that, can you?

You are simply repeating ridiculous things you have been taught by some anti-trinitarians who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2012, 10:40 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
The finger of blame points directly at the Roman Catholic Church and their crucial involvement at the 325 AD Council of Nicaea, and then their involvement at the 381 AD Council of Constantinople. I thought you said you studied these topics. Yet, you missed those two landmark events that culminated in the official formulation of Christendom's Trinity and the direct involvement of the Catholic Church! I find that surprising based on your statements about being well informed on these matters.
That's absurd. The doctrine of the Trinity is based on Scripture and Tradition. Have you never read the history of the Christian church? The early Christians were confronted with SCRIPTURES that declare Christ is Creator and Lord over all. Other Scriptures said he was a man. How were they to understand those Scriptures? They struggled and argued and debated and so developed the doctrine of the Trinity. Not everyone agreed with their conclusion. That's fine. But you can't say that the doctrine was developed by copying pagan trinities. That is simply absurd and it indicates a total ignorance of the real history of Christianity.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2012, 10:44 AM

Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
I am sure they will disagree with me, being that trinity and hellfire are the basic doctrines of Christendom. However, you referred to an out-of-context verse in your quotation above. To make matters worse, the expression "Before Abraham was, I Am" is a deliberate translation blunder by Trinitarian Bible translators. That verse can easily be debunked.

That's not true.

The words written are:

John 8:58 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

The words highlighted red are "ego eimi" and they mean "I AM". There was no mistranslation of any kind. Where did you get that idea?

Alter2Ego

08-26-2012, 11:10 AM

That's absurd. The doctrine of the Trinity is based on Scripture and Tradition. Have you never read the history of the Christian church? The early Christians were confronted with SCRIPTURES that declare Christ is Creator and Lord over all. Other Scriptures said he was a man. How were they to understand those Scriptures? They struggled and argued and debated and so developed the doctrine of the Trinity. Not everyone agreed with their conclusion. That's fine. But you can't say that the doctrine was developed by copying pagan trinities. That is simply absurd and it indicates a total ignorance of the real history of Christianity.

The doctrine of the Trinity was motivated entirely by two things: 1) Early Christian practice of worshiping Christ as God, and 2) tensions within Scripture which appear to present Christ as both God and Man.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
There, within your first statement quoted above, lies your problem. You're confusing scripture with traditions of men, specifically, with Catholic Church pagan traditions. Below are my responses to your second statement quoted above.

1. There are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible that shows Jesus Christ's followers worshipped him as Almighty God. And I'm talking his Christian followers mentioned in the New Testament portion of the Judeo-Christian Bible. You keep harping on the "early Church," meaning the Roman Catholics.

The early Christians were the people mentioned in the New Testament--none of whom wrote anything resembling a 3-prong god. Until you can present scriptures from the Judeo-Christian Bible to prove the pagan Trinity, your argument is dead in the water. When I say "present scriptures," I mean quote the verses and bold the words that you think indicates trinity. So far, all you've done is present your personal opinions along with out-of-context scriptures that don't say a thing about three gods combined into a fabricated "Godhead."

2. When you say "Scripture appear to present Christ as both God and man," which god are you referring to? Are you referring to Jehovah/YHWH/Yahweh when you say that? Please elaborate. Perhaps you can present a few scriptural quotations and bold the words where it indicates Christ is both God and Man and then explain which god you're referring to.

sylvius

08-26-2012, 11:21 AM

That's not true.

The words written are:

John 8:58 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

The words highlighted red are "ego eimi" and they mean "I AM". There was no mistranslation of any kind. Where did you get that idea?

It is not "before Abraham was"

but "before Abraham became"

The saying is a play of "ginomai" versus "einai" ("eimi"), "to become" versus "to be".

German "werden" versus "sein".

(Abram did become Abraham - as Abraham he fathered Isaac, etc.)

And it also doesn't say "I am God".

But "I am"

I am too.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2012, 11:54 AM

It is not "before Abraham was"

but "before Abraham became"

The saying is a play of "ginomai" versus "einai" ("eimi"), "to become" versus "to be".

German "werden" versus "sein".

(Abram did become Abraham - as Abraham he fathered Isaac, etc.)

That's a distinction without a difference. In either case, Christ was saying that he existed before Abraham "was" or "became."

And it also doesn't say "I am God".

But "I am"

I am too.
In the Biblical context, the statement "I AM" is a direct and deliberate reference to Exodus 3:14 and many other verses where YHVH said "I AM". For example:
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

The phrase "I am he" is "ego eimi." And in the LXX, the underlined words are letter for letter identical to the words Christ spoke in John 10:
John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

It is extremely interesting that the phrase "that ye may know and believe" appears nowhere in the Bible but Isaiah 43:10 and John 10:38. This is one of the most amazing examples of the Isaiah-Bible Correlation (http://biblewheel.com/InnerWheels/Isaiah/IsaiahBible.asp) in which the Book of Isaiah looks like a 2D projection from the 3D Bible (like a shadow). John is the 43rd book, so if we take the book, chapter, verse numbers as coordinates in 3D space and project them onto the 2D plane of Isaiah, we get this:

http://biblewheel.com/images/Isaiah4310Projection.gif

John is known as the "I AM" Gospel (http://biblewheel.com/InnerWheels/Isaiah/Isaiah43.asp) because the frequency of the phrase "I AM" is greatly maximized in his book:

http://biblewheel.com/images/JohnIAm.gif

And this distribution is matched by the corresponding chapters of Isaiah:

http://biblewheel.com/images/IAM_Isa43_John.gif

The implications are perfectly clear. Christ was proclaiming his divinity when he used the phrase "I AM."

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2012, 12:09 PM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
There, within your first statement quoted above, lies your problem. You're confusing scripture with traditions of men, specifically, with Catholic Church pagan traditions. Below are my responses to your second statement quoted above.

1. There are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible that shows Jesus Christ's followers worshipped him as Almighty God. And I'm talking his Christian followers mentioned in the New Testament portion of the Judeo-Christian Bible. You keep harping on the "early Church," meaning the Roman Catholics.

The early Christians were the people mentioned in the New Testament--none of whom wrote anything resembling a 3-prong god. Until you can present scriptures from the Judeo-Christian Bible to prove the pagan Trinity, your argument is dead in the water. When I say "present scriptures," I mean quote the verses and bold the words that you think indicates trinity. So far, all you've done is present your personal opinions along with out-of-context scriptures that don't say a thing about three gods combined into a fabricated "Godhead."

There are plenty of Scriptures that many competent Bible scholars understand as implying Christ is Yahweh. It's fine if you have different interpretations of those verses. Everyone has different interpretations of the Bible. But for you to merely assert that there are no such verses indicates a total ignorance of this topic.

Paul said that every knee would bow to Christ. In the OT Yahweh said that every knee would bow to him. This implies Paul understood Christ as Yahweh.

Thomas called Christ "my Lord and my God." I know you can "explain away" this verse, but that's all you can do. The plain meaning is obvious. You must go against the plain meaning.

Paul said that Christ is Lord and Creator of all (Colossians 1). Again, you can "explain this away" but you can't say that devout Biblical Christians have no basis for their interpretation.

I could go on, but that's enough for now.

The "early church" does not mean "Roman Catholics." It appears you are totally and absolutely ignorant of the vast body of Christian literature that was produced by the people who gave us the Bible. I'm talking about the Ante-Nicene Fathers which is ten volumes of Christian writings down to the year 325 AD. And then you can read the Post-Nicene Fathers if you want more information about how the doctrines developed. If you are ignorant of this material, then you are ignorant of the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity. Simple as that.

If you believe the early Christians were "Roman Catholics" then why do you accept the Bible they produced? Do you have any knowledge of the history of the Bible? Why do you believe it should have only 66 books? What proof do have? How do you know Philemon should be in it? What is the real basis of your faith if not blindly believing what you have been told (just like a Muslim believes the Quran)?

2. When you say "Scripture appear to present Christ as both God and man," which god are you referring to? Are you referring to Jehovah/YHWH/Yahweh when you say that? Please elaborate. Perhaps you can present a few scriptural quotations and bold the words where it indicates Christ is both God and Man and then explain which god you're referring to.
I am referring to the God of the Bible. Duh.

You know the verses that say Christ was a man, and I have presented a few of the verses that imply he was God. This is enough to get started.

Alter2Ego

08-26-2012, 12:12 PM

It is not my opinion. You presented nothing from Christian history to support your assertions. You have not given any evidence whatsoever that the doctrine of the trinity was copied from paganism. All you did was post some pagan trinities and declare that the connection is "obvious." That logic is entirely fallacious. Everyone knows that two things can have some superficial similarities without the one being copied from the other. If you disagree, then you need to reject the virgin birth and resurrection as copied from pagan religions since those ideas existed before the Bible.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Am I expected to take your word for it? Or do you intend to present documentary evidence proving that the idea of the virgin birth and resurrection existed before the Bible?

I will wait.

Anyone who knows anything about the history of Christianity knows with perfect certainty that pagan trinities had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the doctrine. This is totally obvious because we have records of the arguments between the Christians who did and did not support the doctrine and none of those arguments ever had anything to do with pagan trinities. The arguments were based entirely on Scripture and Tradition. If you disagree, then you need to give EVIDENCE from early Christian writings that support your point. But you can't do that, can you?

You are simply repeating ridiculous things you have been taught by some anti-trinitarians who don't have a clue what they are talking about.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Anyone, you say? Who is "anyone"? Wait... wait... wait.... I know. "Anyone" refers to the following persons.

1. Richard
2. Amiel
3. McGough

The point being, every time something doesn't line up with your erroneous thinking, you start claiming that everybody else agrees with you.

And there goes that word "tradition" again that I bolded in red within your above quotation. That's "tradition" as in "traditions of men" rather than what's in God's inspired Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible. Now you can at least appreciate what Jesus meant when he condemned the 1st century AD Jewish religious leaders for putting more emphasis on traditions than on the scriptures. While reprimanding them, he quoted what God instructed Isaiah to tell a previous generation of rebellions Jews, noted below.

"{6} he must not honor his father at all. And so you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. {7} You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you, when he said, {8} ‘This people honor me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. {9} It is IN VAIN that they keep worshipping me, because they teach COMMANDS OF MEN as doctrines.’" (Matthew 15:6-9)

sylvius

08-26-2012, 12:27 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2012, 12:54 PM

That's a distinction without a difference. In either case, Christ was saying that he existed before Abraham "was" or "became."
Eternity is not endless time.

That's the (your) fundamental mistake (to think that eternity is endless time).

Greek "prin" -- i think stands for Hebrew "terem" (like to be found in Genesis 2:5).

I didn't say a word about eternity being "endless time." That's your mistake.

And you didn't respond to the fact that it doesn't make any difference if we interpret it as "was" or "became." That's your mistake number 2.

In the Biblical context, the statement "I AM" is a direct and deliberate reference to Exodus 3:14
You have been made believe that.

Yes, if by "made to believe" you mean convinced by logic and facts.

Christ was proclaiming his divinity when he used the phrase "I AM."
He was misunderstood.
That's right. He was misunderstood by you.

sylvius

08-26-2012, 01:13 PM

I didn't say a word about eternity being "endless time." That's your mistake.

No you said "Christ was saying that he existed before Abraham ("was" or "became"). "

In which you showed your principle misunderstanding.

And you didn't respond to the fact that it doesn't make any difference if we interpret it as "was" or "became." That's your mistake number 2.

I said already that it is a play on "ginomai" versus "einai" ("eimi") - a process in time versus eternity.

Yes, if by "made to believe" you mean convinced by logic and facts.

That's just a laugh.

That's right. He was misunderstood by you.

I thought you didn't believe that Jesus is God anymore.

Or is it that you believe it still, but just that both Jesus and God are wicked women-rapists, murderers, thieves, liars, etc? And what about the Holy Ghost?
Is he wicked too? (oh yes, he raped Mary ..)

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2012, 01:26 PM

Anyone who knows anything about the history of Christianity knows with perfect certainty that pagan trinities had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the doctrine. This is totally obvious because we have records of the arguments between the Christians who did and did not support the doctrine and none of those arguments ever had anything to do with pagan trinities. The arguments were based entirely on Scripture and Tradition. If you disagree, then you need to give EVIDENCE from early Christian writings that support your point. But you can't do that, can you?

You are simply repeating ridiculous things you have been taught by some anti-trinitarians who don't have a clue what they are talking about.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Am I expected to take your word for it? Or do you intend to present documentary evidence proving that the idea of the virgin birth and resurrection existed before the Bible?

I will wait.

Don't be absurd. Read what I wrote. I don't want you to "take my word" for anything. That's why I present logic and facts to support what I say. I expect you to be SKEPTICAL about what I say and to check the facts before coming to a conclusion. But all you do is reject facts that don't fit your preconceived ideas. The problem is that you have been "taking the word" of anti-trinitarians who are totally ignorant about the history of Christianity and the Bible. You need to start to think for yourself and deal with real facts of history. You have not yet presented any FACTS that support your assertions.

Case in point - you don't understand that Christianity itself was a "tradition" before it was written down in the Bible. The first Christians believed in Christ before the Bible was written. Your rejection of Christian tradition directly contradicts the Bible:
2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

The early Christians inherited both Scripture and Tradition from the first Christians. If you don't understand this, you don't understand anything about Christianity.

Anyone who knows anything about the history of Christianity knows with perfect certainty that pagan trinities had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the doctrine. This is totally obvious because we have records of the arguments between the Christians who did and did not support the doctrine and none of those arguments ever had anything to do with pagan trinities. The arguments were based entirely on Scripture and Tradition. If you disagree, then you need to give EVIDENCE from early Christian writings that support your point. But you can't do that, can you?

You are simply repeating ridiculous things you have been taught by some anti-trinitarians who don't have a clue what they are talking about.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Anyone, you say? Who is "anyone"? Wait... wait... wait.... I know. "Anyone" refers to the following persons.

1. Richard
2. Amiel
3. McGough

The point being, every time something doesn't line up with your erroneous thinking, you start claiming that everybody else agrees with you.

I never said anything about everyone agreeing with me. I simply said that some things are common knowledge amongst those who are informed on these subjects. You have not shown any understanding of the real history of Christianity or the reasons that the CHRISTIANS developed the doctrine of the Trinity. I've explain why a number of times, but you continue to act as if you don't understand. The Christians developed the doctrine because of tensions within the Scripture and the Traditions that they received from the earlier Christians. Simple as that. You have NEVER shown any evidence of any Christian basing the Trinity on pagan concepts. You appear to be totally ignorant of the reasons they gave. They argued about the meanings of the words in the Bible like hypostatic union and such things that are obviously way over your head.

And there goes that word "tradition" again that I bolded in red within your above quotation. That's "tradition" as in "traditions of men" rather than what's in God's inspired Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible. Now you can at least appreciate what Jesus meant when he condemned the 1st century AD Jewish religious leaders for putting more emphasis on traditions than on the scriptures. While reprimanding them, he quoted what God instructed Isaiah to tell a previous generation of rebellions Jews, noted below.

"{6} he must not honor his father at all. And so you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. {7} You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you, when he said, {8} ‘This people honor me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. {9} It is IN VAIN that they keep worshipping me, because they teach COMMANDS OF MEN as doctrines.’" (Matthew 15:6-9)
That's your error. You don't understand that Christianity itself was a "tradition" before it was written down in Scripture. It has nothing to do with the "traditions of men" that Christ was speaking of. That is obvious because he was speaking about the traditions of that the Jews had developed, not the traditions of devout believing Christians.

And you biggest error is that you don't realize that you are following a set of traditions! How ironic is that? You didn't get your Bible dropped from heaven, and you didn't get your interpretation of the Bible straight from God. You are following traditions that are contrary to other Christian traditions. The fact that you accept the Protestant Bible and reject the Catholic and Greek Orthodox Bibles shows that you are merely following a tradition that you received "from men." If you can't see this, it is because you are totally BLINDED by your tradition.

It's one thing to knowingly follow a tradition. It's quite another to be trapped in a tradition without even knowing that you have accepted the teachings of men as if they were the teachings of God. You are trapped in your darkness because you have rejected skepticism which is required for the mind to work properly. Any religious person who is not skeptical is a blind believer no different than the Muslims or the Hindus. Why do you choose to blind yourself?

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2012, 01:34 PM

No you said "Christ was saying that he existed before Abraham ("was" or "became"). "

In which you showed your principle misunderstanding.

What are you talking about? It is the TEXT, not I, that says "Before Abraham was (or became), I am."

Do you have any idea what you are trying to say? Your comments are confused.

I said already that it is a play on "ginomai" versus "einai" ("eimi") - a process in time versus eternity.

You can say what you want. It doesn't make it true. Can you state a reason why anyone should think you are right?

That's just a laugh.

As are most of your comments.

I thought you didn't believe that Jesus is God anymore.

Did I say anything that implied I believed in Jesus? No. So your question doesn't make any sense.

Or is it that you believe it still, but just that both Jesus and God are wicked women-rapists, murderers, thieves, liars, etc? And what about the Holy Ghost?
Is he wicked too? (oh yes, he raped Mary ..)
Now you are displaying the depth of your stupidity. If you would like to ask a serious question, I would be happy to answer.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2012, 01:39 PM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
I presented evidence in my OP of the Catholics (who I don't regard as "early Christians") copying the trinity from pagans, and here you are saying you've never seen any evidence. I can't make people accept evidence if they choose not to; now can I?

You OP had no evidence whatsoever of the Catholics copying anything. You merely posted superficial similarities - you never showed that any Catholic or Christian every copied anything.

Care to try again? Or will you concede that you have yet to provide any evidence?

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2012, 01:55 PM

Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
I am sure they will disagree with me, being that trinity and hellfire are the basic doctrines of Christendom. However, you referred to an out-of-context verse in your quotation above. To make matters worse, the expression "Before Abraham was, I Am" is a deliberate translation blunder by Trinitarian Bible translators. That verse can easily be debunked.
I proved this false and you have not answered. Do you accept my refutation? If not, please provide evidence of the "deliberate translation blunder."

Thanks!

:yo:

Alter2Ego

08-26-2012, 02:12 PM

There are plenty of Scriptures that many competent Bible scholars understand as implying Christ is Yahweh. It's fine if you have different interpretations of those verses. Everyone has different interpretations of the Bible. But for you to merely assert that there are no such verses indicates a total ignorance of this topic.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
I'm not interested in anything written by Trinitarian Bible scholars who imply aka SPECULATE, which is nothing more than them spouting their personal opinions and trying to find scriptures to back it up. The reason why people wind up with the wrong interpretation of scriptures is because they cherry pick words off the page and ignore context.

The fact that Jesus Christ literally died immediately eliminates him from being in a trinity with Jehovah. According to Christendom's definition of the Trinity, the three persons (Father, Son, and holy ghost/holy spirit) are all CO-ETERNAL.

Christendom's trinity, written in Article I of The Catholic Faith, is defined as follows:
"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and indivisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of ONE substance, power, and ETERNITY; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

DEFINITION OF "ETERNAL":
"Eternal means not having a beginning or an end."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/eternal

An eternal person cannot die. The instant Jesus Christ died, his life ended. His death debunked the Trinity dogma and its above definition.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2012, 02:36 PM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
I'm not interested in anything written by Trinitarian Bible scholars who imply aka SPECULATE, which is nothing more than them spouting their personal opinions and trying to find scriptures to back it up. The reason why people wind up with the wrong interpretation of scriptures is because they cherry pick words off the page and ignore context.

You need to learn English and logic. An "implication" is not a "speculation." Those are entirely different concepts. Here's the definition with an example (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implication_%28logic%29):
Logical implication (also known as implies, or If ... then) is a logical operation. It takes two arguments. It returns false, if and only if the first term is true, and the second term is false.

Example: The following shows a (valid) implication

[*=1]All humans are mortal (they die).
[*=1]Aristotle is human
[*=1]Therefore Aristotle is mortal

Got it? Great. Now maybe you can write a relevant response to my post instead of dodging behind a cloud of confused words.

The fact that Jesus Christ literally died immediately eliminates him from being in a trinity with Jehovah. According to Christendom's definition of the Trinity, the three persons (Father, Son, and holy ghost/holy spirit) are all CO-ETERNAL.

You don't think Christians had to deal with this question when they were trying to formulate a coherent understanding of how Christ related to God? The fact that you would bring up this issue as if it defeated the Trinity proves nothing but that you are totally ignorant of the history of the doctrine of the Trinity and why Christians developed it.

Christendom's trinity, written in Article I of The Catholic Faith, is defined as follows:
"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and indivisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of ONE substance, power, and ETERNITY; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

DEFINITION OF "ETERNAL":
"Eternal means not having a beginning or an end."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/eternal

The instant Jesus Christ died, his life ended. His death debunked the Trinity dogma and its above definition.
You are merely confusing the human and divine natures of Christ. You appear to be ignorant of the fact that this issue was discussed at length over 1600 years ago. How is it possible that you think you can have an opinion about the Trinity when you are ignorant of such things?

Alter2Ego

08-26-2012, 02:59 PM

You need to learn English and logic. An "implication" is not a "speculation." Those are entirely different concepts. Here's the definition with an example (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implication_%28logic%29):
Logical implication (also known as implies, or If ... then) is a logical operation. It takes two arguments. It returns false, if and only if the first term is true, and the second term is false.

Example: The following shows a (valid) implication

[*=1]All humans are mortal (they die).
[*=1]Aristotle is human
[*=1]Therefore Aristotle is mortal

Got it? Great. Now maybe you can write a relevant response to my post instead of dodging behind a cloud of confused words.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Rather than make an issue of the meaning of "imply" vs. the meaning of "speculate,"--in your obvious attempt at diverting attention away from the fact that I just got through debunking Trinity at Post 30, I suggest you come up with a more effective rebuttal than the above. I'm just getting started on Trinity. So prepare yourself to eat crow.

You don't think Christians had to deal with this question when they were trying to formulate a coherent understanding of how Christ related to God? The fact that you would bring up this issue as if it defeated the Trinity proves nothing but that you are totally ignorant of the history of the doctrine of the Trinity and why Christians developed it.

You are merely confusing the human and divine natures of Christ. You appear to be ignorant of the fact that this issue was discussed at length over 1600 years ago. How is it possible that you think you can have an opinion about the Trinity when you are ignorant of such things?
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
The "Christians" you continue to refer to were pagans aka "Christianized" Romans. The Romans had a long history of polytheism (worship of many gods) for centuries before some of them adapted their perverted version of Christianity. That's the reason why it was so logical--to their way of thinking--for them to bring along their pagan gods and create "Christian" versions of their gods. And here you are claiming you have thorough book knowledge about these matters. It turns out, I'm having to school you.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2012, 03:03 PM

ALTER2EGO -to- ROSE:
I'm still waiting for you to show me scriptures anywhere in the Bible where it says God wanted Jesus Christ tortured or scriptures showing God had a history of torturing people of enemy nations before killing them. You haven't presented any. Instead, you are objecting to Jehovah's authority in having wicked people and their kids destroyed. For example, the record of history regarding the Canaanites is a dismal one. They were incorrigible. According to both Biblical and secular history, they built up a particularly sordid record of immorality and depravity.

Killing the Canaanites
Article ID: JAF3334
By: Clay Jones [A TRINITARIAN BIBLE SCHOLAR]

The “new atheists” call God’s commands to kill the Canaanites “genocide,” but a closer look at the horror of the Canaanites’ sinfulness, exhibited in rampant idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality, reveals that God’s reason for commanding their death was not genocide but capital punishment.

http://www.equip.org/articles/killing-the-canaanites/ [A TRINITARIAN SITE]

Archeology and the Religion of the Canaanites
Merrill F. Unger [A TRINITARIAN BIBLE SCHOLAR]

The inflexibly stern attitude of Israel’s God against Canaanite cultic practice and its devotees has been subjected to severe strictures on moral grounds. However, greatly increased knowledge of Canaanite religion as a result of the discovery of the religious epic literature at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) on the north Syrian coast (1929–1937) has authenticated the Old Testament representation and fully confirmed the depth of depravity of Canaanite cults. The evidence of archeology justifies the seemingly harsh attitude of the Bible. In the light of further proof of the degeneracy of Canaanite paganism, Israel’s God and Israel’s prophets are relieved of the charge of an “immoral severity” in ordering the wholesale extermination of its cult and its devotees.

http://www.galaxie.com/article/3865 [A TRINITARIAN SITE]

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:

I'm not interested in anything written by Trinitarian Bible scholars

Wow - you really say some crazy things. You quoted from two Trinitarian Bible scholars and linked to two Trinitarian sites to support your assertions!

And then say you are "not interested in anything written by Trinitarian Bible scholars"?

The logical implication of your comments is that you don't have a clue about what you are saying. You directly contradict yourself in the space of a few posts.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2012, 03:09 PM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Rather than make an issue of the meaning of "imply" vs. the meaning of "speculate,"--in your obvious attempt at diverting attention away from the fact that I just got through debunking Trinity at Post 30, I suggest you come up with a more effective rebuttal than the above. I'm just getting started on Trinity. So prepare yourself to eat crow.

You debunked nothing. All you did was display your gross and inexcusable ignorance of the history of the religion you profess to believe.

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
The "Christians" you continue to refer to were pagans aka "Christianized" Romans. The Romans had a long history of polytheism (worship of many gods) for centuries before some of them adapted their perverted version of Christianity. That's the reason why it was so logical--to their way of thinking--for them to bring along their pagan gods and create "Christian" versions of their gods. And here you are claiming you have thorough book knowledge about these matters. It turns out, I'm having to school you.
If that's true, then you are believing the Bible that those pagans put together. They are the Christians to whom I refer.

And you would do well if you would quit asserting absurdities. You are no more "schooling" me than you are demonstrating that there are "2000 fulfilled prophecies" in the Bible. You are like a lunatic in an asylum. You rave about things that you don't know and for which you have no evidence.

So let's get this conversation back to reality. Give me some EVIDENCE that the early Christians who put together the Bible and developed the Christian doctrines were including "pagan" ideas. And I mean EVIDENCE. All you have done so far is to make wild assertions with no foundation in fact. You haven't even tried to present any evidence. You just make empty claims.

Alter2Ego

08-26-2012, 03:31 PM

Wow - you really say some crazy things. You quoted from a Trinitarian Bible scholar and linked to two Trinitarian sites to support your assertions!

And then say you are "not interested in anything written by Trinitarian Bible scholars"?

The logical implication of your comments is that you don't have a clue about what you are saying. You directly contradict yourself in the space of a few posts.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Let me elaborate: When I say I'm not interested in the writings of Trinitarian Bible scholars, I'm speaking with reference to their promotion of the trinity falsehood within their writings. None of what I quoted from those websites is a promotion of the pagan Trinity--which I just got through debunking at Post 30. And don't waste your time trying to change the focus of this discussion, because it won't work. I'm very familiar with the evasive actions of Trinitarians when they are being debunked. This is very familiar territory for me.

Thomas called Christ "my Lord and my God." I know you can "explain away" this verse, but that's all you can do. The plain meaning is obvious. You must go against the plain meaning.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
And? What does that prove? What you and most Trinitarians don't understand is that the words "Lord" and "God" are titles that are assigned to powerful beings—including humans.

Jesus is a god, because he's powerful. But he's not Almighty God, Jehovah.

WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF "GOD":
1. any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature

2. a person or thing deified or excessively honored or admired
(Source: Webster's New World College Dictionary)
http://www.yourdictionary.com/god

In other words, the word "god" is a title that is not restricted only to Almighty God Jehovah. All of the angels are considered "gods" because they are powerful and supernatural beings. Even humans who are in powerful positions are considered gods. This is confirmed by the apostle Paul, as follows:

"{5} For even though there are those who are called 'gods,' whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are MANY 'gods' and MANY 'lords,' {6} there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

Notice in verse 6 how Paul clarified that although he recognized there are many with the titles "lord" and "god," only God the Father should be worshipped. Notice also in verse 6 that he clearly differentiated God the Father from the Lord, Jesus Christ.

weeder

08-26-2012, 03:46 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2012, 04:19 PM

Alter2Ego

08-26-2012, 06:05 PM

Thomas called Christ "my Lord and my God." I know you can "explain away" this verse, but that's all you can do. The plain meaning is obvious. You must go against the plain meaning.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
And? What does that prove? What you and most Trinitarians don't understand is that the words "Lord" and "God" are titles that are assigned to powerful beings—including humans.

Jesus is a god, because he's powerful. But he's not Almighty God, Jehovah.

I didn't say it "proved" that Christ is God. That's just the "plain meaning." It is just one of the verses that some people interpret as implying that Christ is God. You interpret it differently. That's fine. The only problem is that you set yourself up as the final authority on all interpretations when in fact there is no way to prove which interpretation is right. The fact that you don't understand something as plain and obvious as this suggests you are severely deluded. And after reading your posts on other forums I know this is the case. Many people have clearly explained the errors of your ways, yet you continue to repeat your errors like an unrepentant sinner even after the sins have been exposed for all to see. There is nothing anyone can do to free you from such delusions. You must choose to repent from your delusions and return to reality. You must make that choice yourself. No one can do it for you.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Now you're trying to back track; huh? You made it clear when you quoted that verse that "the plain meaning is obvious"--meaning it equates to Jesus and Jehovah being the same god. In fact, you've been arguing tooth and nails the whole time that this, that, and the other scripture implies that Jesus is also Jehovah. Now that I've debunked Trinity at Post 30 and again at Post 35, you are now telling me that I'm deluded--after I've twice unraveled your argument for Trinity.

weeder

08-26-2012, 06:25 PM

What does that prove? What you and most Trinitarians don't understand is that the words "Lord" and "God" are titles that are assigned to powerful beings—including humans.

Jesus is a god, because he's powerful. But he's not Almighty God, Jehovah.

Thomas was a worshipper of the one true God.
When he said ---My Lord and My God, he meant YHVH.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2012, 06:55 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

08-26-2012, 07:11 PM

Thomas was a worshipper of the one true God.
When he said ---My Lord and My God, he meant YHVH.

It is unlikely in the extreme that a believing Jew would have called a man he thought to be Messiah who was just resurrected "my Lord and my God" if he didn't mean the "Lord" and "God" of the Jews. Pretty simple stuff.

weeder

08-26-2012, 08:25 PM

It is unlikely in the extreme that a believing Jew would have called a man he thought to be Messiah who was just resurrected "my Lord and my God" if he didn't mean the "Lord" and "God" of the Jews. Pretty simple stuff.

:yo:
Also, as believing Jews they would only worship the Lord their God. They worshipped Jesus because they believed he was God the Son.

John the revelator was rebuked for worshiping an Angel who bought Gods message...., and was instructed to worship God and him alone.
The Father demands that all the Angels worship the Son...Heb 1...go figure.

sylvius

08-26-2012, 10:34 PM

What are you talking about? It is the TEXT, not I, that says "Before Abraham was (or became), I am."

The text says:
Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

You made of that, as an interpreter for the less clever folks (i.e. the mob):
"Christ was saying that he existed before Abraham "was" or "became".

Presupposing that John had no idea of the word "b'hibaram" in Genesis 2:4 as being the 474th word of the Torah.

But John has the numbers 153, 38 and 666 ...

πρὶν is also in Matthew 1:18,
πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου.

where is clear that πρὶν has not the meanig of "before" but of "not yet", (they not yet did have sexual intercourse)
like Hebrew טֶרֶם in Genesis 2:5,

Rashi:

Every טֶרֶם in Scripture has the meaning of “not yet,” and it does not mean“before,” and it cannot be made into a verb form, to say הִטְרִים, as one says הִקְדִּים

sylvius

08-26-2012, 10:55 PM

:eek:

Hi there Alter2ego.
From page one God says,---and let US create Man in OUR image......Male and Female He created THEM.

God reveals himself as an US and OUR, yet they are one God.
How do you explain this away?

Genesis 1:26 has "And God said: "Let us make man"
But the next verse has: "And God created man".

Rashi:

Let us make man: Even though they [the angels] did not assist Him in His creation, and there is an opportunity for the heretics to rebel (to misconstrue the plural as a basis for their heresies), Scripture did not hesitate to teach proper conduct and the trait of humility, that a great person should consult with and receive permission from a smaller one. Had it been written: “I shall make man,” we would not have learned that He was speaking with His tribunal, but to Himself. And the refutation to the heretics is written alongside it [i. e., in the following verse:]“And God created (וַיִּבְרָא) ,” and it does not say,“and they created וַיִּבְרְאוּ.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 8:9]

(the heretics = the Christians).

sylvius

08-26-2012, 11:13 PM

It is unlikely in the extreme that a believing Jew would have called a man he thought to be Messiah who was just resurrected "my Lord and my God" if he didn't mean the "Lord" and "God" of the Jews. Pretty simple stuff.

It is John who has say him it that way in a certtain scriptural setting:

The other disciples told Thomas (John 21:25) Ἑωράκαμεν τὸν κύριον, "we have seen the lord" (not: "we have seen God")

After Thomas did say , v. 27: Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου, "My lord and my God", Jesus reacts with, v.28, Οτι ἑώρακάς με πεπίστευκας, "because you have seen you did believe" -- which sounds like a rebuke --- μακάριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες "happy are those who without seeing do believe" --

It doesn't say: "Happy are those who do believe that I am God".

weeder

08-26-2012, 11:28 PM

It is John who has say him it that way in a certtain scriptural setting:

The other disciples told Thomas (John 21:25) Ἑωράκαμεν τὸν κύριον, "we have seen the lord" (not: "we have seen God")

After Thomas did say , v. 27: Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου, "My lord and my God", Jesus reacts with, v.28, Οτι ἑώρακάς με πεπίστευκας, "because you have seen you did believe" -- which sounds like a rebuke --- μακάριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες "happy are those who without seeing do believe" --

It doesn't say: "Happy are those who do believe that I am God".

Yes it does.
Happy are those who without seeing, see what Thomas saw in the flesh. They see their Lord and their God in the person of Jesus.

sylvius

08-27-2012, 12:03 AM

Yes it does.
Happy are those who without seeing, see what Thomas saw in the flesh. They see their Lord and their God in the person of Jesus.

John has elsewehre:

John 11:25-27,
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” She said to him, “Yes, lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the son of God, who is coming into the world.”

which contradicts your statement.

Also here it doesn't say: "I am God" nor "I believe that you are God".

John has also inscribed on the cross:
"Jesus the Nazarene the king of the Jews"

in three languages,

Greek:
Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων.

Hebrew would have been "Yeshu haNotsri haMelech haY'hudim"

"Yeshu haNotsri" has gematria 671.

"Yeshu Notsri" would have been 666.

"Yeshu Notsri", written with seven letters, like the seven heads of the beast (Revelation 13)
"shin" having three "horns",
"tsadeh" two "horns"
The other five letters having each one "horn", which makes a total of ten horns.

Latin doesn't know definite articles,

Latin:
"Iesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum"

Which is a hint, a warning against making an idol out of the crucified Jesus, (like Thomas did).

"Yeshu Notsri" would have been 666.

Alter2Ego

08-27-2012, 12:27 AM

Paul said that Christ is Lord and Creator of all (Colossians 1). Again, you can "explain this away" but you can't say that devout Biblical Christians have no basis for their interpretation.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
I'm waiting for you to quote the exact verse in Colossians chapter 1 where Paul said Christ is Lord and Creator. And then I want you to be sure and bold the words within the verse where it indicates Jesus is also Jehovah in trinity.

All you've presented so far are your speculations on why you believe this or that scripture means what you've chosen to believe. If Trinity were a Bible teaching—and particularly since it is the primary doctrine of Christendom—the Bible would not have presented language requiring Trinitarians to speculate and insert their personal opinions. It would have been presented in the Bible in clear and concise language.

Jesus Christ never claimed he is Jehovah in trinity. So that speaks for itself. Jesus Christ literally died. That fact immediately debunks the trinity falsehood which says the Father, Son, and holy spirit/holy ghost are CO-ETERNAL. By definition, an eternal person cannot die.

Alter2Ego

08-27-2012, 01:27 AM

The "early church" does not mean "Roman Catholics." It appears you are totally and absolutely ignorant of the vast body of Christian literature that was produced by the people who gave us the Bible.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
The people who "gave" us the Bible? I was under the impression the Bible was given to humanity by Jehovah. I didn't realize that the Roman Catholic's, as a result of them hijacking of the Bible, equates to them "giving" what they had no right to from the get-go. The fact that God tolerated the interference of the Catholics is another matter for debate. But clearly, they didn't "give" anything—besides a long list of pagan doctrines that they brought in and polluted Christianity with.

I'm talking about the Ante-Nicene Fathers which is ten volumes of Christian writings down to the year 325 AD. And then you can read the Post-Nicene Fathers if you want more information about how the doctrines developed. If you are ignorant of this material, then you are ignorant of the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity. Simple as that.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
What you're not admitting is that the "Anti-Nicene Fathers" evolved into what became the Catholic Church. Nothing they wrote aka SPECULATED was written by Divine inspiration of God. That's why their writings are not found within the Judeo-Christian Bible. The last writer who wrote anything in the Bible under Divine inspiration was the Apostle John who wrote in 98 AD.

weeder

08-27-2012, 01:41 AM

John has elsewehre:

John 11:25-27,
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” She said to him, “Yes, lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the son of God, who is coming into the world.”

which contradicts your statement.

Also here it doesn't say: "I am God" nor "I believe that you are God".

John has also inscribed on the cross:
"Jesus the Nazarene the king of the Jews"

in three languages,

Greek:
Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων.

Hebrew would have been "Yeshu haNotsri haMelech haY'hudim"

"Yeshu haNotsri" has gematria 671.

"Yeshu Notsri" would have been 666.

"Yeshu Notsri", written with seven letters, like the seven heads of the beast (Revelation 13)
"shin" having three "horns",
"tsadeh" two "horns"
The other five letters having each one "horn", which makes a total of ten horns.

Latin doesn't know definite articles,

Latin:
"Iesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum"

Which is a hint, a warning against making an idol out of the crucified Jesus, (like Thomas did).

"Yeshu Notsri" would have been 666.

Sorry Sylvius, but im not understanding you.

John has elsewhere...

Rev 1
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “ who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “ Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

Rev 22 -Jesus said,
“Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

sylvius

08-27-2012, 06:57 AM

Sorry Sylvius, but im not understanding you.

John has elsewhere...

Rev 1
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “ who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “ Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

Rev 22 -Jesus said,
“Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

I don't see.
It never says that Jesus is God.
In Revelation 22 an angel is speaking.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-27-2012, 10:03 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
The people who "gave" us the Bible? I was under the impression the Bible was given to humanity by Jehovah. I didn't realize that the Roman Catholic's, as a result of them hijacking of the Bible, equates to them "giving" what they had no right to from the get-go. The fact that God tolerated the interference of the Catholics is another matter for debate. But clearly, they didn't "give" anything—besides a long list of pagan doctrines that they brought in and polluted Christianity with.

It could be argued that Yahweh is the ultimate source of the Bible through inspiration or divine guidance, but it simply false and absurd to assert that "the Bible was given to humanity by Jehovah" as if it were not the product of humans in any way at all. Every word of the Bible was written by human hands, and humans gathered the books together into the various collections used by different Christian groups.

It seems you are exceedingly confused about early Christianity. From why you write, it appears you think that ALL THE WRITINGS from early Christians except the Bible are the product of the "Roman Catholics." Is that correct?

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
What you're not admitting is that the "Anti-Nicene Fathers" evolved into what became the Catholic Church. Nothing they wrote aka SPECULATED was written by Divine inspiration of God. That's why their writings are not found within the Judeo-Christian Bible. The last writer who wrote anything in the Bible under Divine inspiration was the Apostle John who wrote in 98 AD.
Your comment makes no sense. The writings of the early Christians known as the "Ante-Nicene Fathers" are just a collection of the things the early Christians wrote. Nobody said they were inspired and should be included in Scripture. And it is absurd to say that a set of writings "evolved into what became the Catholic Church."

So you accept no Christian writings except the Protestant Bible? Why do you believe the Bible they produced if you reject everything else they wrote?

And more importantly, why do you believe the Protestant Bible that MEN produced and handed down to you? Have you no foundation for your faith at all but the TRADITION OF MEN?

Alter2Ego

08-27-2012, 11:54 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
I am sure they will disagree with me, being that trinity and hellfire are the basic doctrines of Christendom. However, you referred to an out-of-context verse in your quotation above. To make matters worse, the expression "Before Abraham was, I Am" is a deliberate translation blunder by Trinitarian Bible translators. That verse can easily be debunked.
That's not true.

The words written are:

John 8:58 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

The words highlighted red are "ego eimi" and they mean "I AM". There was no mistranslation of any kind. Where did you get that idea?

the expression "Before Abraham was, I Am" is a deliberate translation blunder by Trinitarian Bible translators. That verse can easily be debunked.
Please explain !

PART 1 OF 3
JOHN 8:58 DELIBERATE TRANSLATION BLUNDER

ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:

Before I show you why John 8:58 is a deliberate translation blunder/error, let me give you a demonstration of why literal, word-for-word translation into English from a foreign language cannot always be done. I will present the explanation for that in this post. In my next two posts, I will present evidence that John 8:58 was deliberately mistranslated by Trinitarian Bible translators in clear violation of English grammar rules.

I must warn you that the three posts on the John 8:58 exposé are a bit lengthy, but the lengthiness is necessary in order for you to fully grasp the dishonesty of Trinitarian Bible translators. Read each of the three posts slowly so you can appreciate the point I'm trying to get across.

DEMONSTRATION OF WHY LITERAL TRANSLATION CANNOT ALWAYS BE DONE

Although the literal Greek translation of "Ego eimi" is "I am," when translating from a foreign language to English, translators are required to render sentences grammatically correct so the sentence can make sense when read in English.

For instance, in French, Spanish, and many other languages the adjective (the description of the noun) follows the subject (the noun) of the sentence. Notice the examples below. Notice how in English the translation cannot be literal, otherwise the sentence would cease to be grammatically correct when rendered in English.

Literal English Translatation: You have an apartment modern.
French: Vous avez un appartement moderne.
Grammatically Correct English Translation: You have a modern apartment.

Literal English Translatation: Janet has a dress red.
French: Janet a une robe rouge.
Grammatically Correct English Translation: Janet has a red dress.

Literal English Translatation: We eat of the salad and of the meat at the dinner.
French: Nous mangeons de la salade et de la viande au dîner.
Grammatically Correct English Translation: We eat salad and meat at the dinner.

As you can see from the examples above, a translator is required to present the same information when translating from a foreign language to English. But the translator cannot violate the rules of English grammar in the process.

Depending upon the subject and the tense (present or past) of the sentence, the Greek expression "Ego eimi" can be either "I am" OR "I am the man" OR "I am he" OR "I have been," etc. Trinitarian translators violated the rules of English grammar with John 8:58 AND ONLY WITH JOHN 8:58. In all other instances in the Bible where the same Greek rendering for "I am" is used, the translators made the language adjustments and presented grammatically correct renderings in English. The reason why Trinitarian translators violated English grammar rules specifically at this verse is obvious: The intent is to fool people into believing Jesus Christ (the son) and Jehovah God (the Father) are the same person who spoke to Moses at Exodus 3:14.

See Part 2 for the continuation of my exposé on the John 8:58 deliberate translation blunder.

Alter2Ego

08-27-2012, 12:39 PM

PART 2 OF 3
JOHN 8:58 DELIBERATE TRANSLATION BLUNDER

ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:

As stated in Part 1 of this exposé of John 8:58, Trinitarian Bible translators deliberately presented a translation blunder/error: The expressions "I am the man" OR "I am he" would have been the correct translation of the Greek in this instance, so that the sentence could be grammatically correct.

To show you the dishonesty of Trinitarian Bible translators, the same Greek term "Ego eimi" used by Jesus at John 8:58 and translated "I am" is used at many other parts of the New Testament. However, in all of those other instances, when "Ego eimi" ("I am") is used in the New Testament, the sentences are grammatically correct. In those instances, the Trinitarian Bible translators use "I am he" OR "I am the man" when necessary. The blunder occurred only at John 8:58 because the speaker there is Jesus Christ.

For instance, the man that was born blind that was healed by Jesus Christ is mentioned with the exact set of Greek words "Ego eimi" ("I am") that is used at John 8:58. Regarding the man born blind, below is the context quoted from the New World Translation of the Bible (published by Jehovah's Witnesses). Keep your eyes on the words in bold print at John 9:9, because I will repeat verse 9 by quoting from other Bibles in Part 3 of this John 8:58 exposé.

"{1} Now as he [Jesus] was passing along he saw a man blind from birth. {6} After he [Jesus] said these things, he spit on the ground and made a clay with the saliva, and put his clay upon the man's eyes {7} and said to him: "Go wash in the pool of Siloam" (which is translated "Sent forth"). And so he went off and washed, and came back seeing. {8} Therefore the neighbors and those who formerly used to see he was a beggar began to say: "This is the man that used to sit and beg, is it not?" {9} Some would say: "This is he." Others would say: "Not at all, but he is like him." The man would say: "I am he." " (John 9:1, 6-9 -- New World Translation)

Notice above at verse 9 that the man born blind used the expression "I am he" instead of the literal translation "I am." Now, notice the same sentence at the end of verse 9, when translated literally.

"Not at all, but he is like him." The man would say: "I am." "

Without a doubt English speakers would have objected to that second rendering because it violates the rules of English grammar. Yet, when the same violation occurs in Jesus' sentence--"Before Abraham was, I am."--nobody raises an eyebrow because they are all in compliance with this falsehood of trinity and are desperate enough to latch onto a single verse of scripture (in this case, John 8:58).

In Part 3 of my exposé of John 8:58, I will present clear and convincing evidence that Trinitarian translators are in cahoots in violating the rules of English Grammar for the Greek expression "Ego eimi" ("I am") ONLY WHEN IT APPEARS AT JOHN 8:58. Why? Because they are intent on deceiving the gullible into thinking Jesus (the son) is the same "I am" as Jehovah (the Father) who spoke at Exodus 3:14.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-27-2012, 12:52 PM

In Part 3 of my exposé of John 8:58, I will present clear and convincing evidence that Trinitarian translators are in cahoots in violating the rules of English Grammar for the Greek expression "Ego eimi" ("I am") ONLY WHEN IT APPEARS AT JOHN 8:58. Why? Because they are intent on deceiving the gullible into thinking Jesus (the son) is the same "I am" as Jehovah (the Father) who spoke at Exodus 3:14.
I hope Part 3 will be better than your first two "Parts" since they didn't give any relevant information.

:pop2:

Richard Amiel McGough

08-27-2012, 12:55 PM

I don't see.
It never says that Jesus is God.
In Revelation 22 an angel is speaking.

That's the whole point sylvius.

Jesus accepted worship by Thomas. Worship belongs to God alone. This implies Jesus was God just like Thomas said.

sylvius

08-27-2012, 01:01 PM

That's the whole point sylvius.

Jesus accepted worship by Thomas. Worship belongs to God alone.

Where it says so?

This implies Jesus was God just like Thomas said.

Wasn't he a fraud?

Richard Amiel McGough

08-27-2012, 01:11 PM

That's the whole point sylvius.

Jesus accepted worship by Thomas. Worship belongs to God alone.
Where it says so?

John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Wasn't he a fraud?
I never said that. But even if I did it would be totally irrelevant to our discussion because I am merely reporting what logically follows from what the Bible says. It's no different than if I quoted the Quran in an argument about what the Quran states. How is it possible that you don't understand such simple logic?

Alter2Ego

08-27-2012, 01:12 PM

PART 3 OF 3
JOHN 8:58 DELIBERATE TRANSLATION BLUNDER

ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:

Below Is the previously quoted context for the man born blind. Focus on verse 9, because it will immediately be repeated by quotations of the same verse from four different Trinitarian Bibles.

"{1} Now as he [Jesus] was passing along he saw a man blind from birth. {6} After he [Jesus] said these things, he spit on the ground and made a clay with the saliva, and put his clay upon the man's eyes {7} and said to him: "Go wash in the pool of Siloam" (which is translated "Sent forth"). And so he went off and washed, and came back seeing. {8} Therefore the neighbors and those who formerly used to see he was a beggar began to say: "This is the man that used to sit and beg, is it not?" {9} Some would say: "This is he." Others would say: "Not at all, but he is like him." The man would say: "I am he." " (John 9:1, 6-9 -- New World Translation)

"Some claimed that he was. Others said, "No, he only looks like him." But he himself insisted, "I am the man."" (John 9:9 -- New International Version)

"Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he." (John 9:9 -- King James Bible)

"Some were saying, "This is he", and some were saying, "No, but he is someone like him", but he said, "I am he."" (John 9:9 -- Aramaic Bible in Plain English)

"Others said, It is he: others said, No, but he is like him. He said, I am he." (John 9:9 -- American Standard Version)

Sylvius, did you notice that the man's statements are all grammatically correct in English and that the Trinitarian translators did not use the literal "I am" but instead used "I am he" OR "I am the man"? Now, watch what happens below when these very same Bible translators present the English rendering of John 8:58 where Jesus Christ—using the same Greek expression "Ego eimi" ("I am")—is the speaker.

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58 -- New International Version)

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58 -- King James Bible)

"Yeshua said to them: “Timeless truth I speak to you: Before Abraham would exist, I AM THE LIVING GOD.” " (John 8:58 -- Aramaic Bible in Plain English)

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am." (John 8:58 -- American Standard Version)

Sylvius, with regards to John 8:58, did you notice that the following occurred when all four Trinitarian Bibles translated Jesus' words at John 8:58? Remember now, John 9:9 (the man born blind) and John 8:58 (Jesus using the same expression) are only 10 verses apart. In other words, these translators were not confused about how to render the Greek expression "Ego eimi" ("I am"). Their blunder at John 8:58 was deliberate, as follows.

1. All four Bible translations violated the rules of English grammar by ending the sentence with "I am."

2. Not only that, New International Version turned around and added an exclamation sign to draw attention to the words "I am," despite the fact Jesus was not exclaiming. An exclamation sign is used when someone is at the point of shouting.

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58 -- New International Version)

3. To compound the dishonesty, Aramaic Bible in Plain English went all out by adding the words "...THE LIVING GOD" at the end of Jesus' sentence and did so in all caps to further emphasize their dishonesty.

"Yeshua said to them: “Timeless truth I speak to you: Before Abraham would exist, I AM THE LIVING GOD.” (John 8:58 -- Aramaic Bible in Plain English)

As you can see, the agenda of Trinitarian Bible translators is to make it appear that the pagan, 3-prong god (Trinity) is a Bible teaching.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-27-2012, 01:19 PM

PART 3 OF 3
JOHN 8:58 DELIBERATE TRANSLATION BLUNDER

ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:

...

As you can see, the agenda of Trinitarian Bible translators is to make it appear that the pagan, 3-prong god (Trinity) is a Bible teaching.
You wrote a lot of words, but not one of them supports your case.

You need to present what you think is the correct translation of John 8:58.

sylvius

08-27-2012, 01:53 PM

John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
I do miss the word "worship".

And also that worship belongs to God alone.

Doesn't worship also belong to idols? (idolworship)

Many people prostrate themselves before crucifixes or make a cross-sign (for to have good luck).

I never said that. But even if I did it would be totally irrelevant to our discussion because I am merely reporting what logically follows from what the Bible says. It's no different than if I quoted the Quran in an argument about what the Quran states. How is it possible that you don't understand such simple logic?

Someone accepting worship doesn't mean that he is God.

Be he a king, or a champion, or an imaginary champion, or just a fraud.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-27-2012, 02:08 PM

I do miss the word "worship".

And also that worship belongs to God alone.

Doesn't worship also belong to idols? (idolworship)

Many people prostrate themselves before crucifixes or make a cross-sign (for to have good luck).

According to the Bible, worship belongs to God alone.
Revelation 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. 9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

This verse was cited earlier in our discussion. It is ridiculous for you to say you "missed it." Aren't you paying attention?

John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Why do you pretend you don't understand? It is as plain as day. Jesus said Thomas was blessed because he believed. And what did he believe? He believed that Jesus was both Lord and God.

Someone accepting worship doesn't mean that he is God.

Jesus is not just "someone" in the Bible. He is Messiah, the Son of God, and the Lord to whom alone belongs honor and worship:
John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Christ accepted Thomas' statement that he was his "Lord" and his "God." And he didn't just accept it, he said that Thomas was "blessed" because he believed that Jesus was both Lord and God.

David M

08-27-2012, 02:42 PM

That's the whole point sylvius.

Jesus accepted worship by Thomas. Worship belongs to God alone.

John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Hello Richard
Yet again you are drawing an incorrect inference. There is nothing in the statement made by Thomas to indicate that he was worshiping Jesus. Thomas merely made an exclamation of surprise and an acceptance of Jesus as lord and of his God; Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Also, Thomas is not saying My Lord God, Thomas sees Jesus as Lord separate from God hence the word "and". Maybe Thomas was recalling in his mind the words of Jesus (he that hath seen me hath seen the Father)when he made the exclamation. When Jesus said those words he was not claiming to be God.

The word "worship" is not mentioned or inferred anywhere in this meeting of Thomas and Jesus. Presumably Thomas would have been taught and remembered that God alone was to be worshiped.

We know that Jesus recalled scripture when overcoming his own temptation and he says; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. We can reasonably expect Jesus to have said this to his disciples, after all, Jesus said; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

So Richard it is up to you to prove that Thomas was worshiping Jesus or else admit your statement is incorrect.

All the best,

David

David M

08-27-2012, 02:55 PM

And he didn't just accept it, he said that Thomas was "blessed" because he believed that Jesus was both Lord and God.

OK Richard yet another misquote or inference by you. Please give the reference to the verse in which Thomas was blessed.

Jesus in the verse we are considering says; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Thomas saw and was not amongst the blessed who have not seen and yet believed.

David

David M

08-27-2012, 03:32 PM

You wrote a lot of words, but not one of them supports your case.

You need to present what you think is the correct translation of John 8:58.

So Richard, if the blind man had said "I am" we are to conclude that the blind man is God. The same Greek words are used of the blind man. Please give us your detailed exposition of the dialogue of Jesus in which the same Greek words are used where in other examples the expression "I am he" is translated. By using this expression "I am he" there is not a connection with the phrase "I Am" spoken by God which would have been originally recorded in Hebrew and not Greek.

I look forward to your exposition.

David

Richard Amiel McGough

08-27-2012, 03:54 PM

So Richard, if the blind man had said "I am" we are to conclude that the blind man is God. The same Greek words are used of the blind man. Please give us your detailed exposition of the dialogue of Jesus in which the same Greek words are used where in other examples the expression "I am he" is translated. By using this expression "I am he" there is not a connection with the phrase "I Am" spoken by God which would have been originally recorded in Hebrew and not Greek.

I look forward to your exposition.

David
Hey there David,

I wrote nothing that would suggest that "if the blind man had said "I am" we are to conclude that the blind man is God." Why would you write such an absurdity?

Everyone knows that the phrase "I am" can be used by ordinary people in ordinary contexts. But the Bible does not present Jesus as an "ordinary person" and the CONTEXT and GRAMMAR of his statement was an obvious and deliberate use of the Divine Name "I AM." Neither you nor Alter2Ego has presented any reason to think otherwise. Neither of you have presented the "correct" translation of John 8:58. So until one of you presents an argument for your position, your position will remain an unsupported and empty assertion and no one will have any reason to believe you. Indeed, I don't even have a clue what you think that verse really means.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

08-27-2012, 03:56 PM

OK Richard yet another misquote or inference by you. Please give the reference to the verse in which Thomas was blessed.

Jesus in the verse we are considering says; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Thomas saw and was not amongst the blessed who have not seen and yet believed.

David

Good catch David. I was mistaken on that point. :thumb:

weeder

08-27-2012, 04:27 PM

I don't see.
It never says that Jesus is God.
In Revelation 22 an angel is speaking.

The Lord God Almighty says he is the alpha/omega, first/last.
Jesus refers to himself as the alph/omega in Rev 22. No Angel would say that he was the alpha/omega.....

Rev 22

12 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

16 “ I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

Jesus is the one promising to come again yes?

Rev 1
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “ who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Richard Amiel McGough

08-27-2012, 04:27 PM

Hello Richard
Yet again you are drawing an incorrect inference. There is nothing in the statement made by Thomas to indicate that he was worshiping Jesus. Thomas merely made an exclamation of surprise and an acceptance of Jesus as lord and of his God; Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Also, Thomas is not saying My Lord God, Thomas sees Jesus as Lord separate from God hence the word "and". Maybe Thomas was recalling in his mind the words of Jesus (he that hath seen me hath seen the Father)when he made the exclamation. When Jesus said those words he was not claiming to be God.

The word "worship" is not mentioned or inferred anywhere in this meeting of Thomas and Jesus. Presumably Thomas would have been taught and remembered that God alone was to be worshiped.

We know that Jesus recalled scripture when overcoming his own temptation and he says; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. We can reasonably expect Jesus to have said this to his disciples, after all, Jesus said; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

So Richard it is up to you to prove that Thomas was worshiping Jesus or else admit your statement is incorrect.

All the best,

David

Is there any case of any believer ever calling anyone "Lord" and "God" in a positive sense other than the true God? The answer is obviously "no." And we know that Jesus accepted worship from the disciples:
Matthew 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

The Biblical meaning is perfectly clear from the Biblical context. Your attempt to explain away the plain meaning of the text contains many obvious errors.

1) Thomas merely made an exclamation of surprise and an acceptance of Jesus as lord and of his God;

You can make up whatever stories you like. The Bible says nothing about any "exclamation of surprise." And if it were merely an exclamation of surprise, Jesus would have rebuked him saying "Don't call me that. There is only one God. I am not God."

2) Thomas sees Jesus as Lord separate from God hence the word "and".

That makes no sense at all. Thomas referred to Jesus as his Lord AND his God. It is impossible to say that he meant Jesus was his Lord and that God was his God. That's not what he said.

3) Presumably Thomas would have been taught and remembered that God alone was to be worshiped.

Yes he certainly would have remembered that. And he also would have remembered never to call a man Lord AND God if that man was not Lord AND God. You are simply assuming your conclusion. That is a fundamental logical fallacy.

Your entire argument is based on your presumption that Jesus was not God. If that presumption is wrong, then the text makes perfect sense in light of the truth of the Trinity. Therefore, you cannot disprove the Trinity by this verse since your "proof" depends upon the assumption that the Trinity is false. Simple logic.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

08-27-2012, 04:38 PM

The Lord God Almighty says he is the alpha/omega, first/last.
Jesus refers to himself as the alph/omega in Rev 22. No Angel would say that he was the alpha/omega.....

Rev 22

12 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

16 “ I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

Jesus is the one promising to come again yes?

Rev 1
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “ who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

That's an exceedingly strong argument. The symbol of "alpha/omega" refers directly and only to God in the Bible. No created being could ever be called alpha/omega. And there are many other examples where divine titles that belong only to God are applied to Christ. And the text explicitly identifies Christ with Yahweh:

Isaiah 45:23 I [YAHWEH] have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Philippians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

And Jesus and Yahweh are each called Saviour. God is the light of the world, and Jesus is light of the world. On and on it goes. Folks who deny that Christ is God deny all the verses that plainly identify him as such.

The Bible says that Christ is Creator, Lord, and that to him every knee would bow. There is no way to deny these texts and retain any meaning of the Bible.

weeder

08-27-2012, 04:42 PM

The word "worship" is not mentioned or inferred anywhere in this meeting of Thomas and Jesus. Presumably Thomas would have been taught and remembered that God alone was to be worshiped.

No doubt that the disciples would of remembered to worship God and him alone.

Matt 28
But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.

Have a guess as to who was doubtful :lol:
With all doubt removed, Thomas comes to the party and confesses Jesus as his Lord...and God.

David M

08-27-2012, 06:12 PM

No doubt that the disciples would of remembered to worship God and him alone.

Matt 28
But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.

Have a guess as to who was doubtful :lol:
With all doubt removed, Thomas comes to the party and confesses Jesus as his Lord...and God.

Thank you Weeder for this reference. I will keep this in mind. Whether Jesus had told his disciples that they were to worship God only, there is no stopping people doing what they want to do on the spur of the moment. The worship that the disciples gave Jesus does not equate to more formal worship of God as would be done in synagogues and temples.

It is interesting to note in further reading of the reference you have given what Jesus says; (Matt 28: 17) And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

I sense a difference in the authority of Jesus here. I believe that Jesus had unlimited access to God's Holy Spirit during his ministry in that God would do anything requested by Jesus. As we know, Jesus did not use the availability of God's power for his own use or to demonstrate his own authority. Jesus spoke as one having authority, but he never exercised authority over anyone. It will be different when Jesus returns to the earth to set up God's Kingdom for as it says; (Matt 24:30) and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Jesus is confirming in this verse that he has been given the authority from God and with God's power available to him, we shall see Jesus exercising his authority in the earth when he returns. This shows the confidence God has in Jesus not to do anything that will not be the will of God.

All the best,

David

weeder

08-27-2012, 08:38 PM

Thank you Weeder for this reference. I will keep this in mind.

:yo:

Whether Jesus had told his disciples that they were to worship God only, there is no stopping people doing what they want to do on the spur of the moment. The worship that the disciples gave Jesus does not equate to more formal worship of God as would be done in synagogues and temples.

Jesus taught that we are to "worship" God and only him-Luke 4.
The same word for "worship" is used in the disciples worship of Jesus. Any spur of the moment lapse in concentration on their part, would have been met with correction,but Jesus didnt correct them for worshipping something other than God himself.

weeder

08-27-2012, 09:19 PM

Jesus was annoyed with disciples on several occasions...how slow they were to believe ...how long must I remain with you until you get it...etc

Jesus sends word that he will meet them on the mountain in Galillee....they all rock up..and when they see him they worship him.
Jesus is not annoyed at seeing this...he sees that they are ready to continue his work, commisions them, and prepares for his departure.

Alter2Ego

08-27-2012, 09:58 PM

If you believe the early Christians were "Roman Catholics" then why do you accept the Bible they produced? Do you have any knowledge of the history of the Bible?
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
I believe I previously mentioned that the early Christians were those who wrote the New Testament. What is it about that don't you get?

You've sure got it twisted. You actually think the Roman Catholics did something great by interfering with, and polluting, Christianity with paganism. The Romans--some of whom later became "Christianized" and called themselves Catholics--as members of the then-existing world power were able to arrest and execute many of the Jewish Christians, after which they hijacked God's inspired writings.

The inspired writings never belonged to them. It belonged to all of humanity from the get-go because it is Jehovah's message to all mankind. In order to gain everlasting life, everyone needs direct access to the information contained therein. But the Catholic Church prevented people from reading the Bible for centuries--in direct violation of Jesus Christ's words, spoken below during a prayer to his heavenly father, Jehovah.

"This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (John 17:3)

The Catholic Church burned people to death to prevent them from translating the Bible from Latin to the language of the English populace. During the 15th and 16th centuries--starting with King Ferdinand and his Queen, Isabella--the Catholic Spaniards brought about the Spanish Inquisition in which they burned hundreds of Jews to death in order to confiscate their property.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n1p-2_Chalmers.html

In Europe the Catholic Church executed scientists who contradicted their lame-brained belief that the earth is the center of the universe (which they got from Greek philosopher Aristotle). In a nutshell, the Catholic Church, as an organization, is soaked in the blood of the innocent. It more or less stood in the way of religious truth and scientific advances for centuries. But to hear you tell it, the Catholic Church was a gift to mankind. Yeah. Right.

In reality, the Catholic Church did more harm to Christianity than we will ever know. They caused people for centuries to worship a non-existent, 3-prong trinity god that is nowhere to be found in the Judeo-Christian Bible. The result has been centuries of people praying to a non-existent god who would never answer their prayers. The tragedy is that to this day, people still believe Jehovah is split up into three separate gods. The trinity dogma is in direct violation of the Shema found at Deuteronomy.

"Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is ONE Jehovah." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

I challenge you to show me where the scripture at Deuteronomy says anything about 3 gods in 1. It said ONE, not 3-in-1.

sylvius

08-27-2012, 10:42 PM

Hey there David,

I wrote nothing that would suggest that "if the blind man had said "I am" we are to conclude that the blind man is God." Why would you write such an absurdity?

Everyone knows that the phrase "I am" can be used by ordinary people in ordinary contexts. But the Bible does not present Jesus as an "ordinary person" and the CONTEXT and GRAMMAR of his statement was an obvious and deliberate use of the Divine Name "I AM." Neither you nor Alter2Ego has presented any reason to think otherwise. Neither of you have presented the "correct" translation of John 8:58. So until one of you presents an argument for your position, your position will remain an unsupported and empty assertion and no one will have any reason to believe you. Indeed, I don't even have a clue what you think that verse really means.

All the best,

Richard

"I am" is NOT a (divine) name.

(You have been made believe so ).

Exodus 3:6,
"I am the God of your father
Hebrew אָנֹכִי אֱלֹהֵי אָבִיךָ , "anochi elohei avicha"
LXX: ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς τοῦ πατρός σου

v.12,
"For I will be with you
Hebrew כִּי אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ , "ki ehyeh imach"
LXX: ὅτι ἔσομαι μετὰ σοῦ

v.13-15
And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I will be what I will be," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'I will be" has sent me to you.'" And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Hashem God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation.

"I will be what I will be" refers back to v. 12 "I will be with you".

Rashi:

“Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)”: “I will be” with them in this predicament “what I will be” with them in their subjugation by other kingdoms. He [Moses] said before Him, “O Lord of the universe! Why should I mention to them another trouble? They have enough [problems] with this one.” He said to him, “You have spoken well. So shall you say, etc.” -[from Ber. 9b] (Not that Moses, God forbid, outsmarted God, but he did not understand what God meant, because originally, when God said, “I will be what I will be,” He told this to Moses alone, and He did not mean that he should tell it to Israel. That is the meaning of “You have spoken well,” for that was My original intention, that you should not tell such things to the children of Israel, only “So shall you say to the children of Israel,” ‘Ehyeh [I will be] has sent me.’”

Exodus 20:2,
"I am the Lord, your God...'
Hebrew: אָנֹכִי יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ , "anochi hashem eloheicha"
LXX: ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ὁ θεός σου

So it might be clear now that "I am" is not a name.

I am too.

sylvius

08-27-2012, 11:20 PM

No doubt that the disciples would of remembered to worship God and him alone.

Matt 28
But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.

Have a guess as to who was doubtful :lol:
With all doubt removed, Thomas comes to the party and confesses Jesus as his Lord...and God.

Matthew is another book than John. You cannot sow them together.

Matthew 28:16-17 was written after Mark 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”

"just as he told you" Greek καθὼς εἶπεν ὑμῖν, "katos eipen humin", which contrast the Καθὼς γέγραπται , "katos gegraptai" of Mark 1:2,

Which intimates oral teaching,
like written in Mark 4:10-12,
And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that
“they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven.”

Also the so called Olivet discourse was directed even to just the inner circle of his disciples,
Mark 13:3-4
And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?”

In which he says:
v.26,
And then they will see the son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

Matthew 28:16-17 refers to Mark 9:2 =

And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them

Matthew took it from Mark.

It is not historical.

Alter2Ego

08-27-2012, 11:21 PM

"I am" is NOT a (divine) name.

(You have been made believe so ).

Exodus 3:6,
"I am the God of your father
Hebrew אָנֹכִי אֱלֹהֵי אָבִיךָ , "anochi elohei avicha"
LXX: ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς τοῦ πατρός σου
ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:

When you get a chance, be sure and read my exposé on the John 8:58 translation blunder. You will find it in three parts on Page 6 of this thread. It will be at Post 53, Post 54, and Post 59.

weeder

08-27-2012, 11:56 PM

Matthew is another book than John. You cannot sow them together.

Yes i can. They were both eyewitnesses, which is more than i can say for Mark.

Matthew 28:16-17 refers to Mark 9:2 =

And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them

Matthew took it from Mark.

It is not historical.

Matthew had no need to take anything from Mark. Matt wrote a larger account describing extra details that only a eyewitness would know.

I dont see any connection between Matt 28 and Mark 9.

sylvius

08-28-2012, 12:13 AM

:yo:

Jesus taught that we are to "worship" God and only him-Luke 4.

in a dispute with the devil:

Luke 4:5-7 = Matthew 4:8-10.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written,

“‘You shall worship the Lord your God
and him only shall you serve.’”

”

Verb used

προσκυνέω,v \{pros-koo-neh'-o}
1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence 2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence 3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication 3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank 3a1) to the Jewish high priests 3a2) to God 3a3) to Christ 3a4) to heavenly beings 3a5) to demons

It seems to be derived from Deuteronomy 6:13 in which "worship" is not mentioned,
You shall fear the Lord, your God, serve Him, and swear by His name.
Also not in LXX:
κύριον τὸν θεόν σου φοβηθήσῃ καὶ αὐτῷ λατρεύσεις καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν κολληθήσῃ καὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ὀμῇ

So it seems to be a Matthean/Lukan invention.

Worship in Hebrew is "hishthachavah"

Mordechai refused to bow for Haman.
Esther 3:2, LXX
ὁ δὲ *μαρδοχαῖος οὐ προσεκύνει αὐτῷ -

You see the same verb is used.

Hebrew:
וּמָרְדֳּכַי לֹא יִכְרַע וְלֹא יִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה, "umordechai lo yichra v'lo yishtachveh".

The same word for "worship" is used in the disciples worship of Jesus. Any spur of the moment lapse in concentration on their part, would have been met with correction,but Jesus didnt correct them for worshipping something other than God himself.

Interesting is "the very high mountian" of Matthew 4:8.

Luke doesn't have it!

Matthew 28:16,

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.

You might think Matthew intends it to be the same mountain.

which makes think of Matthew 6:24

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon.

sylvius

08-28-2012, 12:33 AM

Yes i can. They were both eyewitnesses, which is more than i can say for Mark.

Who then was the one to witness them to be eye-witnesses?

Matthew had no need to take anything from Mark.

Yet he did.

Matt wrote a larger account describing extra details that only a eyewitness would know.

Like gynealogical research?

I dont see any connection between Matt 28 and Mark 9.

The mountain in Galilee is the connection.

"after six days" I think refers to Genesis 1:31-2:1 as being te precise scriptural location of it, "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim"
where the Name of God is hidden, even as the seal of creation.

Mark presents it in another way.
Mark ends with: "for they feared" (Mark 16:8) (The rest is later addition)
Greek: ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ

with the seemingly intention to connect it with the begiinnnig, Mark 1:1:
Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου

so to read: ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ ἀρχή τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, "ephobounto gar archè tou euangliou" -- for they feared the very priciple of the Gospel

after: Psalms 111:10,

רֵאשִׁית חָכְמָה יִרְאַת יְהוָה
“reishit chochmah yir’at hashem”
the principle of wisdom is the fear of the Lord

the Lord who is present at entrance of Sabbath = kingdom of God.

David M

08-28-2012, 01:09 AM

Hey there David,

I wrote nothing that would suggest that "if the blind man had said "I am" we are to conclude that the blind man is God." Why would you write such an absurdity?

Everyone knows that the phrase "I am" can be used by ordinary people in ordinary contexts. But the Bible does not present Jesus as an "ordinary person" and the CONTEXT and GRAMMAR of his statement was an obvious and deliberate use of the Divine Name "I AM." Neither you nor Alter2Ego has presented any reason to think otherwise. Neither of you have presented the "correct" translation of John 8:58. So until one of you presents an argument for your position, your position will remain an unsupported and empty assertion and no one will have any reason to believe you. Indeed, I don't even have a clue what you think that verse really means.

All the best,

Richard

Good morning Richard
With the amount of posts submitted recently, your replies nearly passed me by.
I wanted to make the point that you should not use the phrase Jesus said; before Abraham was, I am to attempt to prove Jesus is God (which he is not). If you are not against the point Alter2Ego is making then that is OK, but I sense you are against Alter2Ego on this matter, so my point stands. You might not have commented on the blind man, but if you are against Alter2Ego on this point, then this is what you must infer in the story of the blind man.

All the best,

David

PS
(from Richard) Neither of you have presented the "correct" translation of John 8:58. So until one of you presents an argument for your position, your position will remain an unsupported and empty assertion and no one will have any reason to believe you. Indeed, I don't even have a clue what you think that verse really means.
Please Richard, I have asked you for an exposition in my previous post

So Richard, if the blind man had said "I am" we are to conclude that the blind man is God. The same Greek words are used of the blind man. Please give us your detailed exposition of the dialogue of Jesus in which the same Greek words are used where in other examples the expression "I am he" is translated. By using this expression "I am he" there is not a connection with the phrase "I Am" spoken by God which would have been originally recorded in Hebrew and not Greek.

I look forward to your exposition.

You say I and Alter2Ego have not presented the correct translation, I want to know how you analyze the complete dialogue.

weeder

08-28-2012, 01:14 AM

Interesting is "the very high mountian" of Matthew 4:8.

Luke doesn't have it!

Matthew 28:16,

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.

You might think Matthew intends it to be the same mountain.

The devil designates one mountain and Jesus designates to meet his disciples on another.?
Matt 4
Again, the devil *took Him to a very high mountain and *showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory;9 and he said to Him, “ All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” .........
matt 28
But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.

Maybe it was the same mountain, and Jesus chose this spot to declare that all authority was given to him to bestow the glories of the kingdoms on all who would worship him.

sylvius

08-28-2012, 01:28 AM

The devil designates one mountain and Jesus designates to meet his disciples on another.?
Matt 4
Again, the devil *took Him to a very high mountain and *showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory;9 and he said to Him, “ All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” .........
matt 28
But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.

Maybe it was the same mountain, and Jesus chose this spot to declare that all authority was given to him to bestow the glories of the kingdoms on all who would worship him.

The devil is the one who demands worship, not Jesus.

David M

08-28-2012, 01:58 AM

Is there any case of any believer ever calling anyone "Lord" and "God" in a positive sense other than the true God? The answer is obviously "no." And we know that Jesus accepted worship from the disciples:
Matthew 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

The Biblical meaning is perfectly clear from the Biblical context. Your attempt to explain away the plain meaning of the text contains many obvious errors.

1) Thomas merely made an exclamation of surprise and an acceptance of Jesus as lord and of his God;

You can make up whatever stories you like. The Bible says nothing about any "exclamation of surprise." And if it were merely an exclamation of surprise, Jesus would have rebuked him saying "Don't call me that. There is only one God. I am not God."

2) Thomas sees Jesus as Lord separate from God hence the word "and".

That makes no sense at all. Thomas referred to Jesus as his Lord AND his God. It is impossible to say that he meant Jesus was his Lord and that God was his God. That's not what he said.

3) Presumably Thomas would have been taught and remembered that God alone was to be worshiped.

Yes he certainly would have remembered that. And he also would have remembered never to call a man Lord AND God if that man was not Lord AND God. You are simply assuming your conclusion. That is a fundamental logical fallacy.

Your entire argument is based on your presumption that Jesus was not God. If that presumption is wrong, then the text makes perfect sense in light of the truth of the Trinity. Therefore, you cannot disprove the Trinity by this verse since your "proof" depends upon the assumption that the Trinity is false. Simple logic.

All the best,

Richard

Good morning Richard
I think my inferences are as valid as any inference you make. Perhaps we should all stop making inferences. I am no worse than you for making up stories if that is how you regard my alternative explanations to the ones being given. I let others make up their mind.

You can stick to your point saying Thomas called Jesus Lord and God, but that does not mean you are correct. I see you fall into the same trap as we all do at times. I am basing my statements taking into account what is written elsewhere and this is what we read in Phil 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. This is what Thomas was doing; confessing Jesus as Lord to the glory of God. This verse in Philippians does not suggest that Jesus is God, in fact it makes the two distinctly separate.

I think you are equally guilty of assuming your conclusion as much as you think I am guilty of doing the same. It does not follow that if Jesus is not God, the proof of the Trinity stands. Whether Jesus is God or not, does not change the fact that the Bible does not teach the Trinity which is a man-made false interpretation and the Bible could teach something completely different from what we both think. I am waiting to find out what Alter2Ego understands the nature of Jesus to be. Obviously Alter2Ego does not believe in the Trinity, but I guess does not see the nature of Jesus as I do, hence a third possibility.

While quoting the verse from Philippians, I see that verses 9 and 10 say;Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
(10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Bowing the knee, which is what the disciples did when they met the risen Jesus in the mount, is not necessarily worshiping Jesus in the same way that God expects to be worshiped. Jesus is not telling us to worship him alone and not worship God. Jesus would expect to take second place to God despite God making Jesus the most powerful being in Heaven and on earth next to Himself.
It is also clear that after the resurrection of Jesus, he was given greater authority. This is what Jesus said in his final message recorded in Matthew (28:18) All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. This is in-keeping with what we learn in Philippians and why God has highly exalted Jesus after he proved his complete obedience to his Heavenly Father.

As usual we consider each other to be making presumptions, so I guess this is par for the course and others must decide for themselves who is the more correct.

All the best.

David

David M

08-28-2012, 02:28 AM

The devil is the one who demands worship, not Jesus.

Hello sylvius

thanks for your contributions. You are correct and this is why Jesus could not use God's power to promote himself and seek the praise and worship of men. The thoughts that were in Jesus's head, when he was in the wilderness, would be no different to any of us had we been in his place.

Now that Jesus has been raised from the dead, Jesus has been elevated to the highest place in Heaven next to God and yet Jesus would acknowledge that he is still second to God. Jesus has been given a name that is above every name except that in status Jesus is not above or equal with God, though Jesus can carry the name of God as we all can carry his name by association with Him.

When Jesus was ministering for three and a half years, all of God's power was made available to him and while we did not see Jesus wielding authority and ruler-ship over men, nevertheless he spoke as one having authority. That will change when Jesus comes back. Confirming that Jesus will come with "power" as prophesied in Matt 24, Jesus said in his parting message to his disciples; "all power has been given me in heaven and in earth" When Jesus returns we can expect him to rule with authority and he will need to in order to establish God's kingdom on the earth. With all power given to him, it is God who has given His power to Jesus and so this is why Jesus is second to God and not equal to God. It is God who giveth and God who taketh away and whilst there is no reason for God to withhold His power from Jesus, nevertheless God remains in the position to do so. Also, it must be noted that when Jesus hands over the Kingdom after the last enemy "death" has been destroyed, Jesus will have no further use of God's power. This is when God takes charge of His Kingdom and directly communicates with man again as He did in the Garden with Adam, before Adam's disgrace. And when God starts to communicate directly again, this is when God will be "all and in all".

All the best.

David

Alter2Ego

08-28-2012, 03:23 AM

Why do you believe it should have only 66 books? What proof do have? How do you know Philemon should be in it?
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
The 66 books in the Judeo-Christian Bible are all in harmony and do not contradict each other, despite the fact they were written by dozens of different people over a span of 1,600 years. That alone is convincing evidence that it was authored by a single person—Almighty God Jehovah.

What is the real basis of your faith if not blindly believing what you have been told (just like a Muslim believes the Quran)?
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
The Bible presents nearly 2,000 accurately fulfilled prophecies that prove it to be the inspired Word of God, remember? It's not my problem that you've been reading it for decades, as you claim, but you can't recall seeing one single prophecy written therein. Of course when you joined forces with Rose in attacking the Bible and God, you suddenly had excellent memory. That's when you quoted the prophecy at Isaiah 53:10, which prophesied Jesus' painful death. According to you and Rose, God told the Romans to kill Jesus Christ by crucifixion.

BTW: Why are you comparing the Judeo-Christian Bible with the Quran? The Muslim Bible was written more than 600 years after the completion of the Judeo-Christian Bible. It was written by means of a pagan named Muhammad who claimed he was inspired by the Angel Gabriel to become Islam's prophet. If you want to debate the authenticity of the Quran, you might want to take that up with a Muslim. I'm dealing with the Judeo-Christian Bible at this particular time.

David M

08-28-2012, 04:37 AM

Good catch David. I was mistaken on that point. :thumb:

Thank you Richard. I think you are mistaken on many things which I am hoping you will spend some time re-evaluating what you believe. You throw into the forum quotes from the Bible which you say you do not believe, and you say; "the Bible says this" when in fact you are mistaken and you consider anyone else wrong for saying anything different to what you are putting forward. Context is all important and we both agree on this, and sometimes we disagree on the context. I want to be factually correct on what the Bible says. You do not have to believe it, but you can be factually correct in translating its message. The fact that you acknowledge you have made mistakes should make you cautious not to make similar mistakes. You should refrain from saying; "this is what Christians believe or say" for as you know, I do not hold with what much of Christendom says. I would rather hear what you have to say and formulate your own interpretation. I shall assume you support what Christians say or Preterists say when it suits your purpose to get support for the ideas you are holding on to. If you do not hold to any one interpretation, then state the alternatives when you put forward a Biblical quote. When you say the "Bible clearly states" I know that is how you interpret it even if you do not believe it. The problem with this is that you do not have to try and think any differently to what you do and you do not have to be constructive in finding any other meaning than the one you give and claim not to believe.

Your are correct in saying "there is not a lot of evidence" outside the Bible. The OT has many prophecies that are fulfilled in the New Testament though there might not be the evidence external to the Bible to prove everything written. To say that the New Testament writers collaborated to write their records to fulfill Old Testament prophecy is to make an unsubstantiated statement without evidence. All this does is to irritate contributors to this forum rather than be constructive about what the Bible actually says in the way the author(s) intend readers to understand.

From now on, lets be objective and stick to the facts and let's do expositions on passages of the Bible to find out all possibilities of interpretations to get to an understanding. This is what I was hoping we would do from the start when I came on this forum. I have come to the conclusion, based on the majority of the Bible, that is has a coherent message and therefore I will try and find plausible explanations to apparent paradoxes. It is not misconstruing scripture to do this. It is misconstruing scripture to say that a particular verse says such and such and to ignore explaining the paradoxes that remain. I am waiting for Alter2Ego to explain to me how it is that God's Angels in Heaven can sin, when the understanding of Jesus is that God's will is done in Heaven and that Jesus prays for the same to be done on earth. This paradox must be resolved. To say that God's will is not (or was not) done in Heaven is to make Jesus a liar or ill-informed.

I have asked you to do an exposition on the dialogue of Jesus in John 8:58. As I look at this dialogue, I have to ask myself; "what is the question put to Jesus and how is Jesus answering the question?" Jesus is answering the question, but to take what Jesus says "before Abraham was, I am" and take that as a proof to make the claim Jesus is saying he is God, is to hijack his answer to prove a completely different point to the question Jesus is answering. It is in this context that I would like you to think about the dialogue of Jesus and what he meant his hearers and us (as readers) to understand. How was the answer of Jesus answering the question put to hm also noting that the question put to Jesus was as a result of what Jesus said to them recorded in verse 56. If I say anymore I shall end up giving you half of the exposition I would write, so I will refrain from writing any more at this time.

Once again, I look forward to your exposition if you are serious about getting to the truth contained in the Bible. You have done a good job formulating the Bible Wheel and presenting lots of facts, but this is just displaying your academic prowess and not your level of understanding the truth in the Bible (IMO). From now on I want to hear what you understand the Bible passages to mean and not what you claim "Christians say".

All the best

David

Alter2Ego

08-28-2012, 07:12 AM

You know the verses that say Christ was a man, and I have presented a few of the verses that imply he was God. This is enough to get started.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Yes, the Bible repeatedly refers to Jesus Christ as "son of man," because during his time on earth he was literally a human. But you have yet to present a single verse of scripture that says Jesus Christ is also Almighty God Jehovah. Telling me that the verses you presented "imply he was God," amounts to speculating—which is what you seem to be a master at. I'm asking you to quote a verse where Jesus clearly says: "I am also Jehovah and we are three persons combined into a Godhead."

Let me know when you find that particular verse. Something tells me I will die of old age waiting for you to produce it.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 08:09 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
The 66 books in the Judeo-Christian Bible are all in harmony and do not contradict each other, despite the fact they were written by dozens of different people over a span of 1,600 years. That alone is convincing evidence that it was authored by a single person—Almighty God Jehovah.

That's a ridiculous assertion. The Bible is filled with contradictions. For example, it is impossible to harmonize the accounts of the death and resurrection of Christ or the birth narratives. The proof is obvious - there are whole books written by Christian apologists to explain away the contradictions. Those books wouldn't be necessary if there were not contradictions. It's fine if you want to say there are no "real" contradictions, but then you would have to prove that fact, and it's something that simply cannot be done.

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
The Bible presents nearly 2,000 accurately fulfilled prophecies that prove it to be the inspired Word of God, remember? It's not my problem that you've been reading it for decades, as you claim, but you can't recall seeing one single prophecy written therein. Of course when you joined forces with Rose in attacking the Bible and God, you suddenly had excellent memory. That's when you quoted the prophecy at Isaiah 53:10, which prophesied Jesus' painful death. According to you and Rose, God told the Romans to kill Jesus Christ by crucifixion.

There you go again. Repeating the same ridiculous assertion without being able to prove even ONE prophecy! What a pathetic joke. You make yourself look absurd when you say such things.

And you continue to make basic errors in logic. The fact that CHRISTIANS believe Isaiah 53:10 was a prophecy fulfilled by Christ does not prove it really is. Why do you repeat such obvious errors?

BTW: Why are you comparing the Judeo-Christian Bible with the Quran? The Muslim Bible was written more than 600 years after the completion of the Judeo-Christian Bible. It was written by means of a pagan named Muhammad who claimed he was inspired by the Angel Gabriel to become Islam's prophet. If you want to debate the authenticity of the Quran, you might want to take that up with a Muslim. I'm dealing with the Judeo-Christian Bible at this particular time.
I mentioned the Quran to help open your eyes to reality. Muslims make exactly the same kind of arguments for the Quran that you make for the Bible. You need to understand this or you will remain deluded. I was just trying to help free you from your delusion.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 08:13 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Yes, the Bible repeatedly refers to Jesus Christ as "son of man," because during his time on earth he was literally a human. But you have yet to present a single verse of scripture that says Jesus Christ is also Almighty God Jehovah. Telling me that the verses you presented "imply he was God," amounts to speculating—which is what you seem to be a master at. I'm asking you to quote a verse where Jesus clearly says: "I am also Jehovah and we are three persons combined into a Godhead."

Let me know when you find that particular verse. Something tells me I will die of old age waiting for you to produce it.

I've presented plenty of verses that can be used to support the doctrine of the Trinity. You just reject them because you don't like what they say. This is what all religious people do with their "Holy Scripture. They pick and choose what they want to believe and twist words to force the Bible to say what they want.

And again you are repeating your error that logical implication is "speculation." You really need to learn the basics of logic.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 08:41 AM

Good morning Richard
I think my inferences are as valid as any inference you make. Perhaps we should all stop making inferences. I am no worse than you for making up stories if that is how you regard my alternative explanations to the ones being given. I let others make up their mind.

Good morning David,

We can't talk about anything of any interest without making inferences. I think you are confusing "inference" with "speculation" (an error Alter2Ego frequently makes).

An "inference" is a conclusion based on logic and facts. A "speculation" is something made up to fill in gaps or explain away something.

For example, the equation x + 2 = 3 IMPLIES that x = 1. To say "x = 1" is a valid inference given the equation x + 2 = 3.

An example of a speculation is when you said that "Thomas merely made an exclamation of surprise and an acceptance of Jesus as lord and of his God." You don't know that and there was absolutely no evidence supporting that. It was pure speculation. It was not an "inference" of any kind.

I think our conversations would make more progress if we were more careful to use the correct words.

You can stick to your point saying Thomas called Jesus Lord and God, but that does not mean you are correct. I see you fall into the same trap as we all do at times. I am basing my statements taking into account what is written elsewhere and this is what we read in Phil 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. This is what Thomas was doing; confessing Jesus as Lord to the glory of God. This verse in Philippians does not suggest that Jesus is God, in fact it makes the two distinctly separate.

It's not "my point" at all! I don't care if Jesus was or was not God. I am only showing that it is ridiculous in the extreme to deny that there are plenty of verses that honest, intelligent, and devout Christians throughout history have interpreted as implying that Christ is God. They could be mistaken. I don't care. My point is that it is absurd to deny that those verses exist or that the folks who read them differently than you are necessarily wrong. Personally, I think the Bible is logically incoherent on this point, just like its eschatology is logically incoherent. The only way folks can force one conclusion over another is to deny what the Bible plainly states. This is why folks are still arguing about what the Bible really means after TWO THOUSAND YEARS! The Bible is Babel - folks must confound their language to prove their idiosyncratic beliefs.

I think you are equally guilty of assuming your conclusion as much as you think I am guilty of doing the same. It does not follow that if Jesus is not God, the proof of the Trinity stands. Whether Jesus is God or not, does not change the fact that the Bible does not teach the Trinity which is a man-made false interpretation and the Bible could teach something completely different from what we both think. I am waiting to find out what Alter2Ego understands the nature of Jesus to be. Obviously Alter2Ego does not believe in the Trinity, but I guess does not see the nature of Jesus as I do, hence a third possibility.

As I said, the Biblical statements about Jesus are logically incoherent. That's why no one can establish the truth with any certainty or clarity. There really are verses that naturally imply Jesus is Yahweh. Anti-trinitarians know this with perfect certainty because they have to make arguments to deny the plain meaning. If the plain meaning weren't there, you wouldn't have to make arguments against those verses.

So that's my position. The Bible is logically incoherent. There are verses that support your view. There are verses that support the Trinity. Folks are free to pick and choose which they want to believe.

While quoting the verse from Philippians, I see that verses 9 and 10 say;Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
(10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Bowing the knee, which is what the disciples did when they met the risen Jesus in the mount, is not necessarily worshiping Jesus in the same way that God expects to be worshiped. Jesus is not telling us to worship him alone and not worship God. Jesus would expect to take second place to God despite God making Jesus the most powerful being in Heaven and on earth next to Himself.

This is a perfect example of how you twist the plain meaning to fit your doctrine. Just look at those words. Jesus is "highly exalted" and he has a "name which is above every name" and to his name "every knee shall bow." That kind of language applies to God and God alone. You can't admit this because it contradicts your personal interpretation. To me it is as plain as day, especially since these exalted words are spoken immediately after Paul said that Christ was in "the form of God." The context screams Christ is Yahweh.

It is also clear that after the resurrection of Jesus, he was given greater authority. This is what Jesus said in his final message recorded in Matthew (28:18) All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. This is in-keeping with what we learn in Philippians and why God has highly exalted Jesus after he proved his complete obedience to his Heavenly Father.

Sure - the relation between the Father and the Son can be very confusing. But if you wanted to believe it, you could make up arguments for it just like you are making up arguments against it. Get it? There are people just like you who think they can "prove" the Trinity from the Bible just like you think you can prove the opposite.

As usual we consider each other to be making presumptions, so I guess this is par for the course and others must decide for themselves who is the more correct.

What presumptions have I made? I can list many that you have made, such as the presumption that the Bible is true and consistent, and the presumption that Jesus CANNOT be God no matter what the Bible says that might seem to carry that implication.

There is no equivalence between us on the making of "presumptions." I am not trapped in Biblical fundamentalism so I don't need to make any presumptions to support any position. I am free to see and admit any truth that supports any position.

Great chatting,

Richard

Alter2Ego

08-28-2012, 09:04 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 09:10 AM

Thank you Richard. I think you are mistaken on many things which I am hoping you will spend some time re-evaluating what you believe.

I could say the same thing about you. What would that accomplish?

You throw into the forum quotes from the Bible which you say you do not believe, and you say; "the Bible says this" when in fact you are mistaken and you consider anyone else wrong for saying anything different to what you are putting forward.

Again, a person does not need to believe the Quran in order to accurately quote what it says. The fact that I don't believe the Quran says absolutely nothing about the accuracy of my comments about it. The same thing goes for the Bible. You need to respond to my arguments.

Context is all important and we both agree on this, and sometimes we disagree on the context. I want to be factually correct on what the Bible says. You do not have to believe it, but you can be factually correct in translating its message. The fact that you acknowledge you have made mistakes should make you cautious not to make similar mistakes.

We all are human and we all make mistakes. I am fully aware of this fact. That's why I am free to admit when I am wrong. I have nothing to lose and only truth to gain. You, on the other hand, cannot simply accept what the Bible states because you insist that it is a fully coherent book. If it turns out to be logically incoherent (which I believe it is) then you will be FORCED to make false assertions to support your false assumptions.

You should refrain from saying; "this is what Christians believe or say" for as you know, I do not hold with what much of Christendom says. I would rather hear what you have to say and formulate your own interpretation. I shall assume you support what Christians say or Preterists say when it suits your purpose to get support for the ideas you are holding on to. If you do not hold to any one interpretation, then state the alternatives when you put forward a Biblical quote. When you say the "Bible clearly states" I know that is how you interpret it even if you do not believe it. The problem with this is that you do not have to try and think any differently to what you do and you do not have to be constructive in finding any other meaning than the one you give and claim not to believe.

I never say "this is what Christians believe" (unless I'm being sloppy with my words). I always say "this is what many Christians have believed" or something like that, and I usually indicate that I understand there are other points of view. That's the whole point! You are the one who says there is only one way (your way) to interpret the Bible. I am challenging that when I say there are other ways.

Your are correct in saying "there is not a lot of evidence" outside the Bible. The OT has many prophecies that are fulfilled in the New Testament though there might not be the evidence external to the Bible to prove everything written. To say that the New Testament writers collaborated to write their records to fulfill Old Testament prophecy is to make an unsubstantiated statement without evidence. All this does is to irritate contributors to this forum rather than be constructive about what the Bible actually says in the way the author(s) intend readers to understand.

That's great! I'm glad we agree that there is not a lot of evidence outside the NT supporting the fulfillment of the OT prophecies. We are making progress.

There are many good reasons to think that the NT writers added and changed things to fit OT prophecy. It is not an "unsubstantiated statement."

From now on, lets be objective and stick to the facts and let's do expositions on passages of the Bible to find out all possibilities of interpretations to get to an understanding. This is what I was hoping we would do from the start when I came on this forum. I have come to the conclusion, based on the majority of the Bible, that is has a coherent message and therefore I will try and find plausible explanations to apparent paradoxes. It is not misconstruing scripture to do this. It is misconstruing scripture to say that a particular verse says such and such and to ignore explaining the paradoxes that remain. I am waiting for Alter2Ego to explain to me how it is that God's Angels in Heaven can sin, when the understanding of Jesus is that God's will is done in Heaven and that Jesus prays for the same to be done on earth. This paradox must be resolved. To say that God's will is not (or was not) done in Heaven is to make Jesus a liar or ill-informed.

I do think that there is a general (and at times rather vague) over-arching consistency with the Bible. But that does not imply that we should think it is totally consistent. And given the many "paradoxes" and obvious errors and additions and contradictions I see no reason to make that assumption. It's just circular reasoning with absolutely no foundation in any facts. The only reason you have given to believe the Bible is "fulfilled prophecies" but when we tried to discuss that evidence you failed to present anything that would stand up under scrutiny. And even if there were some fulfilled prophecies, that wouldn't prove that the 66 books were all inspired. How do you know Philemon is supposed to be in the Bible? How do you know that Sirach is not? You don't. You are merely following the traditions of men, just like Alter2Ego.

I have asked you to do an exposition on the dialogue of Jesus in John 8:58. As I look at this dialogue, I have to ask myself; "what is the question put to Jesus and how is Jesus answering the question?" Jesus is answering the question, but to take what Jesus says "before Abraham was, I am" and take that as a proof to make the claim Jesus is saying he is God, is to hijack his answer to prove a completely different point to the question Jesus is answering. It is in this context that I would like you to think about the dialogue of Jesus and what he meant his hearers and u (as readers) to understand. How was the answer of Jesus answering the question put to hm also noting that the question put to Jesus was as a result of what Jesus said to them recorded in verse 56. If I say anymore I shall end up giving you half of the exposition I would write, so I will refrain from writing any more at this time.

I will expand my explanation as time permits. Rose and I need to go for our morning 3 mile hike.

See ya in an hour or so.

Richard

Alter2Ego

08-28-2012, 09:19 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
The Bible presents nearly 2,000 accurately fulfilled prophecies that prove it to be the inspired Word of God, remember? It's not my problem that you've been reading it for decades, as you claim, but you can't recall seeing one single prophecy written therein. Of course when you joined forces with Rose in attacking the Bible and God, you suddenly had excellent memory. That's when you quoted the prophecy at Isaiah 53:10, which prophesied Jesus' painful death. According to you and Rose, God told the Romans to kill Jesus Christ by crucifixion.
There you go again. Repeating the same ridiculous assertion without being able to prove even ONE prophecy! What a pathetic joke. You make yourself look absurd when you say such things.

And you continue to make basic errors in logic. The fact that CHRISTIANS believe Isaiah 53:10 was a prophecy fulfilled by Christ does not prove it really is. Why do you repeat such obvious errors?
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Trying to back-track again; hmm? The fact that you presented Isaiah 53:10 in your argument that God arranged with the Romans to kill Jesus by crucifixion is evidence you believe Jesus was indeed crucified and that Isaiah 53:10 accurately prophesied it. You can't have your cake and eat. Not with me, anyway.

Alter2Ego

08-28-2012, 09:25 AM

BTW: Why are you comparing the Judeo-Christian Bible with the Quran? The Muslim Bible was written more than 600 years after the completion of the Judeo-Christian Bible. It was written by means of a pagan named Muhammad who claimed he was inspired by the Angel Gabriel to become Islam's prophet. If you want to debate the authenticity of the Quran, you might want to take that up with a Muslim. I'm dealing with the Judeo-Christian Bible at this particular time.
I mentioned the Quran to help open your eyes to reality.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
No, you mentioned the Quran in an attempt at changing the focus of the thread to Christian v. Islam--so that I could say something negative about Islam and draw the Muslims on this website into a heated debate. I'm slick to you Richard. I tell you, I've done this routine with literally dozens of atheists at other forums. You might as well give up trying to con me, because it won't work. Been there and done that.

Alter2Ego

08-28-2012, 09:32 AM

Muslims make exactly the same kind of arguments for the Quran that you make for the Bible. You need to understand this or you will remain deluded. I was just trying to help free you from your delusion.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
I've debated Muslims at other websites, and not one of them made a claim about fulfilled prophecies written in the Quran to the tune of nearly 2,000—which is the claim I'm making for the Judeo-Christian Bible. In fact, the last Muslim I debated was using prophecies from the Judeo-Christian Bible in his fruitless attempt at proving Muhammad was prophesied in the Old Testament and the New Testament. That's the irony. He was relying on scriptures from the Judeo-Chrstian Bible to validate Islam's prophet. In other words, Richard, your statement that "Muslims make exactly the same kind of arguments for the Quran that you make for the Bible" is patently false. They make arguments in support of the Quran, true enough, but their arguments nowhere resemble mine. I tell you this from first-hand experience debating Muslims.

Try again. You failed.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 10:15 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Trying to back-track again; hmm? The fact that you presented Isaiah 53:10 in your argument that God arranged with the Romans to kill Jesus by crucifixion is evidence you believe Jesus was indeed crucified and that Isaiah 53:10 accurately prophesied it. You can't have your cake and eat. Not with me, anyway.
I presented Isaiah 53:10 as evidence of what the Bible says and why many Christians have good reasons for the conclusions they've drawn. It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, though when I was a Christian I was Trinitarian.

You simply don't understand plain English. I am not "back-tracking" on anything. I never said whether or not I believed Isaiah 53:10 was a fulfilled prophecy. And my beliefs are not relevant because even if I personally believed it was a fulfilled prophecy, it wouldn't be evidence that would convince a rational skeptic. That's the point. It could be true that there are 2000 fulfilled prophecies, but that would be impossible to prove if there were no evidence supporting it.

You need to understand the difference between mere belief and truth based on evidence. Confusion between the two afflicts many Christians.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 10:23 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
I've debated Muslims at other websites, and not one of them made a claim about fulfilled prophecies written in the Quran to the tune of nearly 2,000—which is the claim I'm making for the Judeo-Christian Bible. In fact, the last Muslim I debated was using prophecies from the Judeo-Christian Bible in his fruitless attempt at proving Muhammad was prophesied in the Old Testament and the New Testament. That's the irony. He was relying on scriptures from the Judeo-Chrstian Bible to validate Islam's prophet. In other words, Richard, your statement that "Muslims make exactly the same kind of arguments for the Quran that you make for the Bible" is patently false. They make arguments in support of the Quran, true enough, but their arguments nowhere resemble mine. I tell you this from first-hand experience debating Muslims.

Try again. You failed.
It's true that the Quran does not contain detailed prophecies like the Bible, but that hasn't stopped Muslims from claiming that there are fulfilled prophecies in the Quran. You can get yourself up to speed with a quick Google search.

But that's not relevant because I was not thinking about your ludicrous and totally unsupported claim of "2000 fulfilled prophecies." I was talking about the style of argumentation and the ridiculous "logic" you use to twist words to fit your dogmas. In that regard, Christians are indistinguishable from Muslims or any other religious fundamentalists. Case in point - Muslims try to read Muhammad into the Bible just like Christians read Christ into the Old Testament.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 10:31 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
No, you mentioned the Quran in an attempt at changing the focus of the thread to Christian v. Islam--so that I could say something negative about Islam and draw the Muslims on this website into a heated debate. I'm slick to you Richard. I tell you, I've done this routine with literally dozens of atheists at other forums. You might as well give up trying to con me, because it won't work. Been there and done that.
That is not true. That was not my motive. I have no interest at all in changing the focus to "Christian v. Islam." My purpose is what I said it is. I am trying to help give you some perspective to free your mind. Your style of logic and your assumptions are essentially identical to those of Muslims who claim the Quran is the perfect Word of God and that it is confirmed by modern science. Your first post on this forum was the claim that the spherical earth was revealed to Isaiah. Muslims make exactly the same kind of claims about the Quran. Here is a list from http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html (this was from my response to CWH's thread Science in the Bible (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3236-Science-in-the-Bible) where he made the same kinds of claims as you):

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/images/baslik_bilimsel.gif

THE SKIES WITH 'WOVEN' ORBITS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_112.html) (NEW)
THE TSUNAMI EFFECT IN THE PROPHET MOSES (PBUH)'S
PARTING OF THE SEA (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_111.html) (NEW)
THE SUN WILL EVENTUALLY EXPIRE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_110.html) (NEW)
MODERN-DAY RADAR TECHNOLOGY (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_109.html) (NEW)
THE CONTRACTION MOTION THAT FACILITATES BIRTH (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_108.html) (NEW)
THE SOLIDITY OF THE ATOM AND ELECTRON ORBITS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_107.html)(NEW)
A RED ROSE IN THE SKY: THE ROSETTE NEBULA (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_106.html) (NEW)
BONE LOSS IN OLD AGE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_105.html)
THE HELIO-CENTRIC SYSTEM (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_104.html)
THE OZONE LAYER AT THE POLES AS THE SUN RISES (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_103.html)
HEART MASSAGE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_102.html)THE CLONING OF LIVING THINGS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_101.html)
THE SUN WILL EXPIRE AFTER SOME TIME (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_100.html)
THE PULLING MOTION THAT FACILITATES BIRTH (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_99.html)
THE EXPANDING EARTH (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_98.html)
QUASARS AND THE GRAVITATIONAL LENS EFFECT (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_97.html)
SCIENTIFIC FACTS IN THE STORY OF THE FLOOD OF NUH (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_96.html)
THE EARTH’S GRAVITATIONAL FORCE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_95.html)
AERODYNAMIC FORCES AND THE FLIGHT PROGRAMMED IN BIRDS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_94.html)
THE MIRACLE OF FIRE AND WOOD, THAT CANNOT BE OBTAINED ARTIFICIALLY (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_93.html)
RADIO RECEIVERS ON MOUNTAINS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_92.html)
THE WISDOM BEHIND THE PROHIBITION OF BLOOD IN THE QUR’AN (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_91.html)
FOSSILIZATION AND IRON CONTENT (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_90.html)
THE MOTHER’S WOMB WITH ITS SECURE PROTECTION (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_89.html)
THE SUN’S HYDROGEN AND HELIUM CONTENT (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_88.html)
OXIDATION IN THE BLOOD (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_87.html)
THE QUIVERING AND SWELLING OF THE EARTH (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_86.html)
THE COMING OF THE UNIVERSE INTO EXISTENCE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_01.html)
THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_02.html)
THE END OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE BIG CRUNCH (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_03.html)
CREATION FROM HOT SMOKE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_04.html)
THE SPLITTING ASUNDER OF "THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH" (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_05.html)
THE CREATION OF WHAT LIES BETWEEN THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_06.html)
THE PERFECT EQUILIBRIUM IN THE UNIVERSE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_07.html)
THE FINE TUNING IN THE UNIVERSE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_08.html)
THE STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SUN, THE MOON AND THE STARS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_09.html)
ORBITS AND THE ROTATING UNIVERSE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_10.html)
THE SUN'S TRAJECTORY (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_11.html)
THE MOON'S ORBIT (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_12.html)
CALCULATING THE LUNAR YEAR (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_13.html)
THE FORCE OF GRAVITY AND ORBITAL MOVEMENTS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_14.html)
THE ROUNDNESS OF THE EARTH (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_15.html)
THE EARTH'S DIRECTION OF ROTATION (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_16.html)
THE EARTH'S GEOID SHAPE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_17.html)
THE DIAMETERS OF THE EARTH AND SPACE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_18.html)
THE LAYERS OF THE ATMOSPHERE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_19.html)
THE PROTECTED ROOF (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_20.html)
THE SKY MADE A DOME (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_21.html)
THE RETURNING SKY (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_22.html)
THE LAYERS OF THE EARTH (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_23.html)
THE EARTH DISGORGES ITS CHARGES (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_24.html)
THE FUNCTION OF MOUNTAINS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_25.html)
THE MOVEMENT OF MOUNTAINS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_26.html)
DIFFERENT POINTS IN THE RISING AND SETTING OF THE SUN (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_27.html)
LAND LOSS AT THE EXTREMITIES (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_28.html)
THE SPLITTING EARTH (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_29.html)
THE MIRACLE OF IRON (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_30.html)
THE FORMATION OF PETROL (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_31.html)
THE RELATIVITY OF TIME (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_32.html)
CREATION IN SIX DAYS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_33.html)
THE TRUTH OF DESTINY (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_34.html)
DUALITY IN CREATION (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_35.html)
SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_36.html)
BLACK HOLES (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_37.html)
PULSARS: PULSATING STARS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_38.html)
THE STAR SIRIUS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_39.html)
LIGHT AND DARK (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_40.html)
COMBUSTION WITHOUT FIRE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_41.html)
THE WEIGHT OF CLOUDS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_42.html)
THE PROPORTION OF RAIN (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_43.html)
THE FORMATION OF RAIN (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_44.html)
RAINS WHICH BRING A DEAD LAND BACK TO LIFE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_45.html)
THE FORMATION OF HAIL, THUNDER AND LIGHTNING (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_46.html)

THE FECUNDATING WINDS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_47.html)
THE STAGES OF WIND FORMATION (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_48.html)
HOW THE PROCESS OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS BEGINS IN THE MORNING (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_49.html)
THE SEAS NOT MINGLING WITH ONE ANOTHER (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_50.html)
DARKNESS IN THE SEAS AND INTERNAL WAVES (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_51.html)
THE REGION THAT CONTROLS OUR MOVEMENTS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_52.html)
HEARTS FIND PEACE IN THE REMEMBRANCE OF ALLAH (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_53.html)
FORGIVENESS ACCORDING TO THE MORALS OF ISLAM AND ITS BENEFITS ON HEALTH (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_54.html)
HOW PRAYER ACCELERATES THE TREATMENT OF THE SICK (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_55.html)
STRESS AND DEPRESSION: THE RESULTS OF NOT ABIDING BY THE RELIGION (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_56.html)
THE BIRTH OF A HUMAN BEING (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_57.html)
THE CREATION OF HUMAN BEINGS FROM WATER (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_58.html)
CREATION FROM CLAY (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_59.html)
THE PROGRAMMING IN GENES (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_60.html)
THE MENSTRUAL PERIOD (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_61.html)
PREGNANCY AND BIRTH (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_62.html)
THE SEQUENCE IN DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN ORGANS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_63.html)
THE FORMATION OF MILK (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_64.html)
MIRACULOUS MIXTURE: MOTHER'S MILK (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_65.html)
THE IDENTITY IN THE FINGERPRINT (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_66.html)
THE FEMALE HONEY BEE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_67.html)
THE MIRACLE OF HONEY (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_68.html)
THE DATE AND ITS USES AS DESCRIBED IN THE QUR'AN (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_69.html)
THE FIG: A FRUIT WHOSE PERFECTION HAS ONLY RECENTLY BEEN REVEALED (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_70.html)
FISH: A VALUABLE SOURCE OF NUTRITION (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_71.html)
PORK AND ITS HARMFUL EFFECTS ON HEALTH (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_72.html)
THE OLIVE: A HEALTH-GIVING PLANT (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_73.html)
CORONARY BY-PASS SURGERY (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_74.html)
HEALTH BENEFITS OF MOVEMENT, WASHING AND DRINKING WATER (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_75.html)
THE EXISTENCE OF MICROSCOPIC LIFE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_76.html)
THE EXISTENCE OF ANIMAL SOCIETIES (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_77.html)
BIOMIMETICS: DRAWING INSPIRATION FROM THE DESIGN IN LIVING THINGS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_78.html)
LOCUSTS MOVING IN SWARMS (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_79.html)
ANT COMMUNICATION (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_80.html)
THE FOOD CYCLE (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_81.html)
THE EARS ARE ACTIVE DURING SLEEP (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_82.html)
THE IMPORTANCE OF MOVEMENT IN SLEEP (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_83.html)
REDUCED MOVEMENT AT NIGHT (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_84.html)
CHEST CONTRACTION WITH INCREASING HEIGH (http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_85.html)

Alter2Ego

08-28-2012, 10:50 AM

I presented Isaiah 53:10 as evidence of what the Bible says and why many Christians have good reasons for the conclusions they've drawn. It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, though when I was a Christian I was Trinitarian.

You simply don't understand plain English. I am not "back-tracking" on anything. I never said whether or not I believed Isaiah 53:10 was a fulfilled prophecy. And my beliefs are not relevant because even if I personally believed it was a fulfilled prophecy, it wouldn't be evidence that would convince a rational skeptic. That's the point. It could be true that there are 2000 fulfilled prophecies, but that would be impossible to prove if there were no evidence supporting it.

You need to understand the difference between mere belief and truth based on evidence. Confusion between the two afflicts many Christians.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Like I said, your attempt at back-tracking won't help you here. Changing up your story is just another of your attempts at denying you do indeed recognize prophecies in the Bible but you choose to pretend they're not there.

I've presented plenty of verses that can be used to support the doctrine of the Trinity. You just reject them because you don't like what they say. This is what all religious people do with their "Holy Scripture. They pick and choose what they want to believe and twist words to force the Bible to say what they want.

And again you are repeating your error that logical implication is "speculation." You really need to learn the basics of logic.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Your erroneous opinion of what you think you presented is yours and yours alone. You presented several verses and failed to quote them and bold the words that indicate Trinity--despite the fact I've repeatedly asked you to quote and bold the sections that prove the Trinity dogma is Biblical. In fact, you informed me at one point that there are plenty of Bible scholars who read scriptures that "imply" trinity. In other words, you are relying on the speculations/personal opinions of third-party Trinitarian scholars, rather than you yourself quoting scriptures from the Bible to prove the 3-prong god.

BTW: Cherry picking verses while ignoring context isn't proof of anything--except proof that you don't understand what you are reading.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 11:04 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Like I said, your attempt at back-tracking won't help you here. Changing up your story is just another of your attempts at denying you do indeed recognize prophecies in the Bible but you choose to pretend they're not there.

And like I have said, I have back-tracked on nothing. You simply don't understand plain English or basic logic.

I do not deny that Isaiah 53:10 could be a "fulfilled prophecy." But there is not sufficient evidence to convince a rational skeptic so the point is moot. How many times do I need to explain this to you? Do you understand my point?

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
Your erroneous opinion of what you think you presented is yours and yours alone. You presented several verses and failed to quote them and bold the words that indicate Trinity--despite the fact I've repeatedly asked you to quote and bold the sections that prove the Trinity dogma is Biblical. In fact, you informed me at one point that there are plenty of Bible scholars who read scriptures that "imply" trinity. In other words, you are relying on the speculations/personal opinions of third-party Trinitarian scholars, rather than you yourself quoting scriptures from the Bible to prove the 3-prong god.

I never said those verses PROVE the Trinity! You really have a problem with reading comprehension. I simply said that those verses can be used to support the Trinity. There is a big difference. Unfortunately, fundamentalists like you have a hard time with basic logic and so you can't understand simple things no matter how clearly they are explained.

BTW: Cherry picking verses while ignoring context isn't proof of anything--except proof that you don't understand what you are reading.
You are the one who ignores context. For example, the context of 1 Tim 3:16 (All scripture is inspired) proves that Paul was not talking about the 66 books because they didn't exist at the time he wrote. Yet you say he was talking about the 66 books, so I have proven that you just make up stuff and declare it true when in fact you have no evidence supporting your position. Indeed, you have no way to know which books belong in the Bible at all because the Bible doesn't say. Maybe Revelation doesn't belong in the Bible. How would you know? You can't. Yet you base all your arguments upon the 66 books. This proves that all your arguments have a foundation of sand.

Alter2Ego

08-28-2012, 11:25 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 11:25 AM

Please Richard, I have asked you for an exposition in my previous post

You say I and Alter2Ego have not presented the correct translation, I want to know how you analyze the complete dialogue.

I don't just "say" that you and Alter2Ego have not given a correct translation. As far as I know, it is a fact that you have not. It's only one verse! Why can't you just present the "correct" translation? That's what so crazy about Alter2Ego's THREE PART EXPOSITION of the supposed "deliberate mistanslation" - she didn't even say what the correct translation should be. That's just plain absurd. It makes no sense to write hundreds of words about a supposed mistranslation and then not give the "correct" translation.

Now you want an "exposition." OK - here's a fresh one right off the top of my head.

The entire BOOK OF JOHN is the larger "context" of John 8:58. And what do we see in that book? It opens with these words:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

As you can see, the Bible plainly states that "the Word (Christ) was God." This established the context of the whole book. And this perfectly coheres with the Jew's accusation that Christ claimed to be God:
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

The Jews accused Christ of claiming to be God. He NEVER denied that claim. If he was not God, he simply could have said "Yo! What are you talking about? I NEVER said or suggested anything like that! I am not God! That would be blasphemy!" But is that what he said? Nope. On the contrary, he confirmed their accusation and clarified his relationship to the Father by saying that the Father God was in him and he was in Father God. Given the context, Christ is confirming that he is God.

Now that we have mutually confirming "bookmarks" before and after the text in question, let's take a look at it:
John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

We see the central question Christ was answering: "whom makest thou thyself?". This is what you and the Trinitarians debate. The answer Jesus gave is that he is the I AM from Exodus 3:14.

That's the short version off the top of my head. I could marshal many other verses to support this position. But please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it is "proof" of the Trinity. But it is proof that your assertions are false. There are plenty of good reasons for Biblical Christians to believe that Christ is God. And that was my only point.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 11:32 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:

You can continue insisting that my arguments are similar to that of the Muslims to ad nauseam for all I care. You have a tendency to confuse your personal opinions with facts. I've debated several Muslims at other websites, and they have never presented arguments that are like mine. Just because you've come across isolated instances of a few Muslims arguing about science and prophecy in the Quran is hardly a basis for arguing that all Christians and all Muslims use the same arguments.

FACT: Your first post was to prove that modern science could be found in the Bible (spherical earth, gravity).
FACT: Muslims make exactly the same claims about the Quran.
FACT: You are describing yourself when you speak of a tendency to confuse personal opinions with facts. Your entire faith is nothing but your personal opinion.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 11:43 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:

You can continue insisting that my arguments are similar to that of the Muslims to ad nauseam for all I care.
I don't just "insist" - I have given evidence that proves it and you have not refuted the evidence. And you cannot refute it because it is true.

You really need to open your eyes and see that the style of argumentation for "modern science in the Bible" is identical to the style of argumentation for "modern science in the Quran."

Alter2Ego

08-28-2012, 11:48 AM

You are the one who ignores context. For example, the context of 1 Tim 3:16 (All scripture is inspired) proves that Paul was not talking about the 66 books because they didn't exist at the time he wrote. Yet you say he was talking about the 66 books, so I have proven that you just make up stuff and declare it true when in fact you have no evidence supporting your position. Indeed, you have no way to know which books belong in the Bible at all because the Bible doesn't say. Maybe Revelation doesn't belong in the Bible. How would you know? You can't. Yet you base all your arguments upon the 66 books. This proves that all your arguments have a foundation of sand.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
It appears your reading and comprehension is slow on the uptake, because I've told you three times already--in two other threads--what Paul meant when he said "All Scripture is inspired of God." He was referring to ANY scripture that was written by inspiration of God--meaning scripture that was then existing and anything else that would be written under inspiration in the future. Paul wasn't counting the number of books so he could come up with 66 books. He was giving a blanket statement about any and all scripture written by inspiration of God--regardless of when it would be eventually written. What is it about that don't you get?

Below is what I told you in response to the same idiotic argument you are now presenting here. Focus on the words in bold print within the text. This is the third thread in which I am providing you with the identical response; therefore, this will be the fourth and last time I will respond to any post from you dealing with what Paul meant by "All Scripture is inspired of God." There comes a point when even I have to recognize a lost cause and move on.

When Jesus Christ appeared on the earthly scene in fulfillment of Bible scriptures, he established the Christian congregation. His close followers and then later the Apostle Paul were used by Almighty God, Jehovah, to write under Divine inspiration. What they wrote became part of God's inspired Word despite the fact that it came after the Hebrew Scriptures. All that was required was that the various books be written by inspiration of God. The timeline had nothing to do with whether or not it was considered part of the inspired scriptures.

Below is the weblink, in case you feel like revisiting Post 33 in my thread where it was originally posted.
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3326-Proof-the-Judeo-Christian-Bible-Inspired-of-God/page4

David M

08-28-2012, 11:55 AM

Good morning David,

I think our conversations would make more progress if we were more careful to use the correct words.
I think this is the only point in your reply that I will agree with, but using correct words is not going to overcome the wide gulf that now exists between our different views.

I don't care if Jesus was or was not God.
OK Richard. Now I know you are not interested in getting to the truth whatever it is.

So that's my position. The Bible is logically incoherent.
Since you have fixed your position, I can see that no explanation will make any difference to you.

This is a perfect example of how you twist the plain meaning to fit your doctrine. Just look at those words. Jesus is "highly exalted" and he has a "name which is above every name" and to his name "every knee shall bow." That kind of language applies to God and God alone. You can't admit this because it contradicts your personal interpretation. To me it is as plain as day, especially since these exalted words are spoken immediately after Paul said that Christ was in "the form of God." The context screams Christ is Yahweh.
Since you have convinced yourself that the Bible is "logically incoherent" and have fixed your position, you mind is now closed to anything that contradicts that position. Once again you make a statement like "the context screams Christ is Yahweh" and you are fixed on this whether you believe it or not which I happen to disagree with, but from now on there is little point discussing any point like this with you. I will wait for our paths to cross as these points come up in future threads.

Sure - the relation between the Father and the Son can be very confusing. But if you wanted to believe it, you could make up arguments for it just like you are making up arguments against it. Get it? There are people just like you who think they can "prove" the Trinity from the Bible just like you think you can prove the opposite.
I get it! I know this.

What presumptions have I made? I can list many that you have made, such as the presumption that the Bible is true and consistent, and the presumption that Jesus CANNOT be God no matter what the Bible says that might seem to carry that implication.
Even if I started off with the presumption the Bible is true, if I had found that the Bible does not have a coherent and consistent message, that presumption would have failed and I would not be sticking to what I have found out.

There is no equivalence between us on the making of "presumptions." I am not trapped in Biblical fundamentalism so I don't need to make any presumptions to support any position. I am free to see and admit any truth that supports any position.
OK, but you have given up seeking to find out the truth of the Bible, because you are now convinced it is illogical, incoherent and has no truth in it. This is not a basis for future discussion between us concerning the Bible. For the benefit of others, I shall continue to point out errors I think you are making when you make bold statements and offer verses from the Bible to support your case which I do not agree with and I shall not be entering further discussion as it will serve no purpose to continually have this type of discussion.

There is no point discussing any topic to do with the Bible since we cannot find any common ground to work from.

All the best.

David

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 11:57 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
It appears your reading and comprehension is slow on the uptake, because I've told you three times already--in two other threads--what Paul meant when he said "All Scripture is inspired of God." He was referring to ANY scripture that was written by inspiration of God--meaning scripture that was then existing and anything else that would be written under inspiration in the future. Paul wasn't counting the number of books so he could come up with 66 books. He was giving a blanket statement about any and all scripture written by inspiration of God--regardless of when it would be eventually written. What is it about that don't you get?

I understand your point but it doesn't help because the BIBLE does not say what you said. You just made it up. You invented an AD HOC SPECULATION specifically designed to avoid the FACT that there is nothing IN THE BIBLE to indicate that Paul was talking about anything but the Scriptures that had existed at the time he wrote.

There's no need to hang up on this point - I grant that it is a fine speculation. But now that we know it is a mere speculation, you cannot use it as "proof" of anything and so your entire argument crumbles to dust.

Now here is the real point that you have been hiding from because you cannot answer. YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF THE PRECISE LIST OF BOOKS THAT BELONG IN THE BIBLE because the Bible does not tell you. Therefore, you are merely following the TRADITIONS OF MEN.

Dare you attempt to answer this point?

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 12:25 PM

I don't care if Jesus was or was not God.
OK Richard. Now I know you are not interested in getting to the truth whatever it is.

You know no such thing. Your comment is rude and absurd. I am totally interested in the truth.

There are two reasons I don't care if THE BIBLE says Jesus was or was not God:

1) I believe the Bible is logically incoherent on this point.

2) I don't believe in the God described in the Bible.

I am totally interested in the truth, and I think both those points are true.

Since you have fixed your position, I can see that no explanation will make any difference to you.

My point has not been to prove one side or the other. My point has been to enlighten you and Alter2Ego that there are good (actually better, I believe) arguments for the Trinity. I admit there are arguments for the anti-trinitarians. That's why the debate goes on for 2000 years with no resolution. That's why I concluded the Bible is logically incoherent on this point.

Obviously, I have good reasons for my position. But I wonder if you can even understand what I'm writing. You are so hung up on "proof" that you can't seem to understand that someone could conclude that there is no proof because the Bible is simply incoherent on this point. You have NEVER given anyone any reason to assume that the Bible is perfectly coherent. And we have a MOUNTAIN of reasons to say it is not. So your assumption is entirely without support and directly contradicted by the facts.

It would be better if you tried to understand what I am actually saying. I've explained it many times but you don't "get" it.

Since you have convinced yourself that the Bible is "logically incoherent" and have fixed your position, you mind is now closed to anything that contradicts that position. Once again you make a statement like "the context screams Christ is Yahweh" and you are fixed on this whether you believe it or not which I happen to disagree with, but from now on there is little point discussing any point like this with you. I will wait for our paths to cross as these points come up in future threads.

BULLSHIT! YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE CLOSED MIND. And you know it. NOTHING could convince you of any error in the Bible. Therefore, your mind is closed like a steal trap. My mind is open. I can see both truth and error in the Bible. You are BLIND to things that I can see. Therefore, I have as much certainty as a man who can see compared to a man that is physically blind. I can prove what I say.

And once again you want to quit the conversation after I present good evidence that contradicts your personal dogmas. This is so typical David. Your usual excuse is that I am not "arguing from the Bible." That won't work this time.

Sure - the relation between the Father and the Son can be very confusing. But if you wanted to believe it, you could make up arguments for it just like you are making up arguments against it. Get it? There are people just like you who think they can "prove" the Trinity from the Bible just like you think you can prove the opposite.
I get it! I know this.

Great! How then can you think that you could "prove" your personal interpretations? Everyone has their own interpretations and yours are often in direct conflict with what the Bible plainly states. So you must invent a mountain of words to force the text to mean what you want it to mean. How is it that you could convince yourself using such tactics? Why can't you see the formal similarity between both sides? That's what makes it obvious to me. I just step back and see that there is no way to settle these kinds of things. Folks just believe what they want. Even if your arguments were true they wouldn't mean anything to me because it would mean that the Bible is SO CONFUSED that no one could have any confidence in what it really means. Get it?

Even if I started off with the presumption the Bible is true, if I had found that the Bible does not have a coherent and consistent message, that presumption would have failed and I would not be sticking to what I have found out.

I don't believe you. I have presented more than enough evidence of error and inconsistency in the Bible to PROVE that your assumptions are false. But you haven't budged an inch even though you have not refuted the evidence.

OK, but you have given up seeking to find out the truth of the Bible, because you are now convinced it is illogical, incoherent and has no truth in it. This is not a basis for future discussion between us concerning the Bible. For the benefit of others, I shall continue to point out errors I think you are making when you make bold statements and offer verses from the Bible to support your case which I do not agree with and I shall not be entering further discussion as it will serve no purpose to continually have this type of discussion.

I have not given up seeking to find out the truth of the Bible! I am discovering the truth ABOUT the Bible when I discover that it is logically incoherent. This should be accepted by everyone who thinks the Bible is from God. The doctrine of inerrancy is a MAN MADE DOCTRINE. What if God wanted to create a Bible with human hands that contained error for his own purposes? Who are we to tell God what he can or cannot do? Yet fundamentalist Christians say that the Bible must be perfect without realizing that if they are wrong then they are blaspheming God by attributing errors to him!

There is no point discussing any topic to do with the Bible since we cannot find any common ground to work from.

My ground is REALITY. If you can't find common ground with me, it is because you are insisting on believing things that simply are not real. Simple as that.

Case in point: Your assumption that the Bible is coherent. There is no proof of that, and there is a lot of evidence directly contradicting it. Therefore, as long as you insist on assuming the Bible is coherent, you will be forced into logical contradictions which are, by definition, false and unreal.

In any case, thanks for the great post! It is good to be chatting with you. I think we could find some common ground if you would just relax your hold on the dogma that the Bible is perfectly coherent. But even if not, we could still continue our discussion because everything I said was about what is written in the Bible.

Great chatting,

Richard

sylvius

08-28-2012, 12:37 PM

That's the whole point sylvius.

Jesus accepted worship by Thomas. Worship belongs to God alone. This implies Jesus was God just like Thomas said.

I read that emperor Domitian had caslled himself "Lord and God"

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/01/18/the-king-and-i-the-apostle-john-and-emperor-domitian-part-1.aspx#Article

Emperor Domitian, the self-proclaimed “Lord and God” and ruthless dictator, reigned from AD 81 to 96. He was the son of Emperor Vespasian and the brother of Titus, the conquerors of Jerusalem in AD 70.

So Thomas's confession likely has to be understood as polemic against emperor Domitian and the Roman world.
It says nothing about Jesus being God, or about Thomas (or John) believing so.

Now it becomse also clear why John has the chief priests say: "We have no king but Caesar." (John 19:15).

David M

08-28-2012, 01:04 PM

I don't just "say" that you and Alter2Ego have not given a correct translation. As far as I know, it is a fact that you have not. It's only one verse! Why can't you just present the "correct" translation? That's what so crazy about Alter2Ego's THREE PART EXPOSITION of the supposed "deliberate mistanslation" - she didn't even say what the correct translation should be. That's just plain absurd. It makes no sense to write hundreds of words about a supposed mistranslation and then not give the "correct" translation.

Now you want an "exposition." OK - here's a fresh one right off the top of my head.

The entire BOOK OF JOHN is the larger "context" of John 8:58. And what do we see in that book? It opens with these words:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

As you can see, the Bible plainly states that "the Word (Christ) was God." This established the context of the whole book. And this perfectly coheres with the Jew's accusation that Christ claimed to be God:
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

The Jews accused Christ of claiming to be God. He NEVER denied that claim. If he was not God, he simply could have said "Yo! What are you talking about? I NEVER said or suggested anything like that! I am not God! That would be blasphemy!" But is that what he said? Nope. On the contrary, he confirmed their accusation and clarified his relationship to the Father by saying that the Father God was in him and he was in Father God. Given the context, Christ is confirming that he is God.

Now that we have mutually confirming "bookmarks" before and after the text in question, let's take a look at it:
John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

We see the central question Christ was answering: "whom makest thou thyself?". This is what you and the Trinitarians debate. The answer Jesus gave is that he is the I AM from Exodus 3:14.

That's the short version off the top of my head. I could marshal many other verses to support this position. But please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it is "proof" of the Trinity. But it is proof that your assertions are false. There are plenty of good reasons for Biblical Christians to believe that Christ is God. And that was my only point.

Thanks Richard for your "off the top of your head" exposition, but it shows the side of the debate that I know other Christians are making. I really wanted you to do an original exposition trying to forget the doctrine you once held. In your quick exposition you have wandered off the subject by going to John 1:1 to introduce another reference to support the position that Jesus pre-existed with God when in fact what I consider John is saying is that Jesus is the manifestation of God's Word and is not the Word, but there is no point discussing this now as we have both made our points. Once again you claim that the interpretation is plain and unmistakeable when in fact it is not plain in the way you make out and your conclusion is forced as you would say mine is.

I can see how you think Jesus was answering the question; "whom makest thou thyself?" in verse 53 and the reply comes in 5 verses afterwards 58. You have missed out the dialogue in between. I see that Jesus answered this question in the verse 54. After Jesus had answered that question, he was asked; "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" in verse 57 and this came after Jesus had made the statement in verse 56; Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. This is the context of the question and answer that came next in which Jesus said; "before Abraham was, I am (he)"

This is showing us how we can come to our different conclusions. Since there are two conclusions you might say "this is moot" and so we should move onto another passage that is more clear. I hope others will do their own exposition of this passage to get to the truth. Eventually, we will exhaust every possible verse to determine the truth. Someone else commented in the thread 'Jesus is not God' (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2803-Jesus-is-not-God/page21) that they thought on balance there are more passages that would suggest Jesus is not God than there are suggesting Jesus is God. Once we have reached a decision like this, then the verses we have said are moot, we can come back and interpret as fitting the conclusion reached from examining all other passages.

In the thread 'Jesus is not God' (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2803-Jesus-is-not-God/page21) I have answered all the verses presented to me to give an explanation, so there is no need to pursue this argument in this thread and in future I shall point people to answers I have already given. We have each expressed how we have come to our conclusion in our short exposition of the dialogue of Jesus in John 8 and we can leave it at that. It probably goes to show that it requires more than an "off the top of the head exposition" to do the passage justice and anyone interested can do this for themselves.

You have reasoned again that Jesus is God and therefore I maintain that you have not forgotten the doctrine you once held and that is why you are fixed in your opinion and present the verses you do (even if you do not believe it. Instead of either of us "cherry picking" verses the only way is to study every possible verse related to the subject and seeing whether there is any new evidence within the Bible to change either of our conclusions.

I am now resigned to the fact that we are never going to agree on what the Bible is saying and so I will stick with chipping in and offering my alternative explanations when I think they are suitable to a post in a thread. There will be no point responding to each others posts other than to make a general comment for others to read. I am leaving it at this.

All the best,
David

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 01:23 PM

Thanks Richard for your "off the top of your head" exposition, but it shows the side of the debate that I know other Christians are making, but I really wanted you to do an original exposition trying to forget the doctrine you once held. In your quick exposition you have wondered off the subject by going to John 1:1 to introduce another reference to support the position Jesus that Jesus pre-existed with God when in fact what I consider John is saying is that Jesus is the manifestation of God's Word and is not the Word, but there is no point discussing this now as we have both made our point. Once again you claim that that interpretation is plain and unmistakeable when in fact it is not plain and the conclusion is forced.

I did not "wander off topic." I was presenting the CONTEXT in which we find John 8:58. How could you miss that?

I did not claim that my interpretation was "plain and unmistakable." It simply is one way of looking at what the Bible says, though I do think it is probably what the author of the fourth Gospel really meant when he wrote it. The problem is that the Bible is just a pile of words which everyone interprets according to their own will. There is no way to establish the truth or falsehood of most of it. It's just one opinion clashing with another.

Your idea that Christ was a "manifestation" of God's Word is just another speculation. You could be right, you could be wrong. How could anyone know?

I can see how you think Jesus was answering the question; "whom makest thou thyself?" in verse 53 and replying in verse 58. I see that Jesus answered this question in the verse 54. After Jesus had answered that question, he was asked; "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" in verse 57 and this came after Jesus had made the statement in verse 56; Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. This is the context of the question and answer that came next in which Jesus said; "before Abraham was, I am (he)"

This is showing us how we can come to our different conclusions. Since there are two conclusions you might say "this is moot" and so we should move onto another passage that is more clear. Eventually, we will exhaust every possible verse to determine the truth. someone else commented in the thread 'Jesus is not God' that they thought on balance there are more passages that would suggest Jesus is not God than there are suggesting Jesus is God. Once we have reached a decision like this, then the verses we have said are moot, we can come back and interpret as fitting the conclusion reached from examining all other passages.

You did not state what the other conclusion is. When Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am (he)" what did he mean? And why did he say something that would sound like he was deliberately using the divine name "I AM"? And why did he not correct the Jews when they said the he was making himself out to be equal to God? You have not answered these questions.

I have been answering all the verses presented to me to give an explanation in the thread 'Jesus is not God' (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2803-Jesus-is-not-God/page21) so there is no need to pursue this argument in this thread and in future I shall point people to answers I have already given. We have each now expressed how we have come to our conclusion by we have briefly analyzed the dialogue of Jesus. It probably goes to show that it requires more than an off the top of the head exposition and anyone interested can do this for themselves.

Did you answer the questions I asked above (and in the previous post) in that other thread? If so, please tell me the post number.

You have reasoned again that Jesus is God and therefore I maintain that you have not forgot the doctrine you once held and that is why you are fixed in your opinion and present the verses you do. Instead of "cherry picking" verses the only way is to study every possible verse related to the subject and seeing whether there is any new evidence within the Bible to change either of our conclusions.

I gave reasons for the conclusion. You can answer them or not, that's you choice. The reasons I gave are very compelling. A rational person would have good reason to accept them. It doesn't mean they are necessarily correct, but they are better than the alternatives you have offered as far as I can tell. But in any case, it doesn't really matter because if the Bible is so confused on a fundamental point like whether or not Jesus is God, we only have proved that the Bible is confused and not trustworthy as a guide about anything.

This is what these arguments really prove - the Bible is too confused to be trustworthy. No thinking person could have confidence that their tangled interpretation is really the truth.

I am now resigned to the fact that we are never going to agree on what the Bible is saying and so I will stick with chipping in and offering my alternative explanations when I think they are suitable to a post in a thread. There will be no point responding to each others posts other than to make a general commenting for others to read. I am leaving it at this.

Don't be ridiculous. I am totally open minded. The problem is that you think you can PROVE your idiosyncratic interpretations that contradict the vast body of Christian literature. What makes you so confident about you interpretations? You are just a man. That's why I look for the TRUTH that is supported by MANY WITNESSES. I'm not just making up my own ideas. You have yet to give any good reason to even start with the presumption that the Bible is consistent. And when we start with that assumption, we find our minds turned into PRETZELS which is immediate evidence that the assumption was wrong. But you don't care about the truth, do you? All you care about is supporting your preconceive dogmas. That is the trap that all fundamentalists fall into. I hope you find your way out.

All the very best to you,

Richard

PS: Don't forget the value of the "wounds of a friend."

Alter2Ego

08-28-2012, 02:05 PM

FACT: Your first post was to prove that modern science could be found in the Bible (spherical earth, gravity).
FACT: Muslims make exactly the same claims about the Quran.
FACT: You are describing yourself when you speak of a tendency to confuse personal opinions with facts. Your entire faith is nothing but your personal opinion.
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:

FACT #1: Using the example of a few Muslims you were exposed to on this forum does not equate to "all Muslims use the same method of debate as all Christians."

FACT #2: You have been caught lying and making contradictory statements repeatedly, including your claim that in your decades of reading the Bible, you never saw the fulfillment of a single scripture. You then turned around and quoted the prophecy at Isaiah 53:10 as proof that God arranged with the Romans to have Jesus tortured to death by crucifixion. The same Bible you claim you don't believe in, no less.

FACT #3: You attempted to apply figurative language to Isaiah's descriptive language at Isaiah 40:22 regarding how the earth looks like a circle from God's viewpoint hovered above the earth and how people look like grasshoppers from a distance.

"There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gaze, who spread them out like a tent in which to dwell." (Isaiah 40:22)

A few posts later, you turned around and tried to apply literal language to 1 Samuel 2:8 regarding the "pillars" of the earth when in reality, 1 Samuel 2:8 is figurative speech--indicating you don't have a clue how to read and understand scriptures.

"He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them." (1 Samuel 2:8 -- King James Version)

FACT #4: You insisted only Christians believe in the trinity and that you are a skeptic, but it turns out you are a bigger apologist for trinity than the Christians who believe it. You've been arguing tooth and nails that trinity is a Bible teaching--more so than the Christians who believe it.

FACT #5: A person who habitually argues on both sides of an issue is intellectually dishonest.

FACT #6: You are a pretender with questionable motives, because you argue against my logical explanations that debunk Trinity--the same trinity you said only Christians believe in, while insisting you are not a Christian. In fact, you argued against a clear debunking of the trinity dogma that I presented at Post 30, as follows.

The fact that Jesus Christ literally died immediately eliminates him from being in a trinity with Jehovah. According to Christendom's definition of the Trinity, the three persons (Father, Son, and holy ghost/holy spirit) are all CO-ETERNAL.

Christendom's trinity, written in Article I of The Catholic Faith, is defined as follows:
"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and indivisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of ONE substance, power, and ETERNITY; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

DEFINITION OF "ETERNAL":
"Eternal means not having a beginning or an end."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/eternal

An eternal person cannot die. The instant Jesus Christ died, his life ended. His death debunked the Trinity dogma and its above definition.
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3325-Bible-Teachings-or-Traditions-of-Men/page3

FACT #7: When I presented info showing that the trinity is a Roman Catholic invention by pointing to the Roman Catholic Church and its crucial involvement at the 325 AD Council of Nicaea, and then their involvement at the 381 AD Council of Constantinople, you argued that that doesn't prove anything. That, despite the fact that all secular historical references point to those two events as being responsible for the official formation of trinity by the Roman Catholics.

FACT #8: When I gave a detailed presentation at Post 53, Post 54, and Post 59 during which I showed the deceit by Trinitarian Bible translators regarding John 8:58 and their dishonesty in using "I am" instead of "I am he" OR "I am the man" so the sentence could be grammatically correct in English (and here is the weblink to the page with presentation: http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3325-Bible-Teachings-or-Traditions-of-Men/page6 ), you argued that the translators had a right to violate the rules of English grammar because Jesus was no ordinary human and therefore the same rules of English grammar during translation don't apply to him. Mind you, this is the same Jesus Christ that appears in the Bible that you claim you don't believe in.

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:

You can continue insisting that my arguments are similar to that of the Muslims to ad nauseam for all I care.
I don't just "insist" - I have given evidence that proves it and you have not refuted the evidence. And you cannot refute it because it is true.

You really need to open your eyes and see that the style of argumentation for "modern science in the Bible" is identical to the style of argumentation for "modern science in the Quran."
ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
If it makes you happy to feel that you presented evidence to support your personal opinions--which are consistently in error--be my guest. You cannot base your argument about "all Christians and all Muslims use the same method of argument" by pointing to isolated incidents of Muslims doing that as proof. As I previously said, I've debated Muslims at several websites, and they all use the argument formula that I presented at Post 103. They spend most of their time being apologists for Muhammad's sexually deviant behavior and being apologists for the plagiarism of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Muslim Quran.

But since it's clear you desperately want to win some prize or the other for your habitual pattern of being in denial and being an apologist for trinity and other false religious teachings--while claiming the entire time you are not a Christian and that you don't believe a word the Bible says--be my guest. You won the First Prize Trophy hands down.

If you post anything else to me on this topic or any topic for that matter, you will be posting to yourself as I will not read it. I've had enough of your intellectual dishonesty. Consider yourself honored to be the first person to be added to my "Ignore" list--meaning I will scroll pass anything you post and not read it.

Our conversation is permanently over.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 03:30 PM

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:

FACT #1: Using the example of a few Muslims you were exposed to on this forum does not equate to "all Muslims use the same method of debate as all Christians."

I never said the examples I gave equated to "all Muslims use the same method of debate as all Christians." I never even said that "all Muslims use the same method of debate as all Christians." Therefore, there are two falsehoods in your statement. You have now a choice:

1) Admit your error and repent.

2) Stand convicted as a deliberate unrepentant liar.

Choose well!

FACT #2: You have been caught lying and making contradictory statements repeatedly, including your claim that in your decades of reading the Bible, you never saw the fulfillment of a single scripture. You then turned around and quoted the prophecy at Isaiah 53:10 as proof that God arranged with the Romans to have Jesus tortured to death by crucifixion. The same Bible you claim you don't believe in, no less.

I have not lied. I never said I never saw the fulfillment of a single Scripture. I said that there is not sufficient evidence of fulfilled prophecies to convince a rational skeptic. I've repeated this point many times. There is no excuse for your errors. You need to repent of your false statements or stand publicly convicted as an unrepentant liar.

And you still don't understand that I can quote the Quran to make a point to a Muslim without implying that I personally believe the Quran. The same goes for the Bible. I've explained this more than once and you still don't understand. Please respond to this and let me know if you understand, or what I need to explain to help you understand.

FACT #3: You attempted to apply figurative language to Isaiah's descriptive language at Isaiah 40:22 regarding how the earth looks like a circle from God's viewpoint hovered above the earth and how people look like grasshoppers from a distance.

"There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gaze, who spread them out like a tent in which to dwell." (Isaiah 40:22)

A few posts later, you turned around and tried to apply literal language to 1 Samuel 2:8 regarding the "pillars" of the earth when in reality, 1 Samuel 2:8 is figurative speech--indicating you don't have a clue how to read and understand scriptures.

"He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them." (1 Samuel 2:8 -- King James Version)

Your argument is not based on facts at all. You are grossly ignorant of the most basic facts about language. Here is an explanation written for children (http://languagearts.mrdonn.org/figurative.html). Maybe you will be able to understand it:
What is Figurative Language?
Whenever you describe something by comparing it with something else,
you are using figurative language.

Simile
A simile uses the words “like” or “as”
to compare one object or idea with another to suggest they are alike.
Example: busy as a bee

Metaphor
The metaphor states a fact or draws a verbal picture by the use of comparison.
A simile would say you are like something; a metaphor is more positive - it says you are something.

Example: You are what you eat.

See that word "DESCRIBE" in the definition of "figurative language"? It is part of the DEFINITION of "figurative language." And see the definition of simile? It is a figure of speech that uses words like "as" which is what Isaiah used:
Isaiah 40:22 2 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

By definition, Isaiah used three "figures of speech" (specifically, similes). Therefore, your assertion that he was not using figures of speech is exposed as pure idiocy based on gross ignorance. You don't even know the basic meaning of common English words.

FACT #4: You insisted only Christians believe in the trinity and that you are a skeptic, but it turns out you are a bigger apologist for trinity than the Christians who believe it. You've been arguing tooth and nails that trinity is a Bible teaching--more so than the Christians who believe it.

Again, you expose your ignorance and your inability to follow simple logic. I have never once said that the Trinity is true in this conversation! All I have done is show that there are good reasons a Bible believing Christian could think it is true. The only thing you are proving is that there is a directly correlation between ignorance and arrogance.

FACT #5: A person who habitually argues on both sides of an issue is intellectually dishonest.

First, that's not a fact. Second, I'm not "arguing both sides of an issue." I am presenting the facts that support both sides. That's what any intelligent person would do. It's what David M has constantly admonished us all to do - look at both sides of an argument before coming to a conclusion. Even the Bible tells us to do this. But you think it's "intellectually dishonest." That's pretty funny coming from someone like you.

FACT #6: You are a pretender with questionable motives, because you argue against my logical explanations that debunk Trinity--the same trinity you said only Christians believe in, while insisting you are not a Christian. In fact, you argued against a clear debunking of the trinity dogma that I presented at Post 30, as follows.

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3325-Bible-Teachings-or-Traditions-of-Men/page3

FACT: You gave absolutely NO "logical explanations" about anything. That's the problem. I even explained your error but you never responded. Merely posting some pictures of threesomes of pagan deities doesn't "prove" anything about how or why the Christians developed the doctrine of the Trinity. You appear to be absolutely ignorant of all of the actual history relating the Trinity.

FACT #7: When I presented info showing that the trinity is a Roman Catholic invention by pointing to the Roman Catholic Church and its crucial involvement at the 325 AD Council of Nicaea, and then their involvement at the 381 AD Council of Constantinople, you argued that that doesn't prove anything. That, despite the fact that all secular historical references point to those two events as being responsible for the official formation of trinity by the Roman Catholics.

Again, you presented no info at all. You just presented some pictures of pagan deities as if that was supposed to prove something. If you want to prove your point, you need to find some quote of some Christians saying "Let's twist the Bible so we can get everyone to worshop Isis, Osirus, and Horus!" or some such nonsense.

If I have missed some real "evidence" that you presented, then please present the ONE FACT that gives the best evidence for your contention. And you better make it good, because I am asking for the BEST EVIDENCE. Don't post pics of pagan deities as if they proved anything. Don't post any unprovable assertions or speculations. Give some real evidence for a change.

FACT #8: When I gave a detailed presentation at Post 53, Post 54, and Post 59 during which I showed the deceit by Trinitarian Bible translators regarding John 8:58 and their dishonesty in using "I am" instead of "I am he" OR "I am the man" so the sentence could be grammatically correct in English (and here is the weblink to the page with presentation: http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3325-Bible-Teachings-or-Traditions-of-Men/page6 ), you argued that the translators had a right to violate the rules of English grammar because Jesus was no ordinary human and therefore the same rules of English grammar during translation don't apply to him. Mind you, this is the same Jesus Christ that appears in the Bible that you claim you don't believe in.

There is nothing grammatically false about the way that sentence was translated. The fact that the "he" or the "man" is needed in other contexts does not mean it is need in every context. The real problem is that you are can't read Greek, so you rely on MAN-MADE TRANSLATIONS. That's your problem. A person reading Greek would have no translational questions. And what would a Greek reader think he meant? That's easy to see. He would have understood that Jesus was deliberately identifying himself as the I AM. This is confirmed by the context over and over again. The Gospel of John begins with the declaration that "the Word (Christ) was God." And Christ did not correct the Jews when they said he was making himself equal with God. If he wasn't God, the first thing from his lips would have been something like "I NEVER SAID THAT! I AM NOT GOD! THAT WOULD BE BLASPHEMY!" But did he say anything like that? Nope. And these are just a few of the reasons devout Bible believing Christians have concluded that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God. Of course, there are problems with that idea, so it may not be right. But that would only prove that the Bible is logically incoherent.

ALTER2EGO -to- RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH:
If it makes you happy to feel that you presented evidence to support your personal opinions--which are consistently in error--be my guest. You cannot base your argument about "all Christians and all Muslims use the same method of argument" by pointing to isolated incidents of Muslims doing that as proof. As I previously said, I've debated Muslims at several websites, and they all use the argument formula that I presented at Post 103. They spend most of their time being apologists for Muhammad's sexually deviant behavior and being apologists for the plagiarism of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Muslim Quran.

There you go again! Making up words that I never said. And your assertion that I am "constantly in error" is a blatant lie. You sure have a mountain of public sins you need to repent of.

But since it's clear you desperately want to win some prize or the other for your habitual pattern of being in denial and being an apologist for trinity and other false religious teachings--while claiming the entire time you are not a Christian and that you don't believe a word the Bible says--be my guest. You won the First Prize Trophy hands down.

What are you babbling about? I deny nothing and I'm not an apologist for the Trinity. I've plainly stated over and over again that I do not believe in the Trinity, the Bible, or even the God of the Bible. I have done nothing but present the Biblical evidence that Christians have used for centuries as the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. The fact that you can't refute these facts makes you wet your pants. I think it's time you go change them ... they are getting pretty stinky.

If you post anything else to me on this topic or any topic for that matter, you will be posting to yourself as I will not read it. I've had enough of your intellectual dishonesty. Consider yourself honored to be the first person to be added to my "Ignore" list--meaning I will scroll pass anything you post and not read it.

Our conversation is permanently over.

:woohoo:

I win! I read your posts on other forums where you vainly puffed yourself up and said how you never run and hide but usually get kicked off forums because they can't answer your brilliant arguments. Well, I guess we put that one to rest! I'm the owner and moderator of this forum, and I didn't ban you despite the fact that you falsely accused me of lying. I find it much more entertaining, and edifying, to let mindless arrogant freaks like you blow themselves up in a mass of furious absurdity. You really lived up to my highest expectations. (Or rather my lowest .... :lol:). You are the perfect poster child of a mind destroyed by religion. You are, as they say, a "useful idiot."

So have fun. Go run and hide. It only proves my victory. And it's quite public for all to see. THANKS! I'm glad the conversation is over since it was getting pretty tedious schooling you on the meaning of elementary concepts like "figures of speech" since the entire Bible is filled with such things.

:cheerleader5:

:talk008: :talk008: :talk008: :talk008:

PARTY TIME AT MY PLACE! THE DUNCE HAS EATEN HER HAT.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 04:02 PM

FACT #7: When I presented info showing that the trinity is a Roman Catholic invention by pointing to the Roman Catholic Church and its crucial involvement at the 325 AD Council of Nicaea, and then their involvement at the 381 AD Council of Constantinople, you argued that that doesn't prove anything. That, despite the fact that all secular historical references point to those two events as being responsible for the official formation of trinity by the Roman Catholics.

Let's take a look at the "info" that Alter2Ego presented. Here is the sum total of the evidence she presented in her OP to support her absurd assertion that the Christian's doctrine of the Trinity is really "pagan." It consists of nothing but a few pictures and descriptions of pagan gods! :doh:

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

In the 2nd century B.C.E. (two centuries before Christ came to the earth), Egypt had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Horus, (2) Osiris, and (3) Isis.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=5006107163428312&id=41e234d54bc027892eeb2d650f101145

Likewise, in the 2nd century B.C.E. (two centuries before Christ came to the earth), Babylon had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Ishtar, (2) Sin, and (3) Shamash.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4714367249810802&id=9647e976234b83c823f2b30d394ef638

In the 1st century C.E., Palmyra, which was an ancient city in Syria, had a triune god which consisted of (1) moon god, (2) Lord of Heavens, and (3) sun god.

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/sinbaalshaminshamash.jpg

I responded by telling her "I'm not sure if there is any meaningful correlation between those pagan "trinities" and the Christian doctrine." And her response? Did she give any evidence? NOPE! She replied by saying "Perhaps you will eventually see the correlation between the pagan trinities and Christendom's trinity during my discussion with fellow Christians on this topic." [Post 5]. And I also said "But even if there are similarities, there is absolutely no reason to think that the Christian doctrine was based on the pagan trinities in any way at all. This is totally obvious to anyone who has studied the history of Christianity." So did she think maybe she should give some evidence? NOPE! All she did was say it was "obvious" and gave NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND:
You said you've studied the history of Christianity but can't see the connection between pagan trinities and Christendom's trinity. And so, based upon your inability to see the connection between the two, you are now opining that nobody else who has studied the history of Christianity can see the connection. That's your opinion. You do realize opinions are not facts; right? I have studied the history of Christianity, and the link between the pagan trinities and Christendom's trinity is abundantly clear to me.

But she has insisted that she has given evidence. So let's keep looking through this long thread to see if we can find any evidence of her evidence. In post 9 she merely reasserted her opinion, saying:
the Catholic Church began formulating the pagan trinity after Jesus Christ returned to heavenly life, meaning the Catholic Church is responsible for the pagan Trinity making its way into Christianity.

Again, no evidence. And in post 13 she merely repeated her opinion again, but gave no evidence:
The finger of blame points directly at the Roman Catholic Church and their crucial involvement at the 325 AD Council of Nicaea, and then their involvement at the 381 AD Council of Constantinople. I thought you said you studied these topics. Yet, you missed those two landmark events that culminated in the official formulation of Christendom's Trinity and the direct involvement of the Catholic Church! I find that surprising based on your statements about being well informed on these matters.

Well, you probably get the idea by now. Alter2Ego has never provided any evidence for her claim that the Christian Trinity has anything at all to do with paganism. That's why she started calling me a liar. I showed that she was wrong and she flipped her lid. What a pathetic loser.

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 04:15 PM

Here is what Alter2Ego said in another forum (http://www.agileguitarforum.com/showthread.php?tid=19271&pid=316905#pid316905):
ALTER2EGO -to- MACROCKET:

That will be the day when I get ran off a forum by regular members. As a rule, I leave a forum when a moderator decides to rescue the atheists by banning me or when moderators start harassing me--for the benefit of the atheists. In other words, whenever I leave a forum, it's because of the moderators.

Look at that crazy arrogance! She thinks she is some sort of powerhouse of logic and argumentation. So powerful in fact, that poor, weak-minded atheists need to be rescued from her invincible intellect! :doh:

I think I understand her confusion now. She thinks explaining things with logic and facts is "harassment." And I guess there's a bit of truth in that since REALITY most certainly harasses her deep, deep, delusions.

:hysterical:

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 04:24 PM

Here's some interesting info from another forum (http://forums.musculardevelopment.com/showthread.php/125245-Is-Hellfire-A-Bible-Teaching?p=3037854&viewfull=1#post3037854) that was being harassed by Alter2Ego's ego-maniacal ravings. She has been spamming the internet with the same posts she spewed out here. And when people prove her wrong? She calls them names, lies, twists words, and then finally runs and hides when she has been proven wrong for the thousandth time.

Every one of these links points to a forum where Alter2Ego posted her "arguments" against the idea of "hellfire" which she brought up in her OP in this thread.

Is Alter2Ego a Cyborg Spambot after all ?http://forums.musculardevelopment.com/images/smilies2/hump.gif

http://www.lipstickalley.com/f83/hel...aching-357768/ (http://www.lipstickalley.com/f83/hellfire-not-bible-teaching-357768/)

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...-teaching.html (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/128441-hellfire-not-bible-teaching.html)

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...ad.php?t=31573 (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=31573)

http://debatingchristianity.com/foru...ic.php?t=19223 (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19223)

http://www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/18775/1/http://forums.musculardevelopment.com/images/smilies2/banghead.gif

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056613660 (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056613660)

http://www.religionforums.org/Thread...Bible-Teaching (http://www.religionforums.org/Thread-Is-Hellfire-A-Bible-Teaching)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religi...-teaching.html (http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/218215-is-hellfire-a-bible-teaching.html)

http://www.city-data.com/forum/chris...-teaching.html (http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/1514030-hellfire-bible-teaching.html)

http://www.agileguitarforum.com/show....php?tid=19310 (http://www.agileguitarforum.com/showthread.php?tid=19310)

http://forums.musculardevelopment.co...Bible-Teaching (http://forums.musculardevelopment.com/showthread.php/125245-Is-Hellfire-A-Bible-Teaching)

http://boardreader.com/thread/Is_Hel...p5c4Xwg8e.html (http://boardreader.com/thread/Is_Hellfire_A_Bible_Teaching_4p5c4Xwg8e.html)

http://www.twoplustwo.com/ForumAlert...erson-1183414/ (http://www.twoplustwo.com/ForumAlert.php137/religion-god-theology/jesus-christ-myth-historical-person-1183414/)http://forums.musculardevelopment.com/images/smilies3/camera.gif

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 05:35 PM

After some research, I have found evidence that Alter2Ego is a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses cult of mindless bullshit.

That explains a lot.

weeder

08-28-2012, 08:57 PM

Now you want an "exposition." OK - here's a fresh one right off the top of my head.

The entire BOOK OF JOHN is the larger "context" of John 8:58. And what do we see in that book? It opens with these words:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

As you can see, the Bible plainly states that "the Word (Christ) was God." This established the context of the whole book. And this perfectly coheres with the Jew's accusation that Christ claimed to be God:
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

The Jews accused Christ of claiming to be God. He NEVER denied that claim. If he was not God, he simply could have said "Yo! What are you talking about? I NEVER said or suggested anything like that! I am not God! That would be blasphemy!" But is that what he said? Nope. On the contrary, he confirmed their accusation and clarified his relationship to the Father by saying that the Father God was in him and he was in Father God. Given the context, Christ is confirming that he is God.

Now that we have mutually confirming "bookmarks" before and after the text in question, let's take a look at it:
John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

We see the central question Christ was answering: "whom makest thou thyself?". This is what you and the Trinitarians debate. The answer Jesus gave is that he is the I AM from Exodus 3:14.

That's the short version off the top of my head. I could marshal many other verses to support this position. But please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it is "proof" of the Trinity. But it is proof that your assertions are false. There are plenty of good reasons for Biblical Christians to believe that Christ is God. And that was my only point.

Wow, really like this post. Well said ....:thumb:10/10

Alter2Ego

08-28-2012, 09:36 PM

:eek:

Hi there Alter2ego.
From page one God says,---and let US create Man in OUR image......Male and Female He created THEM.

God reveals himself as an US and OUR, yet they are one God.
How do you explain this away?
ALTER2EGO -to- WEEDER:
There is nothing to "explain away" because at no time in the Bible does God reveal himself as "us" and "our." You are referring to the Genesis account in which Jehovah was speaking with his assistant, the pre-human Jesus Christ.

"And God went on to say: 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.' " (Genesis 1:26)

When Jehovah said "let us make man in our image," at Genesis 1:26, he was speaking to the pre-human Jesus Christ who he created before all other things. With reference to Jesus Christ who is identified as "the Word" at John 1:1, the same chapter of John says:

"All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence." (John 1:3)

Jehovah worked through the pre-human Jesus Christ, his most powerful angel. But the pre-human Jesus was never the Creator. At all times, the power of creation came directly from Jehovah. Without Jehovah, the pre-human Jesus would be powerless.

weeder

08-28-2012, 10:14 PM

In the beginning GOD created. The idea that GOD needs an assistant is laughable.
nowhere in the texts do i read about such a thing. In the beginning God created the hev and earth not an assistant.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Everything created includes any assistants.......or Angels, proving that it was indeed the word of God himself .

Philippians 2
3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

sylvius

08-28-2012, 10:16 PM

Wow, really like this post. Well said ....:thumb:10/10

"Son of God" is not (meant to be the same as) "God" or "God the Son".

Alter2Ego

08-28-2012, 10:19 PM

Thomas was a worshipper of the one true God.
When he said ---My Lord and My God, he meant YHVH.
ALTER2EGO -to- WEEDER:
You are ignoring context and cherry picking words that satisfy what you've chosen to believe. Thomas was not worshipping Jesus; therefore by default, Jesus was not accepting worship and blaspheming. If anything, Thomas bowed down before Jesus, which is what people did culturally back then--as a show of respect and humility.

"{27} Next he [Jesus] said to Thomas: "Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop being unbelieving but become believing." {28} In answer Thomas said to Him: "My Lord and my God!" {29} Jesus said to him: "Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe." " (John 20:27-29)

I looked up John 20:27-29 in several different Bible versions, including the King James Version which is notorious for Trinitarian renderings, and none of them mentioned Thomas even so much as bowing to Jesus during that exchange. Furthermore, the words "lord" and "god" are titles that can apply to any powerful being--including humans on earth in positions of power. Jesus is a god because he's powerful and because he is supernatural. But he's not Almighty God YHWH/Jehovah/Yahweh. Only Almighty God should be worshipped.

******

WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF "GOD":
1. any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature

2. a person or thing deified or excessively honored or admired
http://www.yourdictionary.com/god

In effect, the word "god" is a title that is not restricted only to YAHWEH/Jehovah/YHWH. All of the angels are considered "gods" because they are powerful and supernatural beings. As previously stated, even humans on earth that are in powerful positions are considered gods. This is confirmed by the apostle Paul, as follows.

"{5} For even though there are those who are called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are MANY "gods" and MANY "lords," {6} there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him." " (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

Did you notice what Paul acknowledged at verse 5? He said there are many others in heaven with the titles "god" and "lord" and that even on earth humans in powerful positions are given those particular titles. However, while he acknowledged others have the titles "god" and "lord" because they are powerful beings, he clarified in verse 6 that only God the Father (YHWH/Jehovah/Yahweh) should be recognized as the One that should be worshipped. In fact, Paul made a point of distinguishing God the Father from Jesus the son by referring to Jesus Christ by the title "Lord."

BTW: Did you notice that Paul made no mention at 1 Corinthians 8:6 about "God the Holy Ghost"?

******

Last but not least, you ignored the context of the scripture at John 20:28 where "unbelieving" Thomas exclaimed "My Lord and my God!" Remember, that was at verse 28. Three verses later, at verse 31, clarification is given of who Jesus Christ is--in relationship to Almighty God Jehovah/the Father:

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31 -- New International Version)

"But these are written so that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life by the power of his name." (John 20:31 -- New Living Bible)

Context (meaning the surrounding words, verses, and chapters) is vitally important when reading the scriptures. Trinitarians routinely ignore scriptural context because context debunks what they think the cherry picked words mean. Without context, one is able to apply whatever meaning one chooses to apply--because of preconceived ideas.

weeder

08-28-2012, 10:26 PM

"Son of God" is not (meant to be the same as) "God" or "God the Son".

When its applied to Jesus it is.:D
Im adopted by the way :)...."God the Son" is rather inappropriate for me.

weeder

08-28-2012, 10:50 PM

Context (meaning the surrounding words, verses, and chapters) is vitally important when reading the scriptures. Trinitarians routinely ignore scriptural context because context debunks what they think the cherry picked words mean. Without context, one is able to apply whatever meaning one chooses to apply--because of preconceived ideas.[/COLOR]

When i set myself to settle this issue, i didnt care one way or the other where i ended up.
Didnt favor any particular position, just gathered as many scriptures as possible and formed my opinion as honestly as i could....

Is 43
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me.
11 “I, even I, am the Lord,
And there is no savior besides Me.
12 “It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed,And there was no strange god among you;
So you are My witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“And I am God.

Alter2Ego

08-28-2012, 11:22 PM

In the beginning GOD created. The idea that GOD needs an assistant is laughable.
nowhere in the texts do i read about such a thing. In the beginning God created the hev and earth not an assistant.
ALTER2EGO -to- WEEDER:
The laugh is on you. I didn't say God "needed an assistant". Go back and read what I said at Post 121. I specifically said Jesus was God's assistant--which is not the same as saying God "needed" an assistant. If anything, Jehovah gave Jesus the privilege of assisting him since Jehovah, being the source of the power of creation, could have done it all himself. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God did the creating "through" Jesus meaning he used Jesus as an assistant.

"All things came into existence through him [Jesus], and apart from him not even one thing came into existence." (John 1:3)

******

I also made it clear at Post 121 that the source of the power of creation has always been Jehovah and that without Jehovah, the pre-human Jesus did not have any power. Jesus himself acknowledged this in the two verses below.

"You heard that I said to you, I am going away and I am coming back to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my way to the father, because the Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28)

"Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: 'Most truly I say to you, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner." (John 5:19)

******

QUESTION #1 -to- WEEDER: If Jesus and Jehovah were the same God in the fabricated Trinity "Godhead," how could one be greater than the other--according Jesus' own statement at John 14:28? Especially since according to the definition of trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are supposedly CO-EQUAL (meaning they have the same power)?

Christendom's trinity, written in Article I of The Catholic Faith, is defined as follows:
"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and indivisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of ONE substance, POWER, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

QUESTION #2 -to- WEEDER: If Jesus and Jehovah were the same God in the fabricated Trinity "Godhead," why would Jesus (the son) have to wait for Jehovah (the Father) to take the initiative--according to Jesus' own words at John 5:19, since they are supposedly CO-EQUAL?

Richard Amiel McGough

08-28-2012, 11:25 PM

sylvius

08-28-2012, 11:34 PM

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

This being same as what Rashi said on Genesis 1:27,

And God created man in his image: In the form that was made for him, for everything [else] was created with a command, whereas he [man] was created with the hands (of God), as it is written (Ps. 139:5): “and You placed Your hand upon me.” Man was made with a seal, like a coin, which is made by means of a die, which is called coin in Old French.

in the image of God He created him: It explains to you that the image that was prepared for him was the image of the likeness of his Creator. — [from B.B. 58a]

"the image of the likeness of his Creator"

צלם דיוקן יצורו הוא, "tselem d'yukan yotsro hu"

"d'yukan" = portrait

We all are formed with that seal.

which is the same seal as with which God hall-marked his creation ,
in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" , the last two words of Genesis 1:31 and the first two words of Genesis 2:1.

The secret of creation.

sylvius

08-28-2012, 11:45 PM

The idea that Christ existed before creation is consistent with both the Trinity and the idea that Christ was Jehovah's "most powerful angel."

Therefore, "Let us make man in our image" says nothing that will help discern between the two theories. The point is moot.

There is no before or after, it all happened (happens) in the one indivisible moment of time of 1 Corinthians 15:51-52

Alter2Ego

08-28-2012, 11:49 PM

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him. [/U]17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
ALTER2EGO -to- WEEDER:
You are debunking trinity by quoting the scripture above from Colossians 1:15. Look at the words that I bolded in red. It says there in plain English that Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation". That means he was himself created and that he was the first of God's creations. Thereafter, God created everything else through Jesus, with Jehovah being the source of the creative power.

DEFINITION OF "BORN": "Born means having been given life."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/born

DEFINITION OF "CREATE": "To cause to exist; bring into being."
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/create
http://www.yourdictionary.com/create?

weeder

08-28-2012, 11:51 PM

QUESTION #1 -to- WEEDER: If Jesus and Jehovah were the same God in the fabricated Trinity "Godhead," how could one be greater than the other--according Jesus' own statement at John 14:28? Especially since according to the definition of trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are supposedly CO-EQUAL (meaning they have the same power)?

[COLOR="#000080"]QUESTION #2 -to- WEEDER: If Jesus and Jehovah were the same God in the fabricated Trinity "Godhead," why would Jesus (the son) have to wait for Jehovah (the Father) to take the initiative--according to Jesus' own words at John 5:19, since they are supposedly CO-EQUAL?

The scripture i posted above from PHILIPPIANS answers these qu's.
He poured himself out and humbled himself as a Man,even though he was equal with the Father, one with the Father.

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

He did this so Man would walk humbly with God....follow the leader.

sylvius

08-28-2012, 11:55 PM

[COLOR="#000080"]ALTER2EGO -to- WEEDER:
You are debunking trinity by quoting the scripture above from Colossians 1:15. Look at the words that I bolded in red. It says there in plain English that Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation". That means he was himself created and that he was the first of God's creations. Thereafter, God created everything else through Jesus, with Jehovah being the source of the creative power.

The image of the invisible God is not a creation.

cf. Romans 1:22-23,

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things

weeder

08-29-2012, 12:05 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- WEEDER:
You are debunking trinity by quoting the scripture above from Colossians 1:15. Look at the words that I bolded in red. It says there in plain English that Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation". That means he was himself created and that he was the first of God's creations. Thereafter, God created everything else through Jesus, with Jehovah being the source of the creative power.

DEFINITION OF "BORN": "Born means having been given life."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/born

DEFINITION OF "CREATE": "To cause to exist; bring into being."
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/create
http://www.yourdictionary.com/create?

Jesus was the firstborn of all creation to rise with an immortal body. He is the firstfruits of all that sleep.:)

Alter2Ego

08-29-2012, 12:08 AM

When i set myself to settle this issue, i didnt care one way or the other where i ended up.
Didnt favor any particular position, just gathered as many scriptures as possible and formed my opinion as honestly as i could....

Is 43
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me.
11 “I, even I, am the Lord,
And there is no savior besides Me.
12 “It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed,And there was no strange god among you;
So you are My witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“And I am God.
ALTER2EGO -to- WEEDER:
Why are you quoting these verses from Isaiah? You are debunking trinity again. That's Jehovah speaking, not Jesus Christ. See what I mean about Trinitarians quoting verses and ignoring context?

It clearly states at verse 10 "before me there was no God formed." We know Jesus Christ was formed by Jehovah because Colossians 1:15 that you just got through quoting at Post 122 says Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation." The words "born" and "creation" are with reference to created beings.

"He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstBORN of all creation;" (Colossians 1:15)

weeder

08-29-2012, 12:47 AM

[SIZE=3][COLOR="#000080"]ALTER2EGO -to- WEEDER:
Why are you quoting these verses from Isaiah?

Who is the saviour of the world? Who can forgive sin but God alone?
There is no other saviour but YHVH.

YHVH has his witnesses to his great salvation...

Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “ Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

sylvius

08-29-2012, 01:01 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- WEEDER:
Why are you quoting these verses from Isaiah? You are debunking trinity again. That's Jehovah speaking, not Jesus Christ. See what I mean about Trinitarians quoting verses and ignoring context?

It clearly states at verse 10 "before me there was no God formed." We know Jesus Christ was formed by Jehovah because Colossians 1:15 that you just got through quoting at Post 122 says Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation." The words "born" and "creation" are with reference to created beings.

"He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstBORN of all creation;" (Colossians 1:15)

You make out of God an idol, Jehovah.

weeder

08-29-2012, 01:02 AM

Alter2Ego

08-29-2012, 01:21 AM

QUESTION #1 -to- WEEDER: If Jesus and Jehovah were the same God in the fabricated Trinity "Godhead," how could one be greater than the other--according Jesus' own statement at John 14:28? Especially since according to the definition of trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are supposedly CO-EQUAL (meaning they have the same power)?

QUESTION #2 -to- WEEDER: If Jesus and Jehovah were the same God in the fabricated Trinity "Godhead," why would Jesus (the son) have to wait for Jehovah (the Father) to take the initiative--according to Jesus' own words at John 5:19, since they are supposedly CO-EQUAL?

The scripture i posted above from PHILIPPIANS answers these qu's.
ALTER2EGO -to- WEEDER:
The scriptural quotation from Philippians 2:6 debunks trinity.

Look at the words I posted in red within your quotation below of said scripture. By the way, do you understand the meaning of the expression "DID NOT"? It's a negative connotation. That verse is saying in plain English that Jesus did not believe he could be equal to God.

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, DID NOT regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Alter2Ego

08-29-2012, 01:31 AM

He poured himself out and humbled himself as a Man, even though he was equal with the Father[/COLOR], one with the Father.
ALTER2EGO -to- WEEDER:
I realize that's your personal belief. But that's not what Jesus said at John 14:28; right? He said the exact opposite of what you are asserting.

QUESTION #3 -to- WEEDER. If you were me, which of the two statements below would you to believe?

Weeder said this: "He [Jesus] poured himself out and humbled himself as a Man, even though he was equal with the Father,"

Jesus Christ said this: "You heard that I said to you, I am going away and I am coming back to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my way to the father, because the Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28)

QUESTION #4 -to- WEEDER. Would you go with what the Bible says if you were me?

Alter2Ego

08-29-2012, 01:34 AM

You make out of God an idol, Jehovah.
I don't have a clue what you mean by the above statement.

weeder

08-29-2012, 01:41 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- WEEDER:
The scriptural quotation from Philippians 2:6 debunks trinity.

Look at the words I posted in red within your quotation below of said scripture. By the way, do you understand the meaning of the expression "DID NOT"? It's a negative connotation. That verse is saying in plain English that Jesus did not believe he could be equal to God.

You have got to be joking. That is not what is being said

sylvius

08-29-2012, 01:54 AM

I don't have a clue what you mean by the above statement.

You wrote:

That's Jehovah speaking, not Jesus Christ

To call God by the name Jehovah is blasphemy, by which you show that for you God is no more than a (mortal) man whom you can call by name, some
kind of a sect-leader.

The name of God is scriptural.

That's why John starts with : "In the beginning was the word".

weeder

08-29-2012, 02:02 AM

QUESTION #3 -to- WEEDER. If you were me, which of the two statements below would you to believe?[/COLOR]

Weeder said this: "He [Jesus] poured himself out and humbled himself as a Man, even though he was equal with the Father,"

Jesus Christ said this: "You heard that I said to you, I am going away and I am coming back to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my way to the father, because the Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28)

QUESTION #4 -to- WEEDER. Would you go with what the Bible says if you were me?

#3---I didnt say anything, Phillipians said it. I believe both statements.

#4---You do not appear to go with the bible, so..

Maybe we can talk about the bodily resurrection one day and find some common ground :thumb: over and out.
Goodnight.

Alter2Ego

08-29-2012, 02:30 AM

The image of the invisible God is not a creation.

cf. Romans 1:22-23,

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things
ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:
Notice below what weeder posted at Post 122. Keep your eyes on the words that are bolded in red. Next notice the two dictionary definitions. Then answer the two questions that follows.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstBORN of all CREATION.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
DEFINITION OF "BORN": "Born means having been given life.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/born

DEFINITION OF "CREATION": "A creation is something that has been made or brought into existence."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/creation

QUESTION #1 -to- SYLVIUS: The scripture at Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus Christ as "the firstBORN of all creation." The English dictionary defines "born" as "having been given life." Since according to Colossians 1:15 Jesus is firstBORN and born means "having been given life," does this indicate Jesus at one time did not exist and that it was because Jehovah gave him life that he came into existence? If not, how do you explain away what the scripture says in light of the dictionary definition of the word "born"?

QUESTION #2 -to- SYLVIUS: The scripture at Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus Christ as "the firstborn of ALL CREATION." The English dictionary defines "creation" as "something that has been made or brought into existence." Since according to Colossians 1:15 Jesus is one among "all creation," what does that indicate for the pre-human Jesus? In other words, does it indicate he had a beginning as a result of being a creation?

Alter2Ego

08-29-2012, 02:47 AM

#3---I didnt say anything, Phillipians said it. I believe both statements.

#4---You do not appear to go with the bible, so..

Maybe we can talk about the bodily resurrection one day and find some common ground :thumb: over and out.
Goodnight.
ALTER2EGO -to- WEEDER:
I'm waiting for you to show me where Philippians says what you concluded. Here is your conclusion: "He [Jesus] poured himself out and humbled himself as a Man, even though he was equal with the Father,..."

Below is your previous quotation of Philippians.

Philippians 2
3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

#4---You do not appear to go with the bible, so..
ALTER2EGO -to- WEEDER:
Are you sure I'm the one who is not accepting what's written in the Bible? Take a good look at the words in Philippians that are bolded in red directly above in your quotation. Then explain to me how the Bible's statement: "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" could possibly equate to your personal philosophical conclusion that it means: "He [Jesus] poured himself out and humbled himself as a Man, even though he was equal with the Father,..." Your statement is a direct contradiction of what Philippians 2:6 is saying.

Alter2Ego

08-29-2012, 03:04 AM

You wrote:

To call God by the name Jehovah is blasphemy, by which you show that for you God is no more than a (mortal) man whom you can call by name, some
kind of a sect-leader.

The name of God is scriptural.

That's why John starts with : "In the beginning was the word".
ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:

Where in the Judeo-Christian Bible does it say that it is blasphemy to use God's personal name Jehovah/YHWH/Yahweh/Yehovah? Be sure and quote the verse and bold the words where such is said. And don't forget to identify it with Bible book, chapter, and verse so that I can check it in my own copy of the Bible.

Alter2Ego

08-29-2012, 03:06 AM

What YHVH says about his Son.
Heb 1
And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,

“ And let all the angels of God worship Him.”

7 And of the angels He says,

“ Who makes His angels winds,
And His ministers a flame of fire.”

8 But of the Son He says,

“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.
9 “ You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness above Your companions.”

10 And,

“ You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the works of Your hands;
11 They will perish, but You remain;
And they all will become old like a garment,
12 And like a mantle You will roll them up;
Like a garment they will also be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not come to an end.”
ALTER2EGO -to- WEEDER:

The word "god" is a title that can be assigned to any powerful being. Jesus Christ is a god, but he is not almighty God Jehovah. I explained all that to you previously at Post 124, and I gave a very detailed explanation. Below is the weblink that will get you there quickly.
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3325-Bible-Teachings-or-Traditions-of-Men&p=48800&posted=1#post48800

sylvius

08-29-2012, 03:15 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:
Notice below what weeder posted at Post 122. Keep your eyes on the words that are bolded in red. Next notice the two dictionary definitions. Then answer the two questions that follows.

DEFINITION OF "BORN": "Born means having been given life.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/born

DEFINITION OF "CREATION": "A creation is something that has been made or brought into existence."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/creation

QUESTION #1 -to- SYLVIUS: The scripture at Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus Christ as "the firstBORN of all creation." The English dictionary defines "born" as "having been given life." Since according to Colossians 1:15 Jesus is firstBORN and born means "having been given life," does this indicate Jesus at one time did not exist and that it was because Jehovah gave him life that he came into existence? If not, how do you explain away what the scripture says in light of the dictionary definition of the word "born"?

QUESTION #2 -to- SYLVIUS: The scripture at Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus Christ as "the firstborn of ALL CREATION." The English dictionary defines "creation" as "something that has been made or brought into existence." Since according to Colossians 1:15 Jesus is one among "all creation," what does that indicate for the pre-human Jesus? In other words, does it indicate he had a beginning as a result of being a creation?

Man was created on the sixth day.
On the same day he did fall.

In the account of creation the first day is called "yom echad", day one; absolute.
While the others are called by ordinal numbers, second day, third day. fourth day, etc.

My suggestion is that only because of Adam's sin day one changed into first day, "yom rishon" .

In principle there is just one day, i.e. all the seven days forming a unity.

Which means that Adam, although created on the sixth, was already present on the first day .

That's what New Testament is about.

David M

08-29-2012, 06:12 AM

Good morning Richard

This is going to be my last reply on this subject and in this thread and I want to move on. I have probably missed some of your replies to my other posts. I find it hard to keep up so please accept this as a reply to make up for other posts of yours I have not replied to. I want to draw an end in this thread and move on.

I did not "wander off topic." I was presenting the CONTEXT in which we find John 8:58. How could you miss that?
I did not miss this, I have pointed out that "The Word" is not Jesus and therefore to me you have wandered from the context of the verses we are considering. You don't see it this way because of the connection you think is there to John 1:1, so we have to disagree on his point.

I did not claim that my interpretation was "plain and unmistakable." It simply is one way of looking at what the Bible says, though I do think it is probably what the author of the fourth Gospel really meant when he wrote it. The problem is that the Bible is just a pile of words which everyone interprets according to their own will. There is no way to establish the truth or falsehood of most of it. It's just one opinion clashing with another.
Until the actual Truth is discovered it will be a collection of everyone's thoughts and opinions, but that does not change the Truth which is what I really want to get to. Considering that we have been warned about the way men and women will pervert the Truth, iit should not be surprising that we have so many sects. This is why if you want to find the Truth, think of the very narrow way and the "FEW" who will find it. Don't expect to find it by following the masses who cannot see they are on the broad road to destruction. Unfortunately, the masses cannot see the message I have just given. Be responsible for making up your own mind and not following the teaching you have learned from other sources that have wrongly influenced you. I suggest you start again and piece it together whereby you answer the paradoxes and get to see the coherency that is there. All you are doing is seeing road blocks and not removing them and you are not moving forward in your quest to get to the Truth. You have fallen into the same trap as the masses fall into and are being lead by unknowing religious leaders. Liken it to a maze in which there is one clear path to get to the center though there be many paths that lead to DEAD ends.

Your idea that Christ was a "manifestation" of God's Word is just another speculation. You could be right, you could be wrong. How could anyone know?
To you speculation, to me it is not. I am reasoning these things out to make sense of everything recorded in God's word. If I am right I have nothing to lose, if I am wrong, I have a lot to lose. It is not my intention to lead anyone astray, I would rather you follow your own path than follow the masses that are going astray. Ultimately, whether I am right or wrong I am putting my trust in God and accepting he will forgive my lack of understanding and be merciful to me for my trying. Many of the spiritual "road blocks" preventing you moving forward have been set up by man, not God. "don't believe in lying words" is a warning God makes to us. Watch out for lying words and get round them. Because of all the road blocks and diversions it is easy not to travel the direct route that leads to eternal life. Instead, it looks like we are trapped in a maze and cannot find the center where the gift of eternal life awaits. Either you can follow someone you trust who will lead you to the center or you can persist on your own until you find the way. Just do not be put off by those who will try to stop you. Since Jesus said; I am the way and as the Son of God I will trust him. So long as we follow Jesus we are bound to be lead to eternal life.

You say prove it, and the only proof is in the Word of God that requires faith, for which the definition given us in God's word is; The hope of things to come, the evidence of things unseen. You want visible proof and God is giving us invisible proof/evidence. That is the way it is for us today, because we were not there to see the events take place. Had we seen Jesus raised from the dead, we might be like the Apostles who had their lives transformed and knew that they could give there own lives in the service of their Lord knowing that they will be raised to life again.

There is much factual history that supports the Bible and proves the Bible accurate and this is one reason for accepting the whole of the Bible is true without having visual proof. The consistent and coherent message of the Bible makes it a remarkable book that could not have been written without inspiration from God. It is easy for me to see that for those who do not know the consistency of the Bible message will see it as illogical and not coherent. Many are being deceived by those who have their own agenda or by those who are in ignorance and lack doing due diligence.

You did not state what the other conclusion is. When Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am (he)" what did he mean? And why did he say something that would sound like he was deliberately using the divine name "I AM"? And why did he not correct the Jews when they said the he was making himself out to be equal to God? You have not answered these questions
I pointed to the answer and wanted to see if you can work it out. This is your problem, you are fixed on the only answer you know and that is blinding you to accept anything different. You have now reached the point that nothing anyone says can make you change your mind. You are fixed as long as no one can say anything to make you shift. Have you attempted to find another answer for yourself? What other answer would you expect me to give? How many different answers are there? Get all the answers and then select the best fit to the whole of the Bible and not just the parts that have been cherry picked.

Now I would agree that it would have been easier if the answer as it is recorded was less cryptic, but we should realize by now that Jesus often spoke in a way which only those who had the "spiritual eyes" to see and "spiritual ears" to hear would know what Jesus was talking about. It is not for naught that Jesus says what he does and we should open our ears to what he says; (Matt 11:25) At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. The wisdom of this world we are told is foolishness with God and the irony is that God is wiser than the wise in this world and God is able to give us His message in way that will filter out the proud and arrogant and those who are wise by worldly standards. We should have the humility to accept that we are not wise without God's wisdom; "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" so do not expect to get wisdom unless there is a humbling and a reverential awe for the Creator God. We put a veil over our eyes when we think we are wiser than God. It is the proud and arrogant who think they are wiser than God and so their arrogance prevents them from seeing the simple truth.

So then back to dealing with this cryptic message of Jesus. If the translators had written "I am he" or "I am that person" we would not have been led to think that Jesus was saying "I AM" to make us believe he was God. The translators have made it awkward for us. Only few verses following concerning the blind man the exact same phrase in Greek is used and translated "I am he". As has been pointed out, it is only this one time the translators have translated the same phrase to say "I am". Associating the words of Jesus with Exod 3:14 might seem like we have a connection, when in fact that connection would not have een made had the translators used the phrase as in all the other cases where it is translated " I am he" (that man) (that person) We have been lead to draw the wrong conclusion. There is no reason to link John 5:8 and Exod 3:14 unless to make a strained connection to bolster up weak evidence by way of few references to suggest that Jesus is God. I bet the person who first made that connection (probably one of the translators) patted themselves on the back. Little did they know that they unwittingly started one of the biggest lies to be adopted by Christianity. The translators must have thought that something special must apply to Jesus and so the phrase was written with Exod 3:14 in mind and that was the mistake forgetting that Jesus was not specifically quoting scripture and our attention is drawn to that fact when he does.

How do we know for sure what each author understood when Ex 3:14 and John 5:18 were written? It is good to link scripture where possible but in this case the link has been wrongly made. This is one of the few errors made by the translators of the KJV Bible. As you said Richard it is absurd of me to conclude the blind man was also God saying exactly the same as Jesus said. The same absurdity must apply to linking John 5:18 with Exod 3;14 once we know about this error made by the translators. Should we reject the whole of the Bible for spotting this man-made error? of course not. We must accept the mistake and move forward.
Another false and flimsy doctrine has had a piece of its evidence debunked.

The Jews were obviously confused when Jesus said; Abraham had seen my(Jesus) day. How could Jesus have met Abraham when Jesus is obviously less than 50 years old? That is what they could not understand and made them ask the question "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" Why would Jesus respond and say something like "before Abraham was (born) I am (God)"? This makes no sense and is not answering the question to interpret the reply of Jesus as most of Christendom has done. Jesus must have indicated something else. Did the answer Jesus gave them to this question make them less confused? probably not. We can also note that though the Jews wanted to throw stones at him for what he said, they did not accuse on this occasion of making himself equal with God. One small bit of evidence to show that Jesus was not making the bold claim that many these days think he was making.

We must ask ourselves the question; what day or what was it that Abraham saw? Maybe we do not know to what extent God revealed the future to Abraham, but we can make the connection between Gen 3:15 and the promises to Abraham. The connection is made in the mention of the "seed". Gen 3:15 is not understood until we know how this was accomplished in the death and resurrection of Jesus. This was the first messianic prophecy, but how could that be understood by Abraham? Either Abraham had something revealed to him that is not recorded or else Abraham simply believed that Jesus was the "seed" promised to be the descendant of Abraham? It becomes obvious to Bible scholars with their eyes open that Jesus linked the "promised seed" of Abraham to "the seed" of Gen 3:15 which is why Jesus could say; "before Abraham was (born) I am he (that person(seed))" It makes sense now putting this together, but will remain a mystery to those who cannot make the connection. This I believe is the truth of the matter and if we consider the seed as a descendant of man and not God then it is obviously clear that Jesus is not God and has never pre-existed and only came into existence when he was born. Get this!! and the errors that have crept in can be spotted and filtered out. Jesus is the seed of the woman who was promised by God to defeat the serpent (the devil (opposing thoughts of the mind to the will of God)). Jesus was bruised in that he died and was raised from the dead and did not suffer a fatal blow that kept him in the grave. The devil that was in Jesus and is in us all was defeated and symbolically was given a crushing blow to the head fulfilling Gen 3:15 This happened at the time of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Had the devil (the opposing thoughts of the mind to the will of God) won, that would have meant Jesus remained in the grave. As it was, Jesus was raised and the devil did not win. The devil is crushed because the devil was purged from the mind of Jesus. Jesus cannot be tempted anymore by opposing thoughts that no longer spring up in his mind. Jesus simply does not think anything evil now that he has overcome and has the incorruptible nature given to him by God. That is the state to which we will attain at the resurrection when we are given the same incorruptible body as Jesus has. "We shall be like him" as it is said. Does that mean we are God? or that Jesus is just a man who has been elevated in status to be in the presence of God and which flesh an blood in its sinful state could never be and that was achieved by Jesus proving it was possible for a man of flesh and blood to be obedient to God?

Did you answer the questions I asked above (and in the previous post) in that other thread? If so, please tell me the post number.
I was referring specifically to responses to my post in the thread 'Jesus is not God" in which replies to my posts I was being presented with verses that needed me to explained. They have nothing to do with anything you wrote and in fact it is one of the few threads we did not have a discussion (if my memory serves me) and I was curious as to why you did not. I am not about to engage you on that subject for my replies in that thread cover most (if not all) of the verses you are likely to present to me for explanation.

I gave reasons for the conclusion. You can answer them or not, that's you choice. The reasons I gave are very compelling. A rational person would have good reason to accept them. It doesn't mean they are necessarily correct, but they are better than the alternatives you have offered as far as I can tell. But in any case, it doesn't really matter because if the Bible is so confused on a fundamental point like whether or not Jesus is God, we only have proved that the Bible is confused and not trustworthy as a guide about anything.
I am a rational person and I do not accept your conclusions though I agree that rational people can accept your conclusions if they follow the same logic. Unfortunately, I know your logic is based on incorrect information and that is the problem. You are saying the Bible is not logical and yet it is the Bible that has been incorrectly translated or understood that prevents logic being correctly applied. Hopefully, you can now see why logic has been fooled by incorrect information.

This is what these arguments really prove - the Bible is too confused to be trustworthy. No thinking person could have confidence that their tangled interpretation is really the truth. This is your conclusion and not mine. I am not confused and I am understanding the Bible more clearly than you are, because I have got around the "road blocks" that have diverted people away from getting to the REAL truth. You do not see things as I do and therefore you do not know that I am understanding the REAL truth better than you. Until you understand more clearly, you are in the position of not knowing what you do not know. That is a difficult position to be in which is why you need guiding out of the position you are in.

Don't be ridiculous. I am totally open minded. The problem is that you think you can PROVE your idiosyncratic interpretations that contradict the vast body of Christian literature. What makes you so confident about you interpretations? You are just a man. That's why I look for the TRUTH that is supported by MANY WITNESSES. I'm not just making up my own ideas. You have yet to give any good reason to even start with the presumption that the Bible is consistent. And when we start with that assumption, we find our minds turned into PRETZELS which is immediate evidence that the assumption was wrong. But you don't care about the truth, do you? All you care about is supporting your preconceive dogmas. That is the trap that all fundamentalists fall into. I hope you find your way out.
Well we both think that the other is in a position where they need to find a way out. You have not found your way to seeing the truth of the Bible and you expect me to take my beliefs from a load of nonsensical body of Christian literature written by men. How stupid is that? when the wise thing to do is understand the Bible and get the answers from the Bible. I have given you an explanation in a nutshell of how Jesus was prophesied in Gen 3:15 and was fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Jesus and if you want to remain blind to that nugget of Truth then that is your choice. You keep saying that I hold preconceived dogmas, and what you do not appreciate is that when a person finds the true doctrine only a fool would let it go. You are not a fool yet, I do not think you ever found the true doctrine as taught by Jesus. You have let the false doctrine (that is taught by most of Christendom) go and not replaced it with the true doctrine. You are bruised and need to recuperate. Stop quoting and posting pagan rubbish or as everyone else can see, you appear to be supporting what you were taught even though you say you do not believe it. You will be a fool to ignore the true doctrine once you know what it is. At the moment you have put yourself into no mans land and think the Bible is illogical and incoherent. I hear what you say and I will make allowance in future when you post rubbish that I disagree with. There is no point you arguing with me when I refute your posts. Since you do not believe what you are posting, you should not argue when it is refuted. To argue is to support the view that you have posted and that is why a lot of people reading your posts can see that you are clinging to former beliefs though you don't believe it. I am challenging those beliefs you post and stating my case. That is all I intend to do from now on for there is no point debating any more. I have stated my case in many posts to you and to do so again is just going over the same ground.

The Truth is not going away whether you want to keep yourself blind to it now that you have rejected the Bible and the God who inspired it. Jesus said; Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. The Truth is waiting to be found

PS: Don't forget the value of the "wounds of a friend."

You need to state your definition of the word "friend" for me. Jesus has his own definition and we are friends of Jesus if we do as he commands. He has our interest at heart and he laid down his life for his friends. His enemies can convert and become friends and "love your enemies" does not mean to say that the enemies of God and Jesus will be saved. The enemies of God are "friends" with the World which is enmity with God and will be destroyed. Salvation is not universal.

All the best, I will keep a watch for you as we journey along our separate paths.

David

Alter2Ego

08-29-2012, 08:16 AM

Man was created on the sixth day.
On the same day he did fall.

In the account of creation the first day is called "yom echad", day one; absolute.
While the others are called by ordinal numbers, second day, third day. fourth day, etc.

My suggestion is that only because of Adam's sin day one changed into first day, "yom rishon" .

In principle there is just one day, i.e. all the seven days forming a unity.

Which means that Adam, although created on the sixth, was already present on the first day .

That's what New Testament is about.
ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:
But we're not discussing Adam. We are discussing the pre-human Jesus and the fact that he was created by Jehovah God. Weeder is a Trinitarian and believes Jesus and Jehovah are the same god in the fabricated Trinity Godhead. I informed Weeder at Post 131 that the Trinity teaching is false because Jesus could not also be Jehovah, being that the pre-human Jesus was himself created by Jehovah. Below is part of my conversation with Weeder from Post 131

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him. [/U]17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
ALTER2EGO -to- WEEDER:
You are debunking trinity by quoting the scripture above from Colossians 1:15. Look at the words that I bolded in red. It says there in plain English that Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation". That means he was himself created and that he was the first of God's creations. Thereafter, God created everything else through Jesus, with Jehovah being the source of the creative power.
ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:
At Post 133, you objected to what I told weeder above. In your objection, you informed me that Jesus was not created because Jesus is the image of God and, according to you, an image cannot be created. Below is what you told me at Post 133.

The image of the invisible God is not a creation.

cf. Romans 1:22-23,

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things
ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:
At Post 145, I then replied to you by by giving you the definition of "born" and "creation" and then asking you two direct questions. Below is my response from Post 145

The image of the invisible God is not a creation.

cf. Romans 1:22-23,

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things
ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:
Notice below what weeder posted at Post 122. Keep your eyes on the words that are bolded in red. Next notice the two dictionary definitions. Then answer the two questions that follows.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstBORN of all CREATION.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
DEFINITION OF "BORN": "Born means having been given life.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/born

DEFINITION OF "CREATION":[/COLOR] [COLOR="#800000"]"A creation is something that has been made or brought into existence."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/creation

QUESTION #1 -to- SYLVIUS: The scripture at Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus Christ as "the firstBORN of all creation." The English dictionary defines "born" as "having been given life." Since according to Colossians 1:15 Jesus is firstBORN and born means "having been given life," does this indicate Jesus at one time did not exist and that it was because Jehovah gave him life that he came into existence? If not, how do you explain away what the scripture says in light of the dictionary definition of the word "born"?

QUESTION #2 -to- SYLVIUS: The scripture at Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus Christ as "the firstborn of ALL CREATION." The English dictionary defines "creation" as "something that has been made or brought into existence." Since according to Colossians 1:15 Jesus is one among "all creation," what does that indicate for the pre-human Jesus? In other words, does it indicate he had a beginning as a result of being a creation?
ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:
Instead of answer my two direct questions dealing with the fact that Jesus was "born" and is the "firstborn of all creation," you're now telling me about Adam and the six creative days from Genesis. Your response about Adam and the creative days has no connection whatsoever with Jesus being the firstborn of all creation.

Jesus being the "firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15) equates to: "Jesus was the very first among everything God created--including the earth, the heavens, the millions of planets in the universe, before all of the other angels, etc. Jesus was created before everything else aka "the firstborn of all creation."

That's where we are at in this conversation. In other words, just because the Bible at Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus as "the image of the invisible God," that in no way prevents Jesus from being created, because the scripture specifically says he was the first to be created--whether he's in God's image or not.

"He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstBORN of all CREATION;" (Colossians 1:15)

sylvius

08-29-2012, 08:57 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:
But we're not discussing Adam. We are discussing the pre-human Jesus and the fact that he was created by Jehovah God. Weeder is a Trinitarian and believes Jesus and Jehovah are the same god in the fabricated Trinity Godhead. I informed Weeder at Post 131 that the Trinity teaching is false because Jesus could not also be Jehovah, being that the pre-human Jesus was himself created by Jehovah. Below is part of my conversation with Weeder from Post 131

ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:
At Post 133, you objected to what I told weeder above. In your objection, you informed me that Jesus was not created because Jesus is the image of God and, according to you, an image cannot be created. Below is what you told me at Post 133.

ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:
At Post 145, I then replied to you by by giving you the definition of "born" and "creation" and then asking you two direct questions. Below is my response from Post 145

ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:
Instead of answer my two direct questions dealing with the fact that Jesus was "born" and is the "firstborn of all creation," you're now telling me about Adam and the six creative days from Genesis. Your response about Adam and the creative days has no connection whatsoever with Jesus being the firstborn of all creation.

Jesus being the "firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15) equates to: "Jesus was the very first among everything God created--including the earth, the heavens, the millions of planets in the universe, before all of the other angels, etc. Jesus was created before everything else aka "the firstborn of all creation."

That's where we are at in this conversation. In other words, just because the Bible at Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus as "the image of the invisible God," that in no way prevents Jesus from being created, because the scripture specifically says he was the first to be created--whether he's in God's image or not.

"He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstBORN of all CREATION;" (Colossians 1:15)

It's hard to get, ain't it?

Although created on the sixth day he was already present on the first.

David M

08-29-2012, 09:19 AM

ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:
But we're not discussing Adam. We are discussing the pre-human Jesus and the fact that he was created by Jehovah God. Weeder is a Trinitarian and believes Jesus and Jehovah are the same god in the fabricated Trinity Godhead. I informed Weeder at Post 131 that the Trinity teaching is false because Jesus could not also be Jehovah, being that the pre-human Jesus was himself created by Jehovah. Below is part of my conversation with Weeder from Post 131

ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:
At Post 133, you objected to what I told weeder above. In your objection, you informed me that Jesus was not created because Jesus is the image of God and, according to you, an image cannot be created. Below is what you told me at Post 133.

ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:
At Post 145, I then replied to you by by giving you the definition of "born" and "creation" and then asking you two direct questions. Below is my response from Post 145

ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:
Instead of answer my two direct questions dealing with the fact that Jesus was "born" and is the "firstborn of all creation," you're now telling me about Adam and the six creative days from Genesis. Your response about Adam and the creative days has no connection whatsoever with Jesus being the firstborn of all creation.

Jesus being the "firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15) equates to: "Jesus was the very first among everything God created--including the earth, the heavens, the millions of planets in the universe, before all of the other angels, etc. Jesus was created before everything else aka "the firstborn of all creation."

That's where we are at in this conversation. In other words, just because the Bible at Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus as "the image of the invisible God," that in no way prevents Jesus from being created, because the scripture specifically says he was the first to be created--whether he's in God's image or not.

"He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstBORN of all CREATION;" (Colossians 1:15)

Hello Alter2Ego
If you want to make this point in the thread 'Jesus is not God' (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2803-Jesus-is-not-God/page21) I will give you my understanding of this in that thread. I have told Richard I am done on this thread and I do not want to go into this discussion here which is more relevant to the thread that I started.

All the Best
David

Richard Amiel McGough

08-29-2012, 03:48 PM

I did not miss this, I have pointed out that "The Word" is not Jesus and therefore to me you have wandered from the context of the verses we are considering. You don't see it this way because of the connection you think is there to John 1:1, so we have to disagree on his point.

Good afternoon David, :yo:

As far as I can tell, your interpretation of the Word in John 1:1 could be correct if we take the text in isolation from the rest of the Bible. But the text is also consistent with the Trinitarian position so it cannot be used to prove either point of view. It's meaning will depend upon how we understand the identity of Christ from the larger context of the whole Bible.

Until the actual Truth is discovered it will be a collection of everyone's thoughts and opinions, but that does not change the Truth which is what I really want to get to. Considering that we have been warned about the way men and women will pervert the Truth, iit should not be surprising that we have so many sects. This is why if you want to find the Truth, think of the very narrow way and the "FEW" who will find it. Don't expect to find it by following the masses who cannot see they are on the broad road to destruction. Unfortunately, the masses cannot see the message I have just given. Be responsible for making up your own mind and not following the teaching you have learned from other sources that have wrongly influenced you. I suggest you start again and piece it together whereby you answer the paradoxes and get to see the coherency that is there. All you are doing is seeing road blocks and not removing them and you are not moving forward in your quest to get to the Truth. You have fallen into the same trap as the masses fall into and are being lead by unknowing religious leaders. Liken it to a maze in which there is one clear path to get to the center though there be many paths that lead to DEAD ends.

It would be best if you stopped implying that I am "following the teaching [I] have learned from other sources that have wrongly influenced [me]." That is not the truth at all, and it disparages me as a man who thinks for himself and is able to give good reasons for his conclusions. You have repeated this over and over again despite the fact that I constantly prove that I have my own independent reasons for coming to my conclusions. I could say the same thing to you (with a much higher likelihood of accuracy since it seems that you are following some strange religious traditions like the SDA or whatnot). What good would that accomplish? You should be challenging my arguments if they are fallacious, not merely making false and irrelevant assertions about my motivations or history. And you most certainly should not be including me in the class of the "masses" that have been ignorantly led astray. How is it possible that you don't see how rude that really is?

Your idea that Christ was a "manifestation" of God's Word is just another speculation. You could be right, you could be wrong. How could anyone know?
To you speculation, to me it is not. I am reasoning these things out to make sense of everything recorded in God's word. If I am right I have nothing to lose, if I am wrong, I have a lot to lose.

It is most certainly a speculation because there is no verse in the Bible that directly supports your interpretation. It is a possible interpretation, but so is the Trinity. You need to follow your own advice and admit all possible interpretations.

And you have something to lose if you insist on a false opinion. You say you desire truth? Great! That's exactly what you will lose if you adhere to false opinions.

You say prove it, and the only proof is in the Word of God that requires faith, for which the definition given us in God's word is; The hope of things to come, the evidence of things unseen. You want visible proof and God is giving us invisible proof/evidence. That is the way it is for us today, because we were not there to see the events take place. Had we seen Jesus raised from the dead, we might be like the Apostles who had their lives transformed and knew that they could give there own lives in the service of their Lord knowing that they will be raised to life again.

And every person has their own belief about what the Bible means! So if your idea that "faith is proof" is correct, there is no way for you to really know the truth since everyone who comes to a different conclusion could say the same thing. That's why I insist on "proof." When discussing the meaning of the Bible, if you don't have proof, you don't have knowledge of what it really means. It's just your private interpretation.

There is much factual history that supports the Bible and proves the Bible accurate and this is one reason for accepting the whole of the Bible is true without having visual proof. The consistent and coherent message of the Bible makes it a remarkable book that could not have been written without inspiration from God. It is easy for me to see that for those who do not know the consistency of the Bible message will see it as illogical and not coherent. Many are being deceived by those who have their own agenda or by those who are in ignorance and lack doing due diligence.

Yes, the Bible is a remarkable book, and there is a broadly coherent message throughout. But that's not proof of anything.

And it is true that there "much factual history" that supports the Bible, but the same can be said of many books written by men that contain errors. Therefore, it gives absolutely no reason to believe that the "whole of the Bible is true." To suggest otherwise is a fundamental fallacy.

In truth, the Bible looks like a historical novel. It is set in real history, but there is absolutely no evidence that all the events and conversations in it are true. That is pure unsupported speculation. If you believe the "whole of the Bible is true" then you have deceived yourself and are lost in delusion because it is easy to prove that the Bible contains errors. It is absurd to assert that all the errors and inconsistencies can be explained away.

I pointed to the answer and wanted to see if you can work it out. This is your problem, you are fixed on the only answer you know and that is blinding you to accept anything different. You have now reached the point that nothing anyone says can make you change your mind. You are fixed as long as no one can say anything to make you shift. Have you attempted to find another answer for yourself? What other answer would you expect me to give? How many different answers are there? Get all the answers and then select the best fit to the whole of the Bible and not just the parts that have been cherry picked.

David, you really need to stop with your bullshit assertions that I am "closed minded." The truth is that I am totally open minded. And worse, if anyone has a closed mind, it looks like it is you. I have changed my mind on many things I believed in recent years. And why did I change my mind? Because of LOGIC AND FACTS. The only reason you think I'm closed-minded is because you are incapable of forming logically coherent arguments that support your assertions. So on and on you go, falsely accusing me of being "closed minded" and just following the "masses" and "false teachings that I've been taught." Why do you waste our time with such ludicrous assertions?

And it is ridiculous to say that you wanted me to "figure out" what you meant. If that's what you wanted, you should have told me. I was under the impression that you were trying to give an answer. Your "method" leads to nothing but bloated posts as I try to guess what you might mean. A big waste of time.

The simple truth is that I can see your side as well as the Trinitarian, and can give the best arguments for either side. Can you say the same? I doubt it. It's just like evolution. When I asked anti-evolutionists to give the best evidence for evolution, you said you could not do that because you don't believe in evolution. This proves that your mind is closed. That's why I set up that TEST to prove who was a true truth seeker and who was a closed-minded dogmatist who rejects things they don't even understand. You couldn't see the irony of being against something that you didn't even understand. The same goes for the Trinity. Are you able to present the BEST ARGUMENTS for the Trinity? If not, you are blind, closed-minded dogmatist.

Now I would agree that it would have been easier if the answer as it is recorded was less cryptic, but we should realize by now that Jesus often spoke in a way which only those who had the "spiritual eyes" to see and "spiritual ears" to hear would know what Jesus was talking about. It is not for naught that Jesus says what he does and we should open our ears to what he says; (Matt 11:25) At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. The wisdom of this world we are told is foolishness with God and the irony is that God is wiser than the wise in this world and God is able to give us His message in way that will filter out the proud and arrogant and those who are wise by worldly standards. We should have the humility to accept that we are not wise without God's wisdom; "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" so do not expect to get wisdom unless there is a humbling and a reverential awe for the Creator God. We put a veil over our eyes when we think we are wiser than God. It is the proud and arrogant who think they are wiser than God and so their arrogance prevents them from seeing the simple truth.

Why do you write such things? They have absolutely nothing to do with determining the truth of what the Bible says. A Trinitarian would say that you are the one who is "proud and arrogant." We could fill a stadium with people who think they have "spiritual eyes" and they will all disagree with each other.

So then back to dealing with this cryptic message of Jesus.

There's nothing "cryptic" about it at all. Its meaning is plain as day to those who have "spiritual eyes." The fundamental characteristic of cults is to make the plain things obscure and "cryptic" so they can make up their own unbiblical doctrines.

If the translators had written "I am he" or "I am that person" we would not have been led to think that Jesus was saying "I AM" to make us believe he was God.

That is entirely irrelevant. It is only the original Greek that matters. Anyone seriously studying the Bible would just learn the Greek like I did and read it for themselves. The Greek says "I AM." Period. And neither the sentence structure nor the context suggests anything other than that Jesus was deliberately invoking the Divine Name.

The translators have made it awkward for us. Only few verses following concerning the blind man the exact same phrase in Greek is used and translated "I am he". As has been pointed out, it is only this one time the translators have translated the same phrase to say "I am". Associating the words of Jesus with Exod 3:14 might seem like we have a connection, when in fact that connection would not have een made had the translators used the phrase as in all the other cases where it is translated " I am he" (that man) (that person) We have been lead to draw the wrong conclusion. There is no reason to link John 5:8 and Exod 3:14 unless to make a strained connection to bolster up weak evidence by way of few references to suggest that Jesus is God. I bet the person who first made that connection (probably one of the translators) patted themselves on the back. Little did they know that they unwittingly started one of the biggest lies to be adopted by Christianity. The translators must have thought that something special must apply to Jesus and so the phrase was written with Exod 3:14 in mind and that was the mistake forgetting that Jesus was not specifically quoting scripture and our attention is drawn to that fact when he does.

You are just continuing the same error. The meaning of John 8:58 is not dependent upon any translation in any way at all. The connection with Exodus 3:14 is immediately evident to anyone with the slightest familiarity with Scripture (unless their mind has been closed by some dogma). It was certainly obvious to the Jews who accused Christ of making himself "equal with God."

How do we know for sure what each author understood when Ex 3:14 and John 5:18 were written? It is good to link scripture where possible but in this case the link has been wrongly made. This is one of the few errors made by the translators of the KJV Bible. As you said Richard it is absurd of me to conclude the blind man was also God saying exactly the same as Jesus said. The same absurdity must apply to linking John 5:18 with Exod 3;14 once we know about this error made by the translators. Should we reject the whole of the Bible for spotting this man-made error? of course not. We must accept the mistake and move forward.
Another false and flimsy doctrine has had a piece of its evidence debunked.

You are continuing in the same error. The meaning of the text has nothing to do with any translation.

The meaning of John 8:58 has been understood by Christians from the beginning. You can read what the early Christians wrote about it. They understood it precisely as the Trinitarians. You have absolutely no basis for rejecting the plain meaning. You simply reject the truth without any reason except that it contradicts your dogmas.

The Jews were obviously confused when Jesus said; Abraham had seen my(Jesus) day. How could Jesus have met Abraham when Jesus is obviously less than 50 years old? That is what they could not understand and made them ask the question "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" Why would Jesus respond and say something like "before Abraham was (born) I am (God)"? This makes no sense and is not answering the question to interpret the reply of Jesus as most of Christendom has done. Jesus must have indicated something else. Did the answer Jesus gave them to this question make them less confused? probably not. We can also note that though the Jews wanted to throw stones at him for what he said, they did not accuse on this occasion of making himself equal with God. One small bit of evidence to show that Jesus was not making the bold claim that many these days think he was making.

It makes perfect sense from a Trinitarian point of view. The fact that you can't see this as even a possibility proves that, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS, you are "closed minded."

The fact that it is consistent with the Trinitarian view does not prove the Trinity any more than the fact that you interpretation of John 1:1 is consistent with your view proves your view. But you are so fearful of the truth that you can't even admit that the Trinitarian interpretation is possible. This prove, by your own standards, that you are closed minded and not able to even see the full set of possible interpretations.

We must ask ourselves the question; what day or what was it that Abraham saw? Maybe we do not know to what extent God revealed the future to Abraham, but we can make the connection between Gen 3:15 and the promises to Abraham. The connection is made in the mention of the "seed". Gen 3:15 is not understood until we know how this was accomplished in the death and resurrection of Jesus. This was the first messianic prophecy, but how could that be understood by Abraham? Either Abraham had something revealed to him that is not recorded or else Abraham simply believed that Jesus was the "seed" promised to be the descendant of Abraham? It becomes obvious to Bible scholars with their eyes open that Jesus linked the "promised seed" of Abraham to "the seed" of Gen 3:15 which is why Jesus could say; "before Abraham was (born) I am he (that person(seed))" It makes sense now putting this together, but will remain a mystery to those who cannot make the connection. This I believe is the truth of the matter and if we consider the seed as a descendant of man and not God then it is obviously clear that Jesus is not God and has never pre-existed and only came into existence when he was born. Get this!! and the errors that have crept in can be spotted and filtered out. Jesus is the seed of the woman who was promised by God to defeat the serpent (the devil (opposing thoughts of the mind to the will of God)). Jesus was bruised in that he died and was raised from the dead and did not suffer a fatal blow that kept him in the grave. The devil that was in Jesus and is in us all was defeated and symbolically was given a crushing blow to the head fulfilling Gen 3:15 This happened at the time of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Had the devil (the opposing thoughts of the mind to the will of God) won, that would have meant Jesus remained in the grave. As it was, Jesus was raised and the devil did not win. The devil is crushed because the devil was purged from the mind of Jesus. Jesus cannot be tempted anymore by opposing thoughts that no longer spring up in his mind. Jesus simply does not think anything evil now that he has overcome and has the incorruptible nature given to him by God. That is the state to which we will attain at the resurrection when we are given the same incorruptible body as Jesus has. "We shall be like him" as it is said. Does that mean we are God? or that Jesus is just a man who has been elevated in status to be in the presence of God and which flesh an blood in its sinful state could never be and that was achieved by Jesus proving it was possible for a man of flesh and blood to be obedient to God?

That's very creative! But it also reveals how desperately you will seek any invention required to overthrow the plain meaning of Scripture to protect your dogma.

It would have made no sense whatsoever for Jesus to be saying "I am the seed" in that context. And even less sense to leave off the predicate "seed" as if it were implied. It was not implied in any way at all. YOU JUST MADE IT UP! And why? To protect your dogma.

This is what BLOWS MY MIND. How could anyone have any confidence that their interpretation of the Bible is true if they have to directly ignore the plain meaning of the text and then INVENT outrageously ridiculous unbiblical speculations to support their dogmas? And then you think you have found "God's own truth?" I've never seen anything so pathetic and tragic. :doh:

From what you've written, it seem pretty clear that no fact of any kind, no matter how plain and obvious, could ever change your mind about anything.

A "friend" is one who speaks the truth.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

08-29-2012, 04:29 PM

ALTER2EGO -to- SYLVIUS:
Notice below what weeder posted at Post 122. Keep your eyes on the words that are bolded in red. Next notice the two dictionary definitions. Then answer the two questions that follows.

DEFINITION OF "BORN": "Born means having been given life.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/born

DEFINITION OF "CREATION": "A creation is something that has been made or brought into existence."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/creation

QUESTION #1 -to- SYLVIUS: The scripture at Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus Christ as "the firstBORN of all creation." The English dictionary defines "born" as "having been given life." Since according to Colossians 1:15 Jesus is firstBORN and born means "having been given life," does this indicate Jesus at one time did not exist and that it was because Jehovah gave him life that he came into existence? If not, how do you explain away what the scripture says in light of the dictionary definition of the word "born"?

QUESTION #2 -to- SYLVIUS: The scripture at Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus Christ as "the firstborn of ALL CREATION." The English dictionary defines "creation" as "something that has been made or brought into existence." Since according to Colossians 1:15 Jesus is one among "all creation," what does that indicate for the pre-human Jesus? In other words, does it indicate he had a beginning as a result of being a creation?
The error is obvious. You can't establish the meaning of the Greek Bible using ENGLISH DICTIONARIES! :doh:

The Greek phrase translated as "firstborn over all creation" could mean that Christ was created before the rest of creation, or it could mean that he has preeminence like the "firstborn" son. This phrase is consistent with either interpretation, so it cannot be used to prove either view. Most of the arguments in this thread are like this. And since anyone can simply reject whatever they want and make up what ever reasons they want, it is a fool's task to argue with brainwashed dogmatists who don't care about the truth anyway.

sylvius

08-29-2012, 10:57 PM

The error is obvious. You can't establish the meaning of the Greek Bible using ENGLISH DICTIONARIES! :doh:

The Greek phrase translated as "firstborn over all creation" could mean that Christ was created before the rest of creation, or it could mean that he has preeminence like the "firstborn" son. This phrase is consistent with either interpretation, so it cannot be used to prove either view. Most of the arguments in this thread are like this. And since anyone can simply reject whatever they want and make up what ever reasons they want, it is a fool's task to argue with brainwashed dogmatists who don't care about the truth anyway.

Greek Colossians 1:15,
ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,

πρωτότοκος,a \{pro-tot-ok'-os}
1) the firstborn 1a) of man or beast

Translates Hebrew "b'chor" -

"b'chorah" = birthright

Well known from Genesis 25, Esau selling his birthright to Jacob, even on the day that Abraham died.

Rashi on Genesis 25:30,

some of this red, red [pottage]: red lentils. And on that day, Abraham died, lest he see Esau, his grandson, falling into bad ways, for that would not be the “good old age” that the Holy One, blessed be He, had promised him. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, shortened his life by five years, for Isaac lived one hundred and eighty years, and this one (Abraham) [lived] one hundred and seventy-five years, and Jacob cooked lentils to feed the mourner (Isaac). But why lentils? Because they are [round as] a wheel, for mourning is like a wheel revolving in the world. (Also, just as lentils have no mouth [no crack], as other beans have, so does the mourner have no mouth, for he is prohibited from speaking. It is therefore the custom to feed the mourner eggs at the beginning of his meal, since they are round, and have no mouth. So too does a mourner have no mouth, as is discussed in Mo’ed Katan (21b): “A mourner, for the entire first three days, may not respond to anyone’s greeting, and may surely not initiate a greeting. From the third day to the seventh, he may respond, but may not greet, etc.” [This is found] in an old [edition of] Rashi.)- [From Gen. Rabbah 63:12, B.B. 16b]

"b'chor" also known from the slaying of the firstborn, the tenth and last plague, "makkat b'chorot".

And from "pidyon haben", redemption of the firstborn.

Numbers 18:15-17

Every first issue of the womb of any creature, which they present to the Lord, whether of man or beast, shall be yours. However, you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of unclean animals you shall redeem. Its redemption [shall be performed] from the age of a month, according to the valuation, five shekels of silver, according to the holy shekel, which is twenty gerahs. However, a firstborn ox or a firstborn sheep or a firstborn goat shall not be redeemed, for they are holy; their blood shall be sprinkled on the altar, and their fats shall be burned as a fire-offering, as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord.

Strange what?
Jesus as firstborn presupposes a heavenly Mary (or Mary taken up to heaven)

"pidyon" , redemption-money = Greek "lutron", to be found in Mark 10: 45,
καὶ γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆσαι καὶ δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν

We knew also from Numbers 3:

13 For all the firstborns are Mine; since the day I smote all the firstborns in the land of Egypt, I sanctified for Myself all the firstborns of Israel, both man and beast they shall become Mine, I am the Lord.
(,,.)
45 Take the Levites instead of all the firstborns among the children of Israel and the Levites' animals instead of their animals, and the Levites shall be Mine I am the Lord.
46 As for the two hundred and seventy three of the children of Israel who required redemption, who are in excess of the Levites,
47 you shall take five shekels per head, according to the holy shekel, by which the shekel is twenty gerahs

273 being gematria of both "arba" , four, and "rega" , smallest unit of time (fraction of a second), Paul's indivisble moment, and also of "or ganuz", hidden light.
Remarkable since 273 = 21 x13, thus to be seen as kind of formula of the 1-4 principle (the earth having four corners, etc.)

Five shekels, Rashi:

Such was the sale [price] of Joseph, the firstborn of Rachel, [for the price was] twenty silver pieces [i.e., twenty dinarim, four of which equal a sela]. [Gen. Rabbah 84:18]

Richard Amiel McGough

08-30-2012, 12:31 PM

In the 2nd century B.C.E. (two centuries before Christ came to the earth), Egypt had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Horus, (2) Osiris, and (3) Isis.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=5006107163428312&id=41e234d54bc027892eeb2d650f101145

Likewise, in the 2nd century B.C.E. (two centuries before Christ came to the earth), Babylon had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Ishtar, (2) Sin, and (3) Shamash.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4714367249810802&id=9647e976234b83c823f2b30d394ef638

In the 1st century C.E., Palmyra, which was an ancient city in Syria, had a triune god which consisted of (1) moon god, (2) Lord of Heavens, and (3) sun god.

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/sinbaalshaminshamash.jpg

3. If the Trinity and hellfire are Bible teachings, why is it that Jesus and his apostles who followed him around never taught anyone about the Trinity and literal hellfire?

4. How is it that both the Trinity and hellfire teachings did not become "Christian" teachings until the Roman Catholics copied both of them from pagan/false religions--AFTER the resurrected Jesus Christ returned to heaven?

Alter2Ego asserts the Christian Trinity is pagan because there are some pagan trinities. Her logic implies that the rest of the Bible must be rejected on the same grounds because it is filled with pagan mythology. We discussed this in a thread called Greek Mythology in the Bible? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2081-Greek-Mythology-in-the-Bible). Here's a striking example:

Leviathan is another example of mythology in the Bible.

And the "seven-headed dragon" rising out of the sea? Ancient Mesopotamian mythology from the 3rd millennium BCE! Check this wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan), and these excepts (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yCkRz5pfxz0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dictionary+of+Deities+and+Demons+in+the+Bible&source=bl&ots=aFsweXp22u&sig=dztd0T9lrsBte41nWVfAQhwNjkk&hl=en&ei=Hf4GTIrpK9CHcdfghLYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Leviathan&f=false) from the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. For example:
A seven-headed serpent (mus-sag-imin) partly overcome by an anthropomorphic hero or god is attested as early as the third mill. BCE in Mesopotamian iconography (H. FRANKFORT, Stratified Cylindedr Seals from hte Diyala Region [OIP 72, Chicago 1955] 37. pl. 47:497) and texts, but later survives in the textual records only, until he reappears in the Greek Hydra tradition from the 6th century on.

A seven-headed serpent? DOES THAT RING ANY BELLS? It's just the Greek myth of the Hydra! (http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/hydra.htm) Which usually had seven or nine heads.

http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/images/Hydra.gif

Now let's reflect on this.

Christians reject "mythology" OUT OF HAND as obviously false! Yet they accept the Bible, which is filled with the very mythology they reject in every other context.

snowydeejay

10-29-2012, 02:50 PM

That's not true.

The words written are:

John 8:58 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

The words highlighted red are "ego eimi" and they mean "I AM". There was no mistranslation of any kind. Where did you get that idea?

According to the King James Version rendering of Exodus 3:13, 14, Moses asked: “When I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” About this text, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (Hebrew text with English translation and exposition, edited by Dr.*J.*H.*Hertz) says that in the phrase “I am that I am .*.*. the emphasis is on the active manifestation of the Divine existence.” Its use as a title or name for God was therefore appropriate because by delivering them from Egyptian bondage, God was about to manifest his existence in behalf of his people in an outstanding way. Hertz says that “most moderns follow Rashi [a renowned medieval French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering ‘I will be what I will be.’” This agrees with the rendering of the New World Translation, which reads: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.”
At John 8:58, once again the King James Version has Jesus using the expression “I am” in connection with himself, saying, “Before Abraham was, I am.” But here the expression is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or title but simply as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Thus, according to the New World Translation, the more correct rendering of John 8:58 is: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”
Clearly, no Scriptural basis exists for the claim that Jesus is the same as Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures. Even the teacher’s manual previously quoted admits: “That Christ existed before His birth in Bethlehem does not in itself prove He was God (He could have existed as an angel).” In fact, this is what the Bible teaches. In his prehuman existence, Jesus was “a god,” or divine one, but not the God, the almighty God Jehovah.—John 1:1-3; 1*Thessalonians 4:16.

Richard Amiel McGough

10-29-2012, 05:00 PM

According to the King James Version rendering of Exodus 3:13, 14, Moses asked: “When I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” About this text, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (Hebrew text with English translation and exposition, edited by Dr.*J.*H.*Hertz) says that in the phrase “I am that I am .*.*. the emphasis is on the active manifestation of the Divine existence.” Its use as a title or name for God was therefore appropriate because by delivering them from Egyptian bondage, God was about to manifest his existence in behalf of his people in an outstanding way. Hertz says that “most moderns follow Rashi [a renowned medieval French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering ‘I will be what I will be.’” This agrees with the rendering of the New World Translation, which reads: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.”
At John 8:58, once again the King James Version has Jesus using the expression “I am” in connection with himself, saying, “Before Abraham was, I am.” But here the expression is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or title but simply as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Thus, according to the New World Translation, the more correct rendering of John 8:58 is: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”
Clearly, no Scriptural basis exists for the claim that Jesus is the same as Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures. Even the teacher’s manual previously quoted admits: “That Christ existed before His birth in Bethlehem does not in itself prove He was God (He could have existed as an angel).” In fact, this is what the Bible teaches. In his prehuman existence, Jesus was “a god,” or divine one, but not the God, the almighty God Jehovah.—John 1:1-3; 1*Thessalonians 4:16.

Hey there snowydeejay, :yo:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

Your assertion that "no Scriptural basis exists for the claim that Jesus is the same as Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures" is not true. There are many verses that suggest exactly that. For example:
Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 ¶ Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Now in order to force their doctrine upon the Bible, the anonymous committee that made up the exceedingly fallacious "New World Translation" had to add words to the text that have no basis whatsoever in the original Greek:
New World Translation: Colossians 1:14 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;16 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/colossians/1#v-16)because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.17 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/colossians/1#v-17)Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,18 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/colossians/1#v-18)and he is the head of the body, the congregation.

If that's what it takes to make your doctrines work, why bother pretending to believe the Bible at all?

And more importantly, why should anyone believe what the Watchtower says? They just lifted themselves up in great pride and declared themselves to be the "mouthpiece of Jehovah." Anyone can make claims like that. Indeed, hundreds if not thousands of people have done that very thing. And worse, the Watchtower is infamous for making one false prediction of the "End" after another. The evidence is overwhelming. Here is a good page (http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/1800s.php) that documents it. And here is another with dozens quotes (http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Cults/Jehovahwitnessesfalseprophecies.html) (in context) from the Watchtower that proves they made many false predictions.

So why do you believe any of it? What convinces you it is true?

All the best,

Richard

sylvius

10-30-2012, 01:10 AM

snowydeejay

10-30-2012, 01:46 AM

CWH

10-30-2012, 07:38 AM

snowydeejay

10-30-2012, 09:18 AM

‘Why, then,’ one may ask, ‘did Thomas exclaim when seeing the resurrected Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”?’ As already noted, Jesus is a god in the sense of being divine, but he is not the Father. Jesus had just told Mary Magdalene: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” Remember, too, why John wrote his Gospel. Three verses after the account about Thomas, John explained that he wrote so that people “may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God”—not that he is God.—John 20:17, 28,*31.

You have to take the whole bible in full context and not worry about the odd scripture that seems to contradict the rest. If you study the bible carefully and allow God into your life you will see the pure logic therein. Jesus was not God and could never be God. The bible is very clear about that from beginning to end. There is no excuse for not knowing this fact. Many were killed for not accepting the trinity by those that tried to force it on others. It was about 300 years after the death of Jesus that a non-christian forced this belief on unwilling leaders of the Catholic church. Those that did not comply were executed.

By the way Jesus although resurrected with a spiritual body did not return to heaven until 40 days later. We all know he did not take back his fleshly body because that was the ransom. You say Jesus became God at that time even though God was in heaven throughout. So you are in effect suggesting that after Jesus went to heaven again there came to be two Almighty God's there. Where is the logic in that? We know that as well as Jesus being given immortality another 144,000 have been promised it. Following your train of thought does that mean there will be 144,002 Almighty God's in heaven eventually?

Richard Amiel McGough

10-30-2012, 03:49 PM

It must be difficult for people to realize that Jesus is not God when from birth they have been conditioned to accept just that. The fact that at his resurrection Jesus was granted immortality is enough proof that before that time he was always mortal. It is impossible to be immortal, then mortal and again immortal. God is logic and the bible is logical. To believe Jesus is God defies all logic.

Also Jesus had to be the equal of Adam before Adam disobeyed God. God could never be the equal of perfect Adam and the ransom could not be paid by God, but only by an angel willing to become a perfect man. Jesus as the first creation by God and a mortal being volunteered that role. We know that all the angels are mortal as indeed is Satan.

I wish there were a way I could help you see the profound irony of your statement about people who "from birth have been conditioned to accept" religious dogmas, since that statement so obviously applies to you rather than me. You are a member of a small fringe group that traditional Christians call a "cult" whereas I have never been indoctrinated in any Christian group but rather studied on my own and came to my own conclusions based on logic and facts. You have no logic or facts that support your beliefs. You have been brainwashed now for 40 years. So of course, there will be no way for anyone to reach you no matter how logically the truth is presented. But you seem interested in discussing these topics, and very confident that you are right, so I will pursue a rational discourse with you as long as you are willing.

The first thing we need to discuss is the fact that you have ignored the facts I presented in my last post to you. Here they are again:

1) The New World Translation ADDED WORDS TO THE BIBLE. How then can you believe their translation is valid? If those words were supposed to be in the text, why didn't God himself put them in the originals? Also, the NWT was made by an anonymous committee. What were their qualifications? Why did they make up a translation that is rejected by all biblical scholars?

2) The Watchtower society has made many false predictions and false prophecies. Why should anyone believe them?

3) The Watchtower society just stood up and declared themselves spokesmen for Jehovah. Why should anyone believe them?

4) Given all these problems, and many others, why do you believe any of it? If you have no reason, then how are you any different than the Roman Catholics or the hundreds of contradictory versions of Protestantism?

These are the real issues. Arguing over the Trinity is silly because the Bible is logically incoherent on that point. That's why equally devout and intelligent believers come to opposite conclusions.

All the best,

Richard

weeder

10-30-2012, 04:18 PM

It is impossible to be immortal, then mortal and again immortal .

Nothing is impossible...for God.
Adam was immortal (deathless) and then he died. God promised redemption from the curse and everlasting life once again.

We know that all the angels are mortal as indeed is Satan

I dont. Any ref to an Angel dying in your bible?

David M

10-31-2012, 02:56 AM

David M

10-31-2012, 03:03 AM

Nothing is impossible...for God.

But everything is not expedient.

David

sylvius

11-01-2012, 06:04 AM

Hey there snowydeejay, :yo:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

Your assertion that "no Scriptural basis exists for the claim that Jesus is the same as Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures" is not true. There are many verses that suggest exactly that. For example:
Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 ¶ Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Take a look at the original Greek:

14ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν: 15ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, 16ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι: τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, 17καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν.

διά + genitivus = through, by means of, with.

So your translation is rightly called King James Perversion.

It did put you on the wrong leg.

sylvius

11-01-2012, 08:29 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

11-01-2012, 10:11 AM

I wish there were a way I could help you see the profound irony of your statement about people who "from birth have been conditioned to accept" religious dogmas, since that statement so obviously applies to you rather than me. (...) I have never been indoctrinated in any Christian group but rather studied on my own and came to my own conclusions based on logic and facts. (...)I will pursue a rational discourse with you as long as you are willing.

The first thing we need to discuss is the fact that you have ignored the facts I presented in my last post to you. Here they are again:

1) The New World Translation ADDED WORDS TO THE BIBLE. How then can you believe their translation is valid? If those words were supposed to be in the text, why didn't God himself put them in the originals?
The letter to the Colossians was written by Paul, not by God.

And the moon is a rock, not cheese. Duh.

I was responding to snowydeejay's post which assumed the Bible was inspired by God. I do not hold that assumption myself. I was showing that that assumption was inconsistent with what snowydeejay had written.

And moreover in Greek, not in English. A translation sometimes needs more words than the original text.

That is often true, but not in this case.

The bible being "written by God" is a "religious dogma", not "based on logic and facts".

True. That's why I don't make that assumption.

Even a dogma that underlies your biblewheel.
False. The Bible is a book that exists in the world. The Bible Wheel is a two-dimensional representation of that book. It is not based on any dogma in any way at all.

This is an elementary fact. There is no excuse for your confusion.

Richard Amiel McGough

11-01-2012, 10:20 AM

Your assertion that "no Scriptural basis exists for the claim that Jesus is the same as Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures" is not true. There are many verses that suggest exactly that. For example:
Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 ¶ Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Take a look at the original Greek:

14ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν: 15ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, 16ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι: τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, 17καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν.

διά + genitivus = through, by means of, with.

So your translation is rightly called King James Perversion.

It did put you on the wrong leg.

Your comment is confused. Look at what you wrote:

sylvius said di auto means "through, by means of, with."
sylvius highlight the proper translation in the KJV "by him" three times, showing he agrees with the KJV on this point.
sylvius said the KJV translation is "perverse."

Implication: sylvius says sylvius is perverse? :dizzy:

sylvius

11-01-2012, 10:38 AM

False. The Bible is a book that exists in the world. The Bible Wheel is a two-dimensional representation of that book. It is not based on any dogma in any way at all.

This is an elementary fact. There is no excuse for your confusion.

Yet you picked out of all the books that do exist the protestant bible to make a wheel of it.

sylvius

11-01-2012, 10:39 AM

Your comment is confused. Look at what you wrote:

sylvius said di auto means "through, by means of, with."
sylvius highlight the proper translation in the KJV "by him" three times, showing he agrees with the KJV on this point.
sylvius said the KJV translation is "perverse."

Implication: sylvius says sylvius is perverse? :dizzy:

"by him" means something else than "by means of him".

Richard Amiel McGough

11-01-2012, 10:42 AM

"by him" means something else than "by means of him".
Not necessarily. They could mean exactly the same thing. In any case, your assertion that the KJV was "perverse" on this point is absurd.

Richard Amiel McGough

11-01-2012, 10:45 AM

Yet you picked out of all the books that do exist the protestant bible to make a wheel of it.

I did no such thing. I simply rolled up the standard 66 book canon. Simple as that.

You should admit your error. You falsely asserted that the Bible Wheel was based on "dogma." That is false. And now you falsely asserted that I "picked out all the books that don't exist in the protestant bible to make a wheel of it." I did no such thing. I simply started with the Protestant Bible because that was the book that I was familiar with.

sylvius

11-01-2012, 02:52 PM

Not necessarily. They could mean exactly the same thing. In any case, your assertion that the KJV was "perverse" on this point is absurd.

KJV suggests that Paul meant that Jesus is God creator

"For by him were all things created"
original Greek has: ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα - For in it (the image of God) all is created.

"all things were created by him, and for him"
Greek:
τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται - all the things were created by means of it and towards it

"And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
Greek:
καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν = And it is before all things and in it all things consist.

And you were convinced:

Hey there snowydeejay, :yo:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

Your assertion that "no Scriptural basis exists for the claim that Jesus is the same as Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures" is not true. There are many verses that suggest exactly that. For example:

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 ¶ Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

sylvius

11-01-2012, 03:00 PM

I did no such thing. I simply rolled up the standard 66 book canon. Simple as that.

You should admit your error. You falsely asserted that the Bible Wheel was based on "dogma." That is false. And now you falsely asserted that I "picked out all the books that don't exist in the protestant bible to make a wheel of it." I did no such thing. I simply started with the Protestant Bible because that was the book that I was familiar with.

Out of all the books that do exist you picked the protestant bible, that's what I said.

Ok.it was the book that you were familiar with.

But you didn't believe it was the (inerrant) word of God?

sylvius

11-02-2012, 12:47 AM

I think Paul intended to say the same as what Rashi said on Genesis 1:27,

And God created man in his image: In the form that was made for him, for everything [else] was created with a command, whereas he [man] was created with the hands (of God), as it is written (Ps. 139:5): “and You placed Your hand upon me.” Man was made with a seal, like a coin, which is made by means of a die, which is called coin in Old French. And so Scripture states (Job 38:14): “It is changed as clay under the seal.” - [from Letters of Rabbi Akiva , second version; Mid. Ps. 139:5; Sanh. 38a]

in the image of God He created him: It explains to you that the image that was prepared for him was the image of the portrait of his Creator. — [from B.B. 58a]

The image of the portrait of his Creator = "tselem d'yukan yotsro hu"

"d'yukan" = image, profile, likeness, portrait, imago (psych)

"diyuk"" = accuracy, precision, exactness, exactitude.

"b'diyuq"= exactly, precisely, sharply.

"Man was made with a seal" -

The seal of God to be found in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamyim" (Genesis 1:31 - 2:1).

Ba'al Haturim:

The initial letters of these words spell out the Tetragrammaton (God's ineffable Name),, which serves as a seal for the work of Creation. Similarly, the initial letters of the phrase "yishm'chu hashamayim v'tageil haarets", the heavens will be glad and the earth will rejoice (Psalms 96:11; 1Chronicles 16:31), spell out his Name, for He sealed the world with the Divine Name, the Tetragrammaton.

sylvius

11-02-2012, 01:11 AM

Out of all the books that do exist you picked the protestant bible, that's what I said.

Ok.it was the book that you were familiar with.

But you didn't believe it was the (inerrant) word of God?

On the cover:

The
Bible Wheel.

A Revelation of the Divine
Unity of the Holy Bible

Richard Amiel McGough

Richard Amiel McGough

11-02-2012, 11:07 AM

Out of all the books that do exist you picked the protestant bible, that's what I said.

Ok.it was the book that you were familiar with.

Great. I'm glad you are beginning to understand. I did not try to force fit anything at all. I was studying the Sepher Yetzirah which said that God had put the alphabet in a circle (galgal = 66) known as the 231 Gates. I then used that circle to organize the symbolic meaning of the 22 letters by writing down relevant facts associated with each letter on spokes of the wheel. I began to notice natural correlations between the books and the letters, (Genesis = Aleph, Exodus = Bet, etc.). Then one day it simply occurred to me that the 66 books of the Bible would naturally fit on the wheel (= 66) and so the Bible Wheel was born. That's all there was to it.

But you didn't believe it was the (inerrant) word of God?
Even in my most fundamentalist days when I was fully convinced that the Bible was the Word of God, I NEVER said that it was "inerrant." And why not? Because I had too much respect for it to make up such an obvious falsehood. The fact that the Bible contains errors is as obvious as anything could be. We don't even know what words are supposed to be in some verses because of textual variations, so obviously it is absurd to call it "inerrant." That's just a false human doctrine made up by small-minded fundamentalists. It is a grave error.

So how did I resolve the "contradiction" between the Bible being "God's Word" and yet not perfect? That was easy. Who are we to tell God what kind of book to create for his own purposes? I thought of the Bible as the Written Word analogous to Christ as the Living Word. And just as Christ was both human and divine, so the Bible was written by humans and contained all the marks of a human origin, yet also contained evidence it was designed by God. I thought this was a perfect analogy since both Christ and the Bible are stumbling stones:
1 Peter 2:1 Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking, 2 as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious. 4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame." 7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone," 8 and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

So I never had any real problem with admitting the Bible had "errors" since there is good reason to think that God wanted it that way. I understood the Bible as having everything a believer needed to believe, and everything an unbeliever needed to unbelieve.

Of course, I don't hold this view any more since I cannot believe that the God it describes is the true God.

Richard Amiel McGough

11-02-2012, 11:09 AM

sylvius

11-02-2012, 11:30 AM

Great. I'm glad you are beginning to understand. I did not try to force fit anything at all. I was studying the Sepher Yetzirah which said that God had put the alphabet in a circle (galgal = 66) known as the 231 Gates. I then used that circle to organize the symbolic meaning of the 22 letters by writing down relevant facts associated with each letter on spokes of the wheel.

"galgal" doesn't mean circle, but wheel.

Yet I don't know what word is used in the Sefer Yetsirah, since I don't have the original text at hand.

But i bet not "galgal".

sylvius

11-02-2012, 11:41 AM

Yeah ... so? What's your point?

We never say "Holy Bible", but just "bible"

It sounds like making out of the bible an idol.

Yet it is called holy scripture.

What''s the difference?

sylvius

11-02-2012, 11:55 AM

"galgal" doesn't mean circle, but wheel.

Yet I don't know what word is used in the Sefer Yetsirah, since I don't have the original text at hand.

But i bet not "galgal".

I found this:

http://www.hebrew.grimoar.cz/jecira/sefer_jecira.htm

כ"ב אותיות יסוד קבועות בגלגל ברל"א שערים, חזר גלגל פנים ואחור, סימן לדבר אין בטובה למעלה מענ"ג ואין ברעה למטה מנג"ע

So "galgal" is used, but circle seems not to be a good translation.

I saw it is often translated as "sphere".

Richard Amiel McGough

11-02-2012, 12:52 PM

I found this:

http://www.hebrew.grimoar.cz/jecira/sefer_jecira.htm

כ"ב אותיות יסוד קבועות בגלגל ברל"א שערים, חזר גלגל פנים ואחור, סימן לדבר אין בטובה למעלה מענ"ג ואין ברעה למטה מנג"ע

So "galgal" is used, but circle seems not to be a good translation.

I saw it is often translated as "sphere".

I agree that "wheel" is a better translation, especially since wheels usually have spokes just like the Bible Wheel. But that's a difference without much of a distinction since all wheels are circles.

Richard Amiel McGough

11-02-2012, 12:56 PM

We never say "Holy Bible", but just "bible"

Who is "we"? The vast majority of Christians refer to the Bible as the "Holy Bible."

It sounds like making out of the bible an idol.

To you maybe. And it is true that many Christians make an idol of the Bible. But I don't and I never did, so your hearing is erroneous in this case.

Yet it is called holy scripture.

What''s the difference?
There is none. Paul referred to the OT as "holy Scripture."

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

sylvius

11-02-2012, 01:35 PM

I agree that "wheel" is a better translation, especially since wheels usually have spokes just like the Bible Wheel. But that's a difference without much of a distinction since all wheels are circles.

The Sefer Yetsirah doesn't stress the sequential order of the letters, like if "tav" should oppose "kaf" and "alef" should oppose "lamed".
It stresses the 231 possible combinations, in which the order of the letters is indifferent.

Now you might say that this doesn't matter since it was only occasion for you to discover the divine unity of the prostestant bible. Yet the shoe pinches ..

sylvius

11-02-2012, 01:49 PM

Who is "we"? The vast majority of Christians refer to the Bible as the "Holy Bible."

in Dutch it is never said, "heilige bijbel".

Although there are always morons:

http://www.allabouttruth.org/dutch/de-heilige-bijbel.htm

There is none. Paul referred to the OT as "holy Scripture."

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

NT is scriptural based.

But that doesn't make NT holy scripture.

sylvius

11-02-2012, 01:55 PM

sylvius

11-02-2012, 02:23 PM

Who is "we"? The vast majority of Christians refer to the Bible as the "Holy Bible."

Ha, on page 11 of your book I see that "Holy Bible" is King James Perversionist

Catholics seemingly don't call it that way:

http://usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

oh no, they've been infected:

http://www.opensourcecatholic.com/sites/opensourcecatholic.com/files/user-uploads/Jeff%20Geerling/nabre-bible-leather.jpg

sylvius

11-02-2012, 02:56 PM

Vulgata is called "Biblia Sacra"

http://www.bibles.com/images_products/120975_md.jpg

Richard Amiel McGough

11-02-2012, 05:54 PM

Ha, on page 11 of your book I see that "Holy Bible" is King James Perversionist

Catholics seemingly don't call it that way:

http://usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

oh no, they've been infected:

http://www.opensourcecatholic.com/sites/opensourcecatholic.com/files/user-uploads/Jeff%20Geerling/nabre-bible-leather.jpg

That's very curious - a Catholic site that presents only the 66 books of the Protestant Bible? I'll have to check up to find out what they are up to. The Council of Trent defines the canon (http://www.dailycatholic.org/19ecume1.htm) as including the apocrypha:
DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,--keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

Note that the Catholic Bible contains the same books in the same order as the Protestant Bible with the apocrypha interspersed. Thus, when the Reformers defined the Bible by restricting the OT books to those accepted by the Jews, they produced the 66 books in the order of the Bible Wheel. This means that the pattern cannot be attributed to the Catholics, the Protestants, or the Jews. I took this as good evidence that the pattern could not be attributed to any human or group of humans.

As for your constant assertion that the KJV is "perverted" - if you want to press that point, you should start a thread on that topic and give your reasons. I doubt they would stand up under reason.