Jesus is God !

[Idolater]

I think Catholicism certainly had its place and served its purpose. Few join religions to do anything but good works. I think the day of communal worship and a priestly class are over.

That's mechanically because you live post-Reformation. It's an accident that you think that. If your exact same person instead was born in AD 1 you would think corporate sacrifice to deity of some variety is a permanent requirement and you'd think political ideology should reflect this permanent requirement as well.

Catholicism (which is just the Christian Church, mentioned in the Bible, without dispute up to at the earliest AD 325 or so) due to its magnificent popularity, at times got caught in that political ideological snare.

The idea that deity of some variety must be offered sacrifices perpetually, for the benefit of man, in general and in particular, is ancient and very popular. This is part of why Catholicism at times swept through societies, leaving once vibrant and busy pagan temples desolate within decades. The people recognized that this is the categorically superior way to accomplish this universal and ancient (it's probably in our DNA in some way, but we have to leave it to PhD social scientists to uniformly agree what the deal is with religion and DNA, in order to have an informed opinion) value.

Deity must be appeased. Now if it turns out, that the reason the idea was invented and or persists even to this day, is solely because of Abraham, and his tradition, then that only supports Catholicism, since Catholicism is the oldest tradition that is not Judaism which traces its one tradition to Abraham, like Judaism traces its multiple traditions to Abraham as well.

And if you just think that there is no deity, so therefore it is false to say that deity must be appeased, that still does not demonstrate, prove, or show and signify, that it is ethically superior to not participate in that rite. It could be that in our DNA is a lock, and only Catholicism is the key to unlock it. Just because Jesus and the Apostles were first, that just establishes them as our religious heroes, if we're all just deluded atheists anyway. The ritual is still required by our DNA to be our best (which is what I mean by ethical), and the ritual does reflect a basic, genetic belief in deity, and that same genetic belief in our own flawed natures. So perhaps, this is all it is, and this is why the idea is common, that deity must be appeased.

It could be that there's no deity, and that our DNA only accidentally, or because of survival of the fittest, is designed such that very many of us resonate with the notion that deity is nonfiction, and that deity must be appeased. That could just be an accident of evolution, I know this because I've heard evolutionists say it. If that's the case, it's not like we're ever going to change our spots, not within like 100 generations minimum anyway, something like that.

So we have to acknowledge our genetic selves, play the hand we're dealt. If it's lemons, then make lemonade. Catholicism's lemonade, if, what you think, is true.

Understand that.

If Catholicism's true, then Catholicism's true. But if instead what you think is true, then it's entirely reasonable and possible that our genetic selves are just lemons, and then, Catholicism is the lemonade. Catholicism is here only meant to signify the Christian Church from the Apostolic era until about AD 325, almost three hundred years. This is virtually undisputed among Christians today to be a period of true unity in the Church age.

We are each responsibly for our own spirituality and the endless rituals of Catholicism is in reality the antithesis of a living religion.

See above. Deity must be appeased. It's true or it's false, it's a proposition, it can have the property of truth or falsity. If it's false, because deity is fictional, then it's still possible that it's true genetically. Meaning that our DNA has evolved with a God-shaped hole in its resultant soul, spirit, or human mind, and no matter how clever we are at identifying and characterizing the hole, the ethically best thing to do is to fill it in, so that nobody gets hurt.

It's a pretty deep hole.

That said there will always be a need to have organised religion so that a critical mass of humans can be utilised to move humanity towards a moral, virtuous life of service to God and thus humanity.

That's Catholicism. I'm not saying it's the only example, but certainly without dispute, this is Catholicism from the Apostolic era on up to AD 325.

(To explain the difference between those who believe Biblical Catholicism ended in AD 325 and myself, I just think Catholicism persists to AD 2022, not that it ended in AD 325.)

I think the Catholic church has racked up too many sins to be taken seriously anymore.

You are not taken seriously here on TOL. So how does it feel? To be irrationally and unjustly not taken seriously?

 

[Right Divider]

Christ represents God as a Messenger,

Indeed, that is because He is God.

a conduit between the spiritual essence of God and physical humanity.

Misrepresenting Christ is lying.

The only access to God we have is a via a Divinely inspired Messenger such as Jesus who reflects the Attributes of God and has the Authority of God.

The only one that "reflects the attributes of God" is God; same with authority.

Having an opinion contrary to yours is not lying.

You are lying and it's not just because you have a "contrary opinion to mine". Your opinion opposes God and His Word.

I don't call you a liar simply because I do not agree with

I tell you the truth.

John 1:1 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

That scripture is crystal clear and unambiguous.

 

[blueboy]

Indeed, that is because He is God.

Misrepresenting Christ is lying.

The only one that "reflects the attributes of God" is God; same with authority.

You are lying and it's not just because you have a "contrary opinion to mine". Your opinion opposes God and His Word.

I tell you the truth.

John 1:1 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

That scripture is crystal clear and unambiguous.

Your opinion opposes God and His Word. What utter nonsense. Imagine that you have some unique insight into the mind of God. Talk about hubris.

And I don't think you're lying just because you don't understand the Bible's meaning. I'm sure you are sincere in your belief, if a tad misguided.

Anyway, there is nothing to be gained here by disagreeing with you.

 

[blueboy]

That's mechanically because you live post-Reformation. It's an accident that you think that. If your exact same person instead was born in AD 1 you would think corporate sacrifice to deity of some variety is a permanent requirement and you'd think political ideology should reflect this permanent requirement as well.

Catholicism (which is just the Christian Church, mentioned in the Bible, without dispute up to at the earliest AD 325 or so) due to its magnificent popularity, at times got caught in that political ideological snare.

The idea that deity of some variety must be offered sacrifices perpetually, for the benefit of man, in general and in particular, is ancient and very popular. This is part of why Catholicism at times swept through societies, leaving once vibrant and busy pagan temples desolate within decades. The people recognized that this is the categorically superior way to accomplish this universal and ancient (it's probably in our DNA in some way, but we have to leave it to PhD social scientists to uniformly agree what the deal is with religion and DNA, in order to have an informed opinion) value.

Deity must be appeased. Now if it turns out, that the reason the idea was invented and or persists even to this day, is solely because of Abraham, and his tradition, then that only supports Catholicism, since Catholicism is the oldest tradition that is not Judaism which traces its one tradition to Abraham, like Judaism traces its multiple traditions to Abraham as well.

And if you just think that there is no deity, so therefore it is false to say that deity must be appeased, that still does not demonstrate, prove, or show and signify, that it is ethically superior to not participate in that rite. It could be that in our DNA is a lock, and only Catholicism is the key to unlock it. Just because Jesus and the Apostles were first, that just establishes them as our religious heroes, if we're all just deluded atheists anyway. The ritual is still required by our DNA to be our best (which is what I mean by ethical), and the ritual does reflect a basic, genetic belief in deity, and that same genetic belief in our own flawed natures. So perhaps, this is all it is, and this is why the idea is common, that deity must be appeased.

It could be that there's no deity, and that our DNA only accidentally, or because of survival of the fittest, is designed such that very many of us resonate with the notion that deity is nonfiction, and that deity must be appeased. That could just be an accident of evolution, I know this because I've heard evolutionists say it. If that's the case, it's not like we're ever going to change our spots, not within like 100 generations minimum anyway, something like that.

So we have to acknowledge our genetic selves, play the hand we're dealt. If it's lemons, then make lemonade. Catholicism's lemonade, if, what you think, is true.

Understand that.

If Catholicism's true, then Catholicism's true. But if instead what you think is true, then it's entirely reasonable and possible that our genetic selves are just lemons, and then, Catholicism is the lemonade. Catholicism is here only meant to signify the Christian Church from the Apostolic era until about AD 325, almost three hundred years. This is virtually undisputed among Christians today to be a period of true unity in the Church age.

See above. Deity must be appeased. It's true or it's false, it's a proposition, it can have the property of truth or falsity. If it's false, because deity is fictional, then it's still possible that it's true genetically. Meaning that our DNA has evolved with a God-shaped hole in its resultant soul, spirit, or human mind, and no matter how clever we are at identifying and characterizing the hole, the ethically best thing to do is to fill it in, so that nobody gets hurt.

It's a pretty deep hole.

That's Catholicism. I'm not saying it's the only example, but certainly without dispute, this is Catholicism from the Apostolic era on up to AD 325.

(To explain the difference between those who believe Biblical Catholicism ended in AD 325 and myself, I just think Catholicism persists to AD 2022, not that it ended in AD 325.)

You are not taken seriously here on TOL. So how does it feel? To be irrationally and unjustly not taken seriously?

That's mechanically because you live post-Reformation. Of course it is, because one must take advantage of the age in which they live.

That's mechanically because you live post-Reformation. It's an accident that you think that. If your exact same person instead was born in AD 1 you would think corporate sacrifice to deity of some variety is a permanent requirement and you'd think political ideology should reflect this permanent requirement as well.

Catholicism (which is just the Christian Church, mentioned in the Bible, without dispute up to at the earliest AD 325 or so) due to its magnificent popularity, at times got caught in that political ideological snare.

The idea that deity of some variety must be offered sacrifices perpetually, for the benefit of man, in general and in particular, is ancient and very popular. This is part of why Catholicism at times swept through societies, leaving once vibrant and busy pagan temples desolate within decades. The people recognized that this is the categorically superior way to accomplish this universal and ancient (it's probably in our DNA in some way, but we have to leave it to PhD social scientists to uniformly agree what the deal is with religion and DNA, in order to have an informed opinion) value.

Deity must be appeased. Now if it turns out, that the reason the idea was invented and or persists even to this day, is solely because of Abraham, and his tradition, then that only supports Catholicism, since Catholicism is the oldest tradition that is not Judaism which traces its one tradition to Abraham, like Judaism traces its multiple traditions to Abraham as well.

And if you just think that there is no deity, so therefore it is false to say that deity must be appeased, that still does not demonstrate, prove, or show and signify, that it is ethically superior to not participate in that rite. It could be that in our DNA is a lock, and only Catholicism is the key to unlock it. Just because Jesus and the Apostles were first, that just establishes them as our religious heroes, if we're all just deluded atheists anyway. The ritual is still required by our DNA to be our best (which is what I mean by ethical), and the ritual does reflect a basic, genetic belief in deity, and that same genetic belief in our own flawed natures. So perhaps, this is all it is, and this is why the idea is common, that deity must be appeased.

It could be that there's no deity, and that our DNA only accidentally, or because of survival of the fittest, is designed such that very many of us resonate with the notion that deity is nonfiction, and that deity must be appeased. That could just be an accident of evolution, I know this because I've heard evolutionists say it. If that's the case, it's not like we're ever going to change our spots, not within like 100 generations minimum anyway, something like that.

So we have to acknowledge our genetic selves, play the hand we're dealt. If it's lemons, then make lemonade. Catholicism's lemonade, if, what you think, is true.

Understand that.

If Catholicism's true, then Catholicism's true. But if instead what you think is true, then it's entirely reasonable and possible that our genetic selves are just lemons, and then, Catholicism is the lemonade. Catholicism is here only meant to signify the Christian Church from the Apostolic era until about AD 325, almost three hundred years. This is virtually undisputed among Christians today to be a period of true unity in the Church age.

See above. Deity must be appeased. It's true or it's false, it's a proposition, it can have the property of truth or falsity. If it's false, because deity is fictional, then it's still possible that it's true genetically. Meaning that our DNA has evolved with a God-shaped hole in its resultant soul, spirit, or human mind, and no matter how clever we are at identifying and characterizing the hole, the ethically best thing to do is to fill it in, so that nobody gets hurt.

It's a pretty deep hole.

That's Catholicism. I'm not saying it's the only example, but certainly without dispute, this is Catholicism from the Apostolic era on up to AD 325.

(To explain the difference between those who believe Biblical Catholicism ended in AD 325 and myself, I just think Catholicism persists to AD 2022, not that it ended in AD 325.)

You are not taken seriously here on TOL. So how does it feel? To be irrationally and unjustly not taken seriously?

That's mechanically because you live post-Reformation - Yes, that's true. We each must live in the age in which we are born. This age affords us a far greater understanding of the symbolic meanings attached to Scripture, rather than meanings that fly in the face of reality.

I can see the historic merit of Catholic Christianity. I am even somewhat impressed that the Catholic church has managed to adapt to the changing times, despite it being somewhat like a great ocean-liner trying to make a turn and I absolutely agree with you that religiosity is in our DNA, or it is in the secret promptings of our souls.

Deity must be appeased. Yes, I agree, the Will of God will prevail. Nothing humanity does will prevent the Will of God from being established. Catholicism certainly had a role to play and when you mention Abraham, one must remember that this is just a part of the Jewish line of religions. The rest of the world was not devoid of God's Word either.

There have been many Buddhas. There have been many Krishnas. Every gathering of humans down through the ages has had their own spiritual and religious beliefs. Zoroaster, the Great Spirit of the First Americans who have a profoundly beautiful take on God and how to live in unity and harmony with nature and other humans.

So the Jewish religions are not unique and Catholicism is not the only source of truth.

There is a God and we respond to God because it is in our nature to do so. Evolution has nothing in its real understanding that in any way contradicts Creation. Evolution is no more than rolling out God's great tapestry of Creation. Just because science in general does not understand this there is no excuse for theists to make this mistake. Nothing has ever existed because of some random mutation. Every facet of existence has been preordained and known before it entered our reality. Nature is not self-perpetuating, it is governed, enabled, limited, restrained, fixed by immutable natural laws and ordered by the Will of God.

Humans are more spiritual beings than physical beings. The vast gulf between us and animals is because we have an aspect of the Essence of God attached to us at conception. The Image or likeness to God is that we have some small unique essence of God as part of our being, so don't worry about accidents and true and false. We are drawn to God because we are, for want of a better term, children of God.

I'm not saying that Catholicism does not exist today, or that it does not do good, in spite of its horrendous failings we have seen over the last several decades and in previous centruies. What I'm saying is that Catholicism does not have the medicine for this present sore, sick world. Only the return of Christ, or a Christ like figure can provide the need for this age. Every religion has a used by date.

You are not taken seriously here on TOL. So how does it feel? To be irrationally and unjustly not taken seriously? No problem at all.

To be irrationally and unjustly not taken seriously? I couldn't have put that better myself, thanks and thank you for such a wonderful response. I appreciate the trouble you took on my behalf.

 

[blueboy]

Spare us, you vicious, Christ-hating troll. All you're doing is yet again repeating the same stupidities you've been posting in this thread all along: your rusted-on superstition and irrational dogmas that hold your poorly-thinking mind captive.

You've continually made it clear that you don't listen to truth and reason, and that you don't learn. You love your foolishness. And you have persistently stonewalled against the questions we've been asking you.


Oh, yeah...because I meant you are literally a member of a 1st century Jewish sect. You tempt me to think you're even dumber than you are.

In order to be right about the Trinity, and the fact that Jesus is God, you would, indeed, need to agree with me (and my bros., @Right Divider, @JudgeRightly, @way 2 go, etc.) about the Trinity, and the fact that Jesus is God. We're right about the Trinity, and the fact that Jesus is God; and we must be so since we believe what the Bible teaches; and the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, the Tri-unity of YHWH, and the fact that Jesus Christ is YHWH.


No! Really?

The fact that you don't agree with Trinitarians necessitates that you are wrong, because your opposition to Trinitarianism is opposition to God's Word, the Bible. (But you've already made clear your disdain against the Bible.)

So yeah, we're right because the Bible is right and we believe the Bible. And you're wrong, because the Bible is right and you oppose the Bible. Pretty simple.


Your Christ-blaspheming hatred against Christ is what makes you the Christ-hater you are.

Thank you your kind words.
You are very fortunate to have two such fine brothers.
I'm sure you will all share eternity together in deep discussion about the beliefs you all share.

 

[Right Divider]

What utter nonsense.

No, it's not. It's the truth. Live with it.

Imagine that you have some unique insight into the mind of God.

Another FALSE ACCUSATION from you. You are a habitual liar.

Talk about hubris.

False accusation again... liar.

And I don't think you're lying just because you don't understand the Bible's meaning.

I understand it just fine. It is plain and clear.

I'm sure you are sincere in your belief, if a tad misguided.

The misguided one is you.

Anyway, there is nothing to be gained here by disagreeing with you.

Indeed, because you fight against the plain and obvious truth expressed in the Word of God.

Here it is again:

John 1:1 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Word was God and the Word was made flesh. So simple that a child can understand it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, I don't.



No, they're not.



Says the one who can't even argue against our beliefs because he keeps attacking straw men.



Not my fault.



And?



I would generally agree.



No. One Person, the Father, and one Person, the Son, and one Person, the Holy Spirit, are one GOD.

It's not "1 Person + 1 Person + 1 Person = 3 Gods."

It's "1 Person * 1 Person * 1 Person = 1 God."

God is WHAT He is.
Father, Son, Holy Spirit is WHO He is.

Human is WHAT you are.
BlueBoy is WHO you are.



They're not.

The Traditional Passages Showing Christ's Deity: Most of the primary verses with a sampling of the many others showing that, like the Father, Jesus is... - Called God: John 1:1 with v. 14; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; Luke 1:16-17 - From Everlasting: Ps. 90:2 with Micah 5:2 - Receiving worship: Mat. 2:11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6 (etc., 10x) with Ex. 34:14; Acts 10:25-26 & Rev. 19:10 - Forgiving/Delegating Power to Forgive: Mat. 6:9, 12 with Jn. 20:23; Luke 5:20; Mark 2:5-11 & 1 Jn. 1:7-9 - Omniscient: John 10:15; 2:24-25 21:17 - Omnipresent: Ps. 139:7-10 with Mat. 18:20 & 28:20 - Omnipotent: Rev. 1:8 with 11-13, 17; 2:8; 5:11-6:1, 21:22-23; & 22:13 - Immutable: Mal. 3:6 with Hebrews 13:8 - The exact equivalent in nature: Heb. 1:3; Phil 2:6 doesn't rob the Father to see Christ as His equal in fullness: Col. 2:9 (in Christ "dwells all the fullness of the Godhead") in glory: Isa. 45:25 with Gal. 6:14 and John 1:14; etc. to whom every knee shalll bow: Isa. 45:23 with Phil. 2:10 to whom every tongue shall confess: Isa. 45:23 with Phil. 2:11 and Rom. 14:10-11 as the Almighty: Rev. 1:8 with 11-13, 17; 2:8; 5:11-6:1, 21:22-23; & 22:13 as Creator: Isa. 45:5-7, 18 with John 1:3 and Col. 1:16-17 as Savior: Isa. 45:21 and Luke 1:47 with Titus 3:6; 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:11; 1 John 4:14 as searcher of hearts: Ps. 139:23-24 with John 2:24-25 & Rev. 2:18-19, 23 as possessor of the everlasting kingdom: Dan. 7:13-14 as King of Kings: Rev. 19:16 with Dan. 2:47 and Isa. 33:22 as Lawgiver: James 4:12 as Judge: Ps. 9:7-8; 50:6 & 75:7; Isa. 33:22; 66:16; Heb. 12:23 with John 5:22; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rom. 2:16; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8 as Jehovah: Isa. 40:3 with Mat. 3:3; and Isa. 8:13-14 with 1 Pet. 2:7-8; Mat. 21:42; Mk. 12:10.

See? Crystal clear.



Which is why I don't typically use this verse whenever I'm debating the Triunity of God.

In other words, you've come up with yet another straw man.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



Yes, and?

I'm not about to cast pearls before swine, but there's a reason why Paul's teachings on baptism are different than what is found in the Gospels.



So what?



Yet another straw man.

1) It's not a "Trinity of divine beings." It's a Trinity of PERSONS, WHO ARE ONE BEING.
2) No one has said that Jesus "put forth the idea of the Trinity," as if you think that we claim that He was the one to originate it.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



He's not the founder of it. Jesus is.



He was given his doctrines BY CHRIST.



Because it's not one that He formed. It was already foundational to everything else recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures.

@blueboy, did you perhaps miss my post?

Or do you just not have any answer to it?

Was Jesus lying when He said that He would raise Himself from the dead?

Not at all,

So He wasn't lying, and did, in fact, raise Himself from the dead?

but we all know dead bodies do not come back to life.

Do you have a mouse in your pocket or something?

Dead bodies of course, do not come back to life, because they are inanimate.

But we're not talking about dead bodies here.

We're talking about whether Jesus was lying when He said He would RAISE HIMSELF from the dead.

Jesus was raised from the dead in the sense that the reality of Christ was His Teachings.

In what way does that make any sense, given the context of what scripture says?

Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business.When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!”Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.”So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”But He was speaking of the temple of His body.Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said. - John 2:13-22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John2:13-22&version=NKJV

After three days of fear and abject grief the disciples began to teach as they had been taught and the reality of Christ, His Teachings, rose from death

But that not's what happened.

Three days later, Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead, and appeared before several hundred people, not the least of which was Thomas, who put his hands in Christ's hands and side.

Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!”Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” - John 20:24-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John20:24-29&version=NKJV

Are you calling their testimony lies?

and became the dominant religion on earth.

That still doesn't explain the above.

That is not to say that Christ did not appear to the disciples after His death, but His body went the way of all bodies after death.

And what proof do you have for this?

Because I have a literal mountain of evidence that shows that Jesus told the truth when He said, referring to His body, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," incliuding the hands-on experience Thomas had with Christ, and the empty tomb.

As for the Trinity, I appreciate how these beliefs are hard to shake once they get rusted on,

Truth has a way of entrenching itself.

regardless of how nonsensical they may be.

There is nothing nonsensical about the Trinity.

3 is not 1 and 1 is not 3.

Straw man.

God is 3 Persons in one Godhead.

God, the Divine inspiration from God[,] and the perfect human to Teach and represent God, Christ, is a necessary trinity,

Except that's not what is referred to by God being a Trinity.

God the Father, God the Son, and Holy Spirit, is.

without resorting to the heresy

Reminder, YOU are the guest on a mainline CHRISTIAN board. Calling what WE believe "heresy" won't fly.

YOU are the heretic here on this board, not us.

of claiming God is literally triune, yet one.

"Triune" means "three in one," knucklehead.

tri - three
une - one

There's literally no reason to say "yet one" here.

Your own posts show how flawed such a belief is.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and you haven't shown it either.

You are entitled to believe whatever you like.

Wrong.

One (including you) has an obligation to find out the truth, and believe that.

Jesus-God, preincarnate-Jesus, if it means something to you then that's fine.

Words mean things, meaning you can't just dismiss those words by using "means something to you" just because you don't like what they mean.

you're a God-denying Sadducee - that's a new one. I'm not a member of a Jewish sect,

No one said you were.

nor do I deny the existence of spirits.

We're not talking about "spirits." We're talking about God, Whom you DO deny.

I think we each have a unique spirit.

Red herring. Irrelevant.

As for dead bodies, I think it fair to say that the dead do not come back to life

Supra.

Jesus said He would raise HIMSELF from the dead, and three days after His crucifixion, a few women discovered His empty tomb.

and why would they want to.

Why do you think this has any meaning in this conversation?

Jesus said, "Destroy [my body] and in three days I will raise it up again."
(By the way, what I said about Jesus "tabernacle-ing" in a tent of human flesh (John 1:14, among others) is extremely relevant here...)

Why do you call Him a liar by denying that He rose from the dead?

Being the Christ-hater you are - yes, this one has been used before

Because it's true.

rather carelessly I might add,

False.

considering how much I venerate the station of Christ

Whatever does that mean?

"The station of Christ?"

Supra.

and regard Christ as the Son of God and the Messenger of God.

But not God, and that's the issue here.

Jesus IS God. When you stand before Him on Judgement Day, that's going to be why He says "Depart from Me, for I never knew you."

Differences of opinion do not make anybody, even me, a Christ hater.

What you believe does, in fact, make you a Christ hater, anti-Christ.

If Christ had lived and never uttered a word you would never have known He lived.

Conjecture not worth responding to.

But by His Words do you know Christ, therefore the true power of Christ was His Words, His Teachings.

Irrelevant. Christ Himself is who rose from the dead. The empty tomb in Israel is the proof

What rose from death was His Teachings and they are still with us today,

"Teachings" don't "rise from death."

They may be revived, in a figurative sense, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about Christ raising Himself, not His teachings, from the dead.

whereas His body has gone the way of all bodies.

That's not what Scripture says.

A body doesn't decay in 3 days. It takes at least 3 weeks for it to decompose into at least a skeleton, and up to several years before it disappears completely, depending on the factors.

Christ was in the tomb for three days, sealed in there by the chief priests and the Pharisees, with a very large stone blocking the entrance, and guarded by guards.

On the third day, the tomb was opened supernaturally, the stone rolled away, and it was discovered empty.

Do you see the problem yet?

The spirit of Christ is indestructible, His body was just a body.

And He said He would raise Himself from the dead.

Did He or did He not raise HIMSELF from the dead?

Instead of continuing to mindlessly churn out stuff like that, you should try to think of something to say that is cognitively meaningful. Translation, you must agree with me.

Wrong.

The correct translation is, "Stop making stuff up."

I'm sorry, I don't.

You do.

Christianity has been held captive by superstition and dogma for far too long.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

There is only one reality.

So stop denying it.

As I mentioned, Christ could have appeared before Whomever He wished after His death,

The point is that Jesus told the truth when He said "I will raise my body from the dead after three days."

but His true power was His Words and Teachings which are still with us today.

You're chasing a red herring.

Christ is God in the flesh. No matter how many lies you tell. Christ represents God as a Messenger, a conduit between the spiritual essence of God and physical humanity.

He's more than that!

He's GOD!

The only access to God we have is a via a Divinely inspired Messenger such as Jesus who reflects the Attributes of God and has the Authority of God.

The only One who can meet those qualifications is God Himself.

Having an opinion contrary to yours is not lying.

No, but lying is lying. And you certainly do a lot of that.

I don't call you a liar simply because I do not agree with you.

We call you a liar because you lie, not because you disagree with us.

Your opinion opposes God and His Word. What utter nonsense.

False.

Imagine that you have some unique insight into the mind of God.

God gave mankind His word. That's all the insight we need.

The only one imagining things here is you.

Talk about hubris.

Says the one who thinks he knows better than the Author of the Bible.

And I don't think you're lying just because

Yet you do think we're lying, no?

What would it mean if we're instead telling the truth? Consider it.

you don't understand the Bible's meaning.

Yes, we do.

I'm sure you are sincere in your belief, if a tad misguided.

Irrelevant.

Sincerity of beliefs doesn't make them true or false.

Anyway, there is nothing to be gained here by disagreeing with you.

Then why are you even on this site?

 

[7djengo7]

Thank you your kind words.

Ah, yes, "kind words"—a term of teeth-gnashing sarcasm for referring to truth which it angers you to be confronted by.

You are very fortunate to have two such fine brothers.
I'm sure you will all share eternity together in deep discussion about the beliefs you all share.

We do not know that you will not be there, too, sharing eternity with us, in the presence of God the Son, and we hope you will be. But if that's the case, you ain't gonna be always thinking in the same, stupid, deranged, truth-opposing, Christ-despising way in which you presently think.

 

[Idolater]

That's mechanically because you live post-Reformation. Of course it is, because one must take advantage of the age in which they live.

That's mechanically because you live post-Reformation - Yes, that's true. We each must live in the age in which we are born. This age affords us a far greater understanding of the symbolic meanings attached to Scripture, rather than meanings that fly in the face of reality.

I can see the historic merit of Catholic Christianity. I am even somewhat impressed that the Catholic church has managed to adapt to the changing times, despite it being somewhat like a great ocean-liner trying to make a turn and I absolutely agree with you that religiosity is in our DNA, or it is in the secret promptings of our souls.

Deity must be appeased. Yes, I agree, the Will of God will prevail. Nothing humanity does will prevent the Will of God from being established. Catholicism certainly had a role to play and when you mention Abraham, one must remember that this is just a part of the Jewish line of religions. The rest of the world was not devoid of God's Word either.

There have been many Buddhas. There have been many Krishnas. Every gathering of humans down through the ages has had their own spiritual and religious beliefs. Zoroaster, the Great Spirit of the First Americans who have a profoundly beautiful take on God and how to live in unity and harmony with nature and other humans.

So the Jewish religions are not unique and Catholicism is not the only source of truth.

There is a God and we respond to God because it is in our nature to do so. Evolution has nothing in its real understanding that in any way contradicts Creation. Evolution is no more than rolling out God's great tapestry of Creation. Just because science in general does not understand this there is no excuse for theists to make this mistake. Nothing has ever existed because of some random mutation. Every facet of existence has been preordained and known before it entered our reality. Nature is not self-perpetuating, it is governed, enabled, limited, restrained, fixed by immutable natural laws and ordered by the Will of God.

Humans are more spiritual beings than physical beings. The vast gulf between us and animals is because we have an aspect of the Essence of God attached to us at conception. The Image or likeness to God is that we have some small unique essence of God as part of our being, so don't worry about accidents and true and false. We are drawn to God because we are, for want of a better term, children of God.

I'm not saying that Catholicism does not exist today, or that it does not do good, in spite of its horrendous failings we have seen over the last several decades and in previous centruies. What I'm saying is that Catholicism does not have the medicine for this present sore, sick world. Only the return of Christ, or a Christ like figure can provide the need for this age. Every religion has a used by date.

You are not taken seriously here on TOL. So how does it feel? To be irrationally and unjustly not taken seriously? No problem at all.

To be irrationally and unjustly not taken seriously? I couldn't have put that better myself, thanks and thank you for such a wonderful response. I appreciate the trouble you took on my behalf.

You can't use logic to talk Christians out of our faith.

Logic's on our side.

The most successful way to talk Christians out of their faith is through ethics. It's through persuasively arguing to the Christians, and typically to Christian youngsters, the children of Christians, "Hey Christian, aren't you really more atheist than Christian, when it comes to ethics?" And Christians, especially Christian youngsters, fall for that trick all the time, and have been. For more than an entire generation. They say, "Hey yeah! I am really more of an atheist when it comes to my ethics."

Christians are poached into atheism just like poaching pheasants with drugged raisin baits. This way. They aren't arguing logically into atheism.

Again, logic's on our side. That's why.

Christian ethics is briefly summed up as Catholicism, Catholicism and Christian ethics are basically synonyms. If you don't like that characterization then Catholicism can even be even more briefly summed up as going to church weekly and being chaste. That's Christian ethics. The atheist persuades the Christian young, "You don't really want to go to church every week and be chaste, do you?" The Christian young, too young and ethically unskilled to handle this exposure to mature content, predictably flops during the trial, tumbling into an ethical pit, which takes decades to get out of without someone to help pull you out.

Ethically, atheism is logically dead on arrival, DOA. And any Christian who's here saying, Oh I'm a real Christian, but who is aligned with atheist ethics, not going to church weekly, and not being chaste, and not defending both these ethical values, is really, really confused.

Logic is on our side. The only way atheism's been able to claim so many of our youth is because you all tricked us into exposing our kids to adult, mature, rated-R content, before they were ready; they could not handle it. They were put in a "no-win" situation. Or at least, they were not put into a position to succeed. They were just pushed out into no-man's land, stripped down to their undergarments, made to walk right across. They had very little chance of ethical survival, and it was a slaughter. But some got to the other side. And a lot of them were Catholics. It's just that there were other traditions that made it too, like even Mormonism still honors the two Christian ethical values I mentioned above. You're never going to be able to logically argue against Christian ethics because it's so plainly just atheist ethics that you're arguing for.

 

[blueboy]

You can't use logic to talk Christians out of our faith.

Logic's on our side.

The most successful way to talk Christians our of their faith is through ethics. It's through persuasively arguing to the Christians, and typically to Christian youngsters, the children of Christians, "Hey Christian, aren't you really more atheist than Christian, when it comes to ethics?" And Christians, especially Christian youngsters, fall for that trick all the time, and have been. For more than an entire generation. They say, "Hey yeah! I am really more of an atheist when it comes to my ethics."

Christians are poached into atheism just like poaching pheasants with drugged raisin baits. This way. They aren't arguing logically into atheism.

Again, logic's on our side. That's why.

Christian ethics is briefly summed up as Catholicism, Catholicism and Christian ethics are basically synonyms. If you don't like that characterization then Catholicism can even be even more briefly summed up as going to church weekly and being chaste. That's Christian ethics. The atheist persuades the Christian young, "You don't really want to go to church every week and be chaste, do you?" The Christian young, too young and ethically unskilled to handle this exposure to mature content, predictably flops during the trial, tumbling into an ethical pit, which takes decades to get out of without someone to help pull you out.

Ethically, atheism is logically dead on arrival, DOA. And any Christian who's here saying, Oh I'm a real Christian, but who is aligned with atheist ethics, not going to church weekly, and not being chaste, and not defending both these ethical values, is really, really confused.

Logic is on our side. The only way atheism's been able to claim so many of our youth is because you all tricked us into exposing our kids to adult, mature, rated-R content, before they were ready; they could not handle it. They were put in a "no-win" situation. Or at least, they were not put into a position to succeed. They were just pushed out into no-man's land, stripped down to their undergarments, made to walk right across. They had very little chance of ethical survival, and it was a slaughter. But some got to the other side. And a lot of them were Catholics. It's just that there were other traditions that made it too, like even Mormonism still honors the two Christian ethical values I mentioned above. You're never going to be able to logically argue against Christian ethics because it's so plainly just atheist ethics that you're arguing for.

Not advocating atheism, nor any departure from Christian ethics, virtues or morality, so I'm not sure what your post was addressing. Perhaps you were rehearsing a talk you are giving later. It wasn't a bad read all the same.

 

[blueboy]

Ah, yes, "kind words"—a term of teeth-gnashing sarcasm for referring to truth which it angers you to be confronted by.

We do not know that you will not be there, too, sharing eternity with us, in the presence of God the Son, and we hope you will be. But if that's the case, you ain't gonna be always thinking in the same, stupid, deranged, truth-opposing, Christ-despising way in which you presently think.

Your posts are always consistent. I mean no disrespect, but you do not move me to anger, teeth-gnashing, or any emotion really, a bit of curiosity I suppose. I've never really engaged with Creationists and I promise I won't judge other Creationist by what goes on here and even the very tepid sarcasm I respond with is a result of your posts which have no point and simply offer you a chance to spew out your vitriol.

 

[blueboy]

@blueboy, did you perhaps miss my post?

Or do you just not have any answer to it?



So He wasn't lying, and did, in fact, raise Himself from the dead?



Do you have a mouse in your pocket or something?

Dead bodies of course, do not come back to life, because they are inanimate.

But we're not talking about dead bodies here.

We're talking about whether Jesus was lying when He said He would RAISE HIMSELF from the dead.



In what way does that make any sense, given the context of what scripture says?

Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business.When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!”Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.”So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”But He was speaking of the temple of His body.Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said. - John 2:13-22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John2:13-22&version=NKJV



But that not's what happened.

Three days later, Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead, and appeared before several hundred people, not the least of which was Thomas, who put his hands in Christ's hands and side.

Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!”Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” - John 20:24-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John20:24-29&version=NKJV

Are you calling their testimony lies?



That still doesn't explain the above.



And what proof do you have for this?

Because I have a literal mountain of evidence that shows that Jesus told the truth when He said, referring to His body, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," incliuding the hands-on experience Thomas had with Christ, and the empty tomb.



Truth has a way of entrenching itself.



There is nothing nonsensical about the Trinity.



Straw man.

God is 3 Persons in one Godhead.



Except that's not what is referred to by God being a Trinity.

God the Father, God the Son, and Holy Spirit, is.



Reminder, YOU are the guest on a mainline CHRISTIAN board. Calling what WE believe "heresy" won't fly.

YOU are the heretic here on this board, not us.



"Triune" means "three in one," knucklehead.

tri - three
une - one

There's literally no reason to say "yet one" here.



Saying it doesn't make it so, and you haven't shown it either.



Wrong.

One (including you) has an obligation to find out the truth, and believe that.



Words mean things, meaning you can't just dismiss those words by using "means something to you" just because you don't like what they mean.



No one said you were.



We're not talking about "spirits." We're talking about God, Whom you DO deny.



Red herring. Irrelevant.



Supra.

Jesus said He would raise HIMSELF from the dead, and three days after His crucifixion, a few women discovered His empty tomb.



Why do you think this has any meaning in this conversation?

Jesus said, "Destroy [my body] and in three days I will raise it up again."
(By the way, what I said about Jesus "tabernacle-ing" in a tent of human flesh (John 1:14, among others) is extremely relevant here...)

Why do you call Him a liar by denying that He rose from the dead?



Because it's true.



False.



Whatever does that mean?

"The station of Christ?"

Supra.



But not God, and that's the issue here.

Jesus IS God. When you stand before Him on Judgement Day, that's going to be why He says "Depart from Me, for I never knew you."



What you believe does, in fact, make you a Christ hater, anti-Christ.



Conjecture not worth responding to.



Irrelevant. Christ Himself is who rose from the dead. The empty tomb in Israel is the proof



"Teachings" don't "rise from death."

They may be revived, in a figurative sense, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about Christ raising Himself, not His teachings, from the dead.



That's not what Scripture says.

A body doesn't decay in 3 days. It takes at least 3 weeks for it to decompose into at least a skeleton, and up to several years before it disappears completely, depending on the factors.

Christ was in the tomb for three days, sealed in there by the chief priests and the Pharisees, with a very large stone blocking the entrance, and guarded by guards.

On the third day, the tomb was opened supernaturally, the stone rolled away, and it was discovered empty.

Do you see the problem yet?



And He said He would raise Himself from the dead.

Did He or did He not raise HIMSELF from the dead?



Wrong.

The correct translation is, "Stop making stuff up."



You do.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



So stop denying it.



The point is that Jesus told the truth when He said "I will raise my body from the dead after three days."



You're chasing a red herring.



He's more than that!

He's GOD!



The only One who can meet those qualifications is God Himself.



No, but lying is lying. And you certainly do a lot of that.



We call you a liar because you lie, not because you disagree with us.



False.



God gave mankind His word. That's all the insight we need.

The only one imagining things here is you.



Says the one who thinks he knows better than the Author of the Bible.



Yet you do think we're lying, no?

What would it mean if we're instead telling the truth? Consider it.



Yes, we do.



Irrelevant.

Sincerity of beliefs doesn't make them true or false.



Then why are you even on this site?

I think my response will only offend you, which is not something I set out to do, so I will keep it brief.

I think the Bible is predominantly symbolic. I also think that some Biblical accounts have become tainted with Chinese Whispers. Jesus claimed He would rise from death after three days, the truth of Jesus was His Teachings and they did indeed rise from death and transform the global religious landscape. Jesus said His Kingdom was not of this world. That relates to His physical body being of so little importance after death.

But as I have mentioned, the power of Christ was such that He could have appeared to Whomever He wished after death. The reanimation of His dead body is irrelevant to the significance of the story and the effect it had on humanity and that effect came from His Teachings, because if His body had risen it would have only effected a small group who say it and human bodies do not go the spiritual heaven, so He would have died only to die again.

Jesus did not lie. Rising from death had a symbolic meaning and the Bible may contain inaccuracies with some details that in truth are only secondary to the truth and reality of Jesus and His transformative Teachings.

 

[Right Divider]

Christian ethics is briefly summed up as Catholicism, Catholicism and Christian ethics are basically synonyms.

If you don't like that characterization then Catholicism can even be even more briefly summed up as going to church weekly and being chaste.

Tons of unsaved people do that all over the world, Catholic or otherwise.

 

[Right Divider]

I think the Bible is predominantly symbolic. I also think that some Biblical accounts have become tainted with Chinese Whispers. Jesus claimed He would rise from death after three days, the truth of Jesus was His Teachings and they did indeed rise from death and transform the global religious landscape. Jesus said His Kingdom was not of this world. That relates to His physical body being of so little importance after death.

Continuing to repeat your false story does nothing to support your false story.
Jesus rose bodily. That is what resurrection means.

But as I have mentioned, the power of Christ was such that He could have appeared to Whomever He wished after death.

Yes, and He appeared bodily and not as some "ghost".

The reanimation of His dead body is irrelevant to the significance of the story and the effect it had on humanity and that effect came from His Teachings, because if His body had risen it would have only effected a small group who say it and human bodies do not go the spiritual heaven, so He would have died only to die again.

Heretical beliefs are going to lead you to the lake of fire.
No, He lives for evermore.

Rev 1:18 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:18) [I am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Jesus did not lie.

Yes, we know that.

Rising from death had a symbolic meaning and the Bible may contain inaccuracies with some details that in truth are only secondary to the truth and reality of Jesus and His transformative Teachings.

He rose from death literally. Just like He said that He would.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I think my response will only offend you,

I have thick skin, I can handle it.

which is not something I set out to do, so I will keep it brief.

I'd rather you just respond to what I say.

I think the Bible is predominantly symbolic.

That way of thinking doesn't work, because much of the Bible is ALREADY figurative, yet relies on some things being literal in order to be used figuratively.

In addition, MOST of the Bible can only be literal, because it wouldn't make any sense if it was figurative.

Either way, I already know that you consider the Bible to be "predominantly symbolic." Most of the people like you who come on here do.

I also think that some Biblical accounts have become tainted with Chinese Whispers.

This is simply false.

The Bible has been translated a total number of ONCE to English, from Hebrew and Greek directly to English. There's no room for any "Chinese Whispers" to occur. At most, the Old Testament has been translated from Hebrew to Greek to English, a total of two steps, but considering that if you compare the Dead Sea Scrolls to modern Hebrew versions, you'll find that there is no noticable difference between the two, perhaps minor differences in spelling or grammar, but nothing that would change the meaning of the text.

In other words, there has been no tainting.

Jesus claimed He would rise from death after three days,

More importantly, He claimed that He would RAISE HIMSELF from the dead, and then did exactly that, as per Scripture.

the truth of Jesus was His Teachings and they did indeed rise from death and transform the global religious landscape.

Except that's not what happened at all, and wouldn't even make sense if it did, based on the context of what He was talking about, as I said in my previous post.

Jesus said His Kingdom was not of this world.

He said a lot more than that, and in a very specific context:

Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.Pilate then went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man?”They answered and said to him, “If He were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him up to you.”Then Pilate said to them, “You take Him and judge Him according to your law.” Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,”that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which He spoke, signifying by what death He would die.Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, called Jesus, and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?”Jesus answered him, “Are you speaking for yourself about this, or did others tell you this concerning Me?”Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me. What have You done?”Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no fault in Him at all. - John 18:28-38 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John18:28-38&version=NKJV

Jesus was forward-looking, to when He would reign as Israel's king.

That relates to His physical body being of so little importance after death.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and the empty tomb speaks against this idea.

But as I have mentioned, the power of Christ was such that He could have appeared to Whomever He wished after death.

But it wasn't "after His death." It was after His RESURRECTION.

Jesus was in the tomb for three days. The third day, the stone was rolled away and the tomb His body was buried in was found empty.

He didn't start appearing to people until AFTER the stone was rolled away and the tomb found empty. That's not coincidence.

The reanimation of His dead body is irrelevant to the significance of the story and the effect it had on humanity

His Resurrection is VERY important!

Haven't you read ANY of what Paul wrote? He explains why!

and that effect came from His Teachings,

Christ's teachings were irrelevant if He did not rise from the dead, because if He did not, then Christianity is false and our faith is vain, as per Paul.

On the other hand, if Christ DID rise from the dead, then Christianity is true, and all other religions and beliefs are false.

because if His body had risen it would have only effected a small group

So what?

There was more to Christ's resurrection than just how many people His death would affect.

who say it and human bodies do not go the spiritual heaven, so He would have died only to die again.

RD addressed this.

Jesus did not lie.

Indeed. He was telling the truth when He said He would raise Himself from the dead, and He did, indeed follow through with what He said, and raised Himself from the dead when He said He would, on the third day.

And no, He was not talking about His teachings.

Rising from death had a symbolic meaning

What is that meaning?

Can you clearly and unequivocably define it?

and the Bible may contain inaccuracies with some details

Any errors the Bible contains make no significant difference to the overarching Plot of the story contained within it.

that in truth are only secondary to the truth and reality of Jesus and His transformative Teachings.

Your god is Christ's teachings, rather than Jesus Himself.

Until you shift your focus from His teachings to Christ Himself, you are doomed to an eternity apart from Him.

 

[way 2 go]

.You choose a piece of Scripture, or a set of Scripture pertaining to a specific belief you have, then explain how you believe that this supports your belief and if I agree with you I'll indicate as such. If I disagree with you I'll try to find Scripture to support my take.

you never explained "This is God speaking here, not Jesus."


God the father ,God the Holy Spirit
sent
preincarnate Jesus God

preincarnate Jesus is speaking here:

Isaiah 48
12 Listen to me, O Jacob and Israel, My called; I am He; I am the first, I also am the last.
13 My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens. I called; they stood up together.
14 Let all of you gather and hear; who among them has declared these things? The LORD has loved him; He will do His pleasure on Babylon, and His arm shall be on the Chaldeans.
15 I, I, have spoken; yea, I have called him; I brought him and he makes his way succeed.
16 Come near to me, hear this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning. From its being, I was there; and now the Lord Jehovah, and His Spirit, has sent me.

 

[7djengo7]

Your posts are always consistent.

Your stonewalling against the questions I've asked you in them is always consistent.

I mean no disrespect, but you do not move me to anger, teeth-gnashing, or any emotion really, a bit of curiosity I suppose.

You're not even a tiny bit miffed at all the questions I've asked you against which you have persistently needed to stonewall? Spare me. Numerous times I quoted things you had written in which you had written the word, "God," and asked you whether or not by it you are referring to the Father; yet, not once have you answered this question.

I've never really engaged with Creationists

Duh. Clearly, when you are in public forums like TOL, you purpose with resolve to never engage with anyone.

and I promise I won't judge other Creationist by what goes on here and even the very tepid sarcasm I respond with is a result of

your banality.

your posts which have no point

You're just a sourpuss because I've been asking you questions that you know (and everybody else knows) you cannot answer without further embarrassing yourself in your heretical stupidity. Of course, you also embarrass yourself by stonewalling such questions. You just can't win, so long as you continue to favor your heretical, anti-Christ stupidity. So, one point my posts have is to ask you questions you cannot answer. Duh.

and simply offer you a chance to spew out your vitriol.

Ah, yes....call questions that embarrass and annoy you, because you know you cannot answer them without further embarrassing yourself in your heretical stupidity, "vitriol". Here's an example of the "vitriol" I've been "spewing" at you:

When you say "Jesus is not God," by your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

blueboy: <NO ANSWER>

 

[blueboy]

you never explained "This is God speaking here, not Jesus."


God the father ,God the Holy Spirit
sent
preincarnate Jesus God

preincarnate Jesus is speaking here:

Isaiah 48
12 Listen to me, O Jacob and Israel, My called; I am He; I am the first, I also am the last.
13 My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens. I called; they stood up together.
14 Let all of you gather and hear; who among them has declared these things? The LORD has loved him; He will do His pleasure on Babylon, and His arm shall be on the Chaldeans.
15 I, I, have spoken; yea, I have called him; I brought him and he makes his way succeed.
16 Come near to me, hear this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning. From its being, I was there; and now the Lord Jehovah, and His Spirit, has sent me.

Isaiah born 8th century BC, died 7th century BC. Jesus born in a window around the year 0.

While you have it in mind that Jesus is preincarnate Jesus God nothing can be explained to you. Was Moses Jesus? Was Noah Jesus? Was Abraham Jesus? Was Muhammad Jesus? Was Buddha Jesus? Was Krishna and Zoroaster Jesus? They all produced religions that had many Teachings similar to that of Jesus and the OT.

Will the returning Jesus be actually Jesus or a spirit like Jesus?

God the father, God the Holy Spirit sent preincarnate Jesus God. 1 = 3. I don't think so.

That line is about as nonsensical as religious belief can get. You are indoctrinated with this belief without ever questioning its utter implausibility.

 

[7djengo7]

Isaiah born 8th century BC, died 7th century BC. Jesus born in a window around the year 0.

While you have it in mind that Jesus is preincarnate Jesus God nothing can be explained to you. Was Moses Jesus? Was Noah Jesus? Was Abraham Jesus? Was Muhammad Jesus? Was Buddha Jesus? Was Krishna and Zoroaster Jesus? They all produced religions that had many Teachings similar to that of Jesus and the OT.

Will the returning Jesus be actually Jesus or a spirit like Jesus?

God the father, God the Holy Spirit sent preincarnate Jesus God. 1 = 3. I don't think so.

That line is about as nonsensical as religious belief can get. You are indoctrinated with this belief without ever questioning its utter implausibility.

Here is yet another example of how you utterly refuse to carefully read and to try to address anything that has been said to you. You've shown yourself to be nothing more than a parrot, erratically squawking out your Christ-despising, Bible-despising, truth-despising, logic-despising, heretical, ravings. You're on TOL for one purpose alone, blueboy: to beg our patient attention by emitting as much noise as you can. Sad.

 

[7djengo7]

I don't think

rationally.

We know you do not.