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 4:54 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(June 6, 2012 at 2:50 am)Godschild Wrote:

---

The underlined statement is not correct, God is called elohiym in most of the OT. Elohiym is a plural expression, as in the Trinity. In Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, " Behold the man has become like one of Us.... here God was not talking to the angels, He was relating to the rest of the Godhead, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. In Genesis chapter one it says, the Spirit of God moved over the waters...God in this verse is called elohiym, again reference to the plural or Trinity. In John, Christ is called the Word and the Word is God . In Col. 2:9 For in Christ all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form. With these verses you can see that God is a trinity which was established at the beginning of creation, also Christ is realized as the Deity even in the flesh. Now how God is able to do this I do not know, but we can see that the Three are all in one place when Jesus was baptized, one God in the three Persons.

---

Now explain to me how this counters my assertion that hes refered to in the singular in the *bulk* of the Bible. Notice I didn't say *all* of it, the majority of it and it is undeniably the majority. If Christianity was to follow every verse regardless of whether it suits them then not only would it be even more conflicted and confused than it already is but it'd also be for the idea of bringing slavery back and stoning unruly children. Suffice to say modern society doesn't do either and I don't think you'd suggest that it should. Seeing as this is the case how can you deny this redefinition of God as nothing more than another instance of someone selectively pickng Bible verses that are pleasing to them? Also, if this is the case how is your religion any different from an evolved and concealed form of paganism?

"Now how God is able to do this I do not know, but we can see that the Three are all in one place when Jesus was baptized, one God in the three Persons."
Very simple explaination here, he didn't. The only reason you think he did is because you think every word of the Bible is true but find the concept of the Trinity ridiculous, which it is. Suffice to say there are far older religions than Christianity who coined the term "God" long before you or Christianity even existed. It means an omnipotent being of infinite power and if you state there are actually three seperate entities who fit this description you are saying there are three Gods which counters the Bibles assertion there is only one God. You do not get a special entitlement to redefine the meaning of words that are hundreds of times older than you are and have remained unchanged for that period of time.

I did, elohiym is the Hebrew for God and in over 90% of the OT this name is used for God. Once again elohiym is a plural name for God. What part of this did you not understand in my statement, I mean really how could you have missed it.
No, Christians would not support slavery in any way, as a matter of fact there are Christian groups working to help children pull out of sex slavery, that unbelievers around the world support, as a matter of fact slavery in one form or another is larger than any time in US history. All of today's slavery is supported by unbelievers, Christians around the world are working to put an end to it. So you see it is the unbelievers who have never let slavery die out, shame on the unbelieving.

As for stoning children Christians have never practiced it, neither has the Jewish nation, I've explained this so many times I've given up on you all being able to comprehend, for some reason it just goes right over your heads, I find this to be puzzling since you all claim intelligence.

I did not redefine God I used the scriptures to show you the truth, unlike yourself, just making claims with no Biblical support. I have used the definitions of the words as they were and are, as for one God yes scriptures teach this, they also teach that God is triune and I referred to some of those verses.

Yes, I believe that the Bible is true from the first word to the last word. I see no reason to doubt it, and you will always have to deal with this as long as we have discussions. I do not change my mind because others do not see the truth.

There is no way any religion can be older than the One who created all things, this is impossible.

(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.