Your understanding of "God" is not the same as Gregory's here. For him, "God" is divine nature, while "Man" corresponds to human nature. As God, Jesus knows everything, as Man he is finite.

More of the same bullshit. Vespasian mocked this kind of runaround on his deathbed when he said, "I think I'm becoming a god."

(June 6, 2012 at 3:32 pm)BeeDeePee Wrote: Your understanding of "God" is not the same as Gregory's here. For him, "God" is divine nature, while "Man" corresponds to human nature. As God, Jesus knows everything, as Man he is finite.

...or all of this is a lame-ass ret-con created to sloppily patch up gaping continuity gaffes in the story as Jesus went from simple holy man in Mark to God-incarnate in John.

That's a little unfair, DP. Rationalising away plot holes is something done by a bunch of people who get together, dress up in funny clothes and quote passages from their favourite work of fiction to each other - like these:







... oh.

But would be Klingons don't demand blowjobs from boys.

(June 6, 2012 at 8:42 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Actually, it was originally from post #108...

which was answered in post 117 with an explanation using the original language, that deemed your use and conclusion of the selected passages from the gospels as invalid.

Quote:...and I called on you to address that problem in #128...

Quote:Still waiting for you to explain how Jesus is "equal" to Yahweh given the Bible verses I quoted.

Because Equality in the Eyes of the Jews who wrote these scriptures refers to the House as a whole in which power and authority is established, and not to the individual roles in which the members of said house part take. Meaning the Equality the three members of the God Head or trinity, share the roles and responsibility of what it means to be God. In otherworld the responsibility of God is divided equally amongst them. The Son and Spirit Freely submit to the Father and take on the roles they currently have. Your verses show this submission. Equality does not imply all three members have the same powers and authority.

Where your problem lies is your taking the modern interpretation of the word and trying to directly apply it to a 2000+ year old text. This 'logic' "does not follow"

The reason this was dismissed before was this conclusion was always tied to your mis reading of Isaiah, and even now as a stand alone question it has nothing to do with what is being taught here.

Quote:*Sounds of hammering as I nail you down to that topic*

When a man's only tool is a Hammer then everything begins to look like a nail.

So, you're saying that we shouldn't read the bible literally at all? Or only when you tell us not to do so?

(June 4, 2012 at 10:33 pm)Godschild Wrote: @ Welsh cake you stated that Undeceived was here to save the lost and if he was not here for that purpose he would go to hell.

You're supposed to be doing your god's work aren't you? Are you not representations of Jesus and spreading his holy gospel and teachings? If not, why not?

Quote:Undeceived, myself or any Christian can not save anyone, that is the work of God, and if we do not try and witness here God will not send us to hell, we are doing the work that God has for us and I'm pretty sure that God has not let you in on what hat might be.

I don't care whether I'm part of something or not, trust me, I won't send you to hell if you reject me. I'm not egomaniacal like your god. Its irrelevant in any case, but I'm curious to what your take on this is, so tell me, why has god not enlightened me on these matters? Or don't they matter at all?

(June 6, 2012 at 4:59 pm)Epimethean Wrote: So, you're saying that we shouldn't read the bible literally at all? Or only when you tell us not to do so?

I am saying read the bible for what it is, a translation of a work written to people who lived 2000 years or so ago.