Support NeoGAF

[John Dunbar]

Do you have any scriptural support for that claim?

There's at least this:

48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.

49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel 16:48-50;&version=NIV;

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

The trinity doesn't teach oneness or sabellianism. It doesn't teach that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Nor does it teach that the Father is Jesus. It teaches that there is one God (whatever God is, his nature) happens to be found in Jesus as well. He is the memra, the thought of the Father. As long as the father has existed so to has his word or his mind.

That is the idea behind Jesus being God.

Historically the Trinity was considered as heresy and polytheism up until the council of nicea. Its less Bible doctrine and more an ecumenical decision by the religious leaders in power at the time.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Historically the Trinity was considered as heresy and polytheism up until the council of nicea. Its less Bible doctrine and more an ecumenical decision by the religious leaders in power at the time.

Please offer evidence that the trinity was considered heresy until Nicea. Up until Nicea there are TONS of evidence from the Church Fathers that show they accepted the divinity of Jesus. From Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp to Irenaeus and Origen. The divinity of Jesus from the closing of the NT up until Nicea was accepted by most of the communities, even many who were part of the Antiochian church.

Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

"[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).


Tatian the Syrian

"We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).

Irenaeus

"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

"Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (ibid., 3:19:1).

Clement of Alexandria

"The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

"Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son" (ibid., 10:110:1).

Tertullian

"The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ 5:6–7 [A.D. 210]).

"That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).


Origen

"Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).

Hippolytus

"Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).

Hippolytus of Rome

"For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new" (ibid., 10:34).

 

[mclaren777]

There's at least this:

"She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

Sounds a lot like the US.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Sounds a lot like the US.

Or any other country for that matter.

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

Sounds a lot like the US.

Except according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the US gives more than any other country in the world and easily doubles that of 2nd place France.

But that figure in in absolute $ and does not include private donations.

The United States has the quickest repsonding, most effective humanitarian organization in the world. However, that's is the organization tertiary purpose, its primary purpose being, killing.

 

[JGS]

Please offer evidence that the trinity was considered heresy until Nicea. Up until Nicea there are TONS of evidence from the Church Fathers that show they accepted the divinity of Jesus. From Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp to Irenaeus and Origen. The divinity of Jesus from the closing of the NT up until Nicea was accepted by most of the communities, even many who were part of the Antiochian church.

Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

"[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).


Tatian the Syrian

"We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).

Irenaeus

"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

"Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (ibid., 3:19:1).

Clement of Alexandria

"The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

"Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son" (ibid., 10:110:1).

Tertullian

"The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ 5:6–7 [A.D. 210]).

"That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).


Origen

"Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).

Hippolytus

"Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).

Hippolytus of Rome

"For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new" (ibid., 10:34).

That's true, by the second century, the original teaching of Jesus being God's son was weakened but still strong enough that compromise had to be made to unify the kingdom.

There is little to no evidence of the trinity being a Biblically Christian Doctrine. The verses that allude to it usually have verse nearby that refute it.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

That's true, by the second century, the original teaching of Jesus being God's son was weakened but still strong enough that compromise had to be made to unify the kingdom.

There is little to no evidence of the trinity being a Biblically Christian Doctrine. The verses that allude to it usually have verse nearby that refute it.

There is evidence, scriptural at that, that Jesus was accepted as more than just a creature. Colossians 1:15-18 attributes the entire act of creation and creation itself to him. Although the Jehovah's Witnesses chose to add [OTHER] into their translation to show that Jesus himself was a creature, they admit that other is no where to be found in any Greek manuscripts. John 1:1 attributes the Word to being God (not a god and not THE God i.e. the father). One can debate John 8:58 and the other I AM statements but that doesn't remove the verses that attribute the acts, characteristics, and titles given to Jesus that according to the Tanakh belong to God alone.

Either Jesus was a man only, an angel, or he was as much God as the Father. There is simply no evidence of him being referred to as a creation or angel (Michael) but there is evidence of him being seen, viewed, and worshiped in a manner that is acceptable for God only.

Again, I am not saying that he was or is more than a man since again, that is impossible to prove. What I am saying is that to deny that the NT includes scriptural evidence to support his divinity is simply ignoring the evidence itself.

 

[mclaren777]

Except according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the US gives more than any other country in the world and easily doubles that of 2nd place France.

I was referring more to the description before the semicolon.

 

[chas]

Can somehow help me find a certain passage from the Bible?

It's something along the lines of "When the son of man comes he will not be knocking on the doors of churches or temples but on the doors of common people."

I can't seem to find which gospel, chapter, or verse it's from. I'm just curious about this passage and what it means. Does it mean that the son of man (or was it Jesus?) will come find the people who have the truth of God in their homes?

What do other people think about this verse? Are the missionaries who go knocking door to door related to this?

 

[legend166]

Good morning guys!!!

Quick question, has anyone here ever heard of The Action Bible? A friend of mine recommended it to me (I plan on picking it up for my boys); it looks like an interesting take on the word and should make the content a lot more accessible to the youngsters.

Personally, I am against the 'jazzing up' of the Word of God in an attempt to make it more appealing to worldly minds, if that makes sense (not saying that is you, just in general).

I'd like to see opinions from others on this issue. Not just about the Bible, but worship services and evangelistic methods. I think the modern trend of taking things from the world and applying them to worship/theology/etc is basically saying "the message isn't enough."

It's why I know that if I walk into a church and see a drum kit and guitars set up, 90% of the time I'm not going to hear a scriptural message with Godly worship. It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with using different instruments (some people seem to think that, and it's silly), it's just that I'd think that at some stage someone in that church has had the idea that the message isn't enough to attract people, so they need to include more appealing things into the service.

As Christians, I don't think the responsibility falls on us to 'attract' people to church, or the word, necessarily. We are to preach the gospel and at the end of the day, those who have ears to hear will do so.

Thoughts?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Personally, I am against the 'jazzing up' of the Word of God in an attempt to make it more appealing to worldly minds, if that makes sense (not saying that is you, just in general).

I'd like to see opinions from others on this issue. Not just about the Bible, but worship services and evangelistic methods. I think the modern trend of taking things from the world and applying them to worship/theology/etc is basically saying "the message isn't enough."

It's why I know that if I walk into a church and see a drum kit and guitars set up, 90% of the time I'm not going to hear a scriptural message with Godly worship. It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with using different instruments (some people seem to think that, and it's silly), it's just that I'd think that at some stage someone in that church has had the idea that the message isn't enough to attract people, so they need to include more appealing things into the service.

As Christians, I don't think the responsibility falls on us to 'attract' people to church, or the word, necessarily. We are to preach the gospel and at the end of the day, those who have ears to hear will do so.

Thoughts?

Do you worship at a church of christ by chance?

 

[Aika'svyse]

I prefer when the revs just preach the word. Not really into the concert style of church, super loud drums, sometimes church feels more like people auditioning for a talent show. I think that ultimately its the word that will help people. Though I've also heard of people being reached through the music and social atmosphere. So i'm not knocking that to much.

 

[legend166]

Do you worship at a church of christ by chance?

No. I don't know what that is.

My church is classified as congregational.

 

[JGS]

There is evidence, scriptural at that, that Jesus was accepted as more than just a creature. Colossians 1:15-18 attributes the entire act of creation and creation itself to him. Although the Jehovah's Witnesses chose to add [OTHER] into their translation to show that Jesus himself was a creature, they admit that other is no where to be found in any Greek manuscripts. John 1:1 attributes the Word to being God (not a god and not THE God i.e. the father). One can debate John 8:58 and the other I AM statements but that doesn't remove the verses that attribute the acts, characteristics, and titles given to Jesus that according to the Tanakh belong to God alone.

I agree with Colossians that Jesus did indeed create everything since he is the Master Worker of his father. However, it also indicates he is the firstborn of all creation. In other words, he is created This is why he is the only begaotten- he's the only thing directly created by God and who knows how long they were togther and got to know each other. Jesus was the perfect imitator of his father. However, Colossians does not indicated a sameness as if the two were one.

The Greek translation simply didn't have a way of differentiating at all so New World simply adds an indefinte article where there was no definite or indefinite one purely for clarification. However, even if it was an incorrect translation, a bunch of other scriptures would still back up the notion that even if Jesus & God were the same, Jesus sure didn't know it to the point of schizophrenia.

Either Jesus was a man only, an angel, or he was as much God as the Father. There is simply no evidence of him being referred to as a creation or angel (Michael) but there is evidence of him being seen, viewed, and worshiped in a manner that is acceptable for God only.

I would say that Jesus was unique. I suppose he's an archangel, but clearly he was much more. As the forstborn, he held a lot of power and responsibility and was the one God trusted the most to carry out his wishes. After all, God could make any angel materialize as a perfect man, but he wanted it done right. Although the possibility was there, Jesus and God were so close there was no way Jesus would sin.

The reason he is viewed differently is because he is the only one who was given kingly authority in heaven by God- replacing earthly kings and trying to get us up to snuff so that we would no longer need him. That's a big job, so I don't mean to diminsh his role since he is clearly & willingly the number two person who has the ability to take care of Satan by himself (God & Satan are not equals by a long shot).

Therefore reverence is owed to him, but it still is as someone who is just Mighty and not Almighty.

Again, I am not saying that he was or is more than a man since again, that is impossible to prove. What I am saying is that to deny that the NT includes scriptural evidence to support his divinity is simply ignoring the evidence itself.

There is scriptural evidence primarily when taken out of context. Otherwise the scriptures are pretty straightforward in describing Jesus in the relationship of a beloved son and his father. Further the prophecies pointing to Jesus don't mention the idea that God was going to be the one taking the form of man.

When I decided to read the Scripture all the way through, I personally never got the impression that the trinity teaching was in existence in Christianity or Judaism. It's usually was only after someone tried explaining it to me.

We do agree again though in saying that Jesus is a wholly unique person from any other creation.

 

[teruterubozu]

Personally, I am against the 'jazzing up' of the Word of God in an attempt to make it more appealing to worldly minds, if that makes sense (not saying that is you, just in general).

I'd like to see opinions from others on this issue. Not just about the Bible, but worship services and evangelistic methods. I think the modern trend of taking things from the world and applying them to worship/theology/etc is basically saying "the message isn't enough."

It's why I know that if I walk into a church and see a drum kit and guitars set up, 90% of the time I'm not going to hear a scriptural message with Godly worship. It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with using different instruments (some people seem to think that, and it's silly), it's just that I'd think that at some stage someone in that church has had the idea that the message isn't enough to attract people, so they need to include more appealing things into the service.

As Christians, I don't think the responsibility falls on us to 'attract' people to church, or the word, necessarily. We are to preach the gospel and at the end of the day, those who have ears to hear will do so.

Thoughts?

Worship and services have been evolving for centuries. I'm sure someone at sometime balked at an organ.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Can somehow help me find a certain passage from the Bible?

It's something along the lines of "When the son of man comes he will not be knocking on the doors of churches or temples but on the doors of common people."

I can't seem to find which gospel, chapter, or verse it's from. I'm just curious about this passage and what it means. Does it mean that the son of man (or was it Jesus?) will come find the people who have the truth of God in their homes?

What do other people think about this verse? Are the missionaries who go knocking door to door related to this?

It's not in the traditional Protestant canon, at least. Perhaps it's in a non-canonical book.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Personally, I am against the 'jazzing up' of the Word of God in an attempt to make it more appealing to worldly minds, if that makes sense (not saying that is you, just in general).

I'd like to see opinions from others on this issue. Not just about the Bible, but worship services and evangelistic methods. I think the modern trend of taking things from the world and applying them to worship/theology/etc is basically saying "the message isn't enough."

It's why I know that if I walk into a church and see a drum kit and guitars set up, 90% of the time I'm not going to hear a scriptural message with Godly worship. It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with using different instruments (some people seem to think that, and it's silly), it's just that I'd think that at some stage someone in that church has had the idea that the message isn't enough to attract people, so they need to include more appealing things into the service.

As Christians, I don't think the responsibility falls on us to 'attract' people to church, or the word, necessarily. We are to preach the gospel and at the end of the day, those who have ears to hear will do so.

Thoughts?

I believe that as long as the message is not compromised then there is a great deal of liberty in form.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I agree with Colossians that Jesus did indeed create everything since he is the Master Worker of his father. However, it also indicates he is the firstborn of all creation. In other words, he is created This is why he is the only begaotten- he's the only thing directly created by God and who knows how long they were togther and got to know each other. Jesus was the perfect imitator of his father. However, Colossians does not indicated a sameness as if the two were one.

The Greek translation simply didn't have a way of differentiating at all so New World simply adds an indefinte article where there was no definite or indefinite one purely for clarification. However, even if it was an incorrect translation, a bunch of other scriptures would still back up the notion that even if Jesus & God were the same, Jesus sure didn't know it to the point of schizophrenia.

You're incorrect. Firstborn doesn't mean first created. The greek word used here is prototokos which is used for preeminence. I.E. Isaac is referred to as the firstborn of Abraham even though Ishmael was. Jacob is referred to as the firstborn even though Esau was. There is a greek word for firstborn as in first created and prototokos isn't it.

πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. If “image” (εἰκώ&#957 emphasizes Christ’s relation to God, then the second title, “firstborn of all creation” (on the omission of the article before “creation” see Robertson, Grammar, 772, and BDF para. 275[3]) designates his relationship to the creation. Stripped from its context and from other Pauline statements about Christ this phrase might be understood to include him among created things (as simply the “eldest” of the “family”: at Rom 8:29 πρωτότοκος appears to be used in this inclusive sense).
But the context makes it plain that the title cannot refer to him as the first of all created beings since the immediately following words, which provide a commentary on the title (ὅτ&#953, emphasize the point that he is the one by whom the whole creation came into being. Further, apart from the incompatibility of this thought with the teaching of Paul in general about the person and work of Christ, such an understanding is not required by the word πρωτότοκος (“firstborn”) itself.
The term “firstborn” was frequently used in the LXX (130 times), mostly in genealogies and historical narratives, to indicate temporal priority and sovereignty of rank. Frequently “firstborn” was employed to denote one who had a special place in the father’s love. So Israel is called “my beloved son” (υἰὸς πρωτότοκός μου, Exod 4:22), a phrase that expresses the particularly close relation between God and Israel. In Judaism the messianic king, as well as Israel, the patriarchs and the Torah are given this title of distinction (for references see Str-B 3, 256–58, 626; Michaelis, TDNT 6, 873–76).


O'Brien, P. T. (2002). Vol. 44: Word Biblical Commentary : Colossians-Philemon. Word Biblical Commentary (44). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

I would say that Jesus was unique. I suppose he's an archangel, but clearly he was much more. As the forstborn, he held a lot of power and responsibility and was the one God trusted the most to carry out his wishes. After all, God could make any angel materialize as a perfect man, but he wanted it done right. Although the possibility was there, Jesus and God were so close there was no way Jesus would sin.

The reason he is viewed differently is because he is the only one who was given kingly authority in heaven by God- replacing earthly kings and trying to get us up to snuff so that we would no longer need him. That's a big job, so I don't mean to diminsh his role since he is clearly & willingly the number two person who has the ability to take care of Satan by himself (God & Satan are not equals by a long shot).

Therefore reverence is owed to him, but it still is as someone who is just Mighty and not Almighty.

Please show me where Jesus is called an archangel. And before we go on I'd like to know you're a Jehovah's Witness.

 

[Chaplain]

Can somehow help me find a certain passage from the Bible?

It's something along the lines of "When the son of man comes he will not be knocking on the doors of churches or temples but on the doors of common people."

I can't seem to find which gospel, chapter, or verse it's from. I'm just curious about this passage and what it means. Does it mean that the son of man (or was it Jesus?) will come find the people who have the truth of God in their homes?

These are the only scriptures that pertain to those verses:

Matthew 24:26-28

“So if someone tells you, ‘Look, the Messiah is out in the desert,’ don’t bother to go and look. Or, ‘Look, he is hiding here,’ don’t believe it! For as the lightning flashes in the east and shines to the west, so it will be when the Son of Man comes. Just as the gathering of vultures shows there is a carcass nearby, so these signs indicate that the end is near."

Matthew 24:38-40

"In those days before the flood, the people were enjoying banquets and parties and weddings right up to the time Noah entered his boat. People didn’t realize what was going to happen until the flood came and swept them all away. That is the way it will be when the Son of Man comes. “Two men will be working together in the field; one will be taken, the other left."

Matthew 25:31-32

“But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered in his presence, and he will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats."

Luke 17:23-25

"People will tell you, ‘Look, there is the Son of Man,’ or ‘Here he is,’ but don’t go out and follow them. For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other, so it will be on the day when the Son of Man comes. But first the Son of Man must suffer terribly and be rejected by this generation."

 

[Chaplain]

However, it also indicates he is the firstborn of all creation.

So were Jacob and Ephraim:

Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults will use this verse to erroneously say that, because Jesus was the firstborn, He was created, and therefore not eternal. But it is important to note that the Greek word, ‘prototokos’, translated ‘firstborn’ here isn’t referring to First ‘in chronology, but first in priority.. it is used this way in other places God refers to Jacob and Ephraim as firstborn (Exodus 4:22, Jeremiah 31:9), even though both had older brothers, the Nation of Israel was called by God His first born receiving that status over nations that were far older. So this has very little to do with chronology and everything to do with distinction, and honor.

What do you think if this verse?

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are their ancestors, and Christ himself was an Israelite as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God, the one who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

So were Jacob and Ephraim:

Yep.

 

[Chaplain]

Yep.

I would like to add that Jude, Peter and John said people would later come on the scene and say Jesus was not God in the Flesh. They give harsh rebukes to these people in their writings.

 

[WillyFive]

I believe that as long as the message is not compromised then there is a great deal of liberty in form.

Yeah, but the message can be compromised extremely easily.

It's like saying "as long as you don't break this glass vase, you can have a great deal of liberty in how you juggle it."

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

During the middle ages it was believed that lapis philosophorum, the philosopher's stone was the body of christ capable of granting immortality. More recently it has been shown that lapis lazuli, is the celestial body able to grant immortality. Information is the blood of god, a god made up of information, through synthetic biology and regenerative cells it can confer immortality to man.

 

[unifin]

This thread makes me happy - keep up the good discussion, gents!

 

[RustyNails]

I have a question: What does Christian GAF think of God answering the prayers of non-Christians?

 

[JGS]

I have a question: What does Christian GAF think of God answering the prayers of non-Christians?

I think he does this but only in relation to helping them become worshippers.

I should say that I don't think God is doing personal miraculous prayers on individuals today (No prayer for the lottery whether Christian or not), but Holy Spirit is clearly the tool that he's always used to assist people and he can assist whoever he chooses, but there's no point in doing so to someone who doesn't have or want faith in him.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

In The Official Religion thread, we had a good debate on Genesis (specifically whether the creation story was literal or part literal) and the question of metaphors. It begged the question, how do you know whether X, Y, Z is a metaphor or literal, because i've met some who are selective about it. I spoke to two priests about this and they give me conflicting messages.

The discussion on GAF was about a page or two. From my first post here

 

[JGS]

So were Jacob and Ephraim:



What do you think if this verse?

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are their ancestors, and Christ himself was an Israelite as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God, the one who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

I'm not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but the quote doesn't refute what they say at all. Jesus is a priority and certainly top priority but it's all in relation to God being the Almighty.

It's not unusual at all for Jesus to be called God but Romans 9:5 is another instance of grammar. Romans 9:5 is clearly discussing Jesus earthly lineage and would basically being saying that God had ancestors.

Romans 15:6 makes that difference clearer, but the one I like the most is Philippians 2:5,6 which makes it pretty clear that, even if Jesus is a part of the trinity, he again either didn't know it or didn't like the idea of being equal to him (Although KJ butchers that verse)

 

[Fernando Rocker]

What do you guys think abut the The Book of Proverbs?

I started reading the book this weekend, and let me tell you... I felt inspired. How do I explain? I feel renewed, happy after reading the book.

 

[JGS]

In The Official Religion thread, we had a good debate on Genesis (specifically whether the creation story was literal or part literal) and the question of metaphors. It begged the question, how do you know whether X, Y, Z is a metaphor or literal, because i've met some who are selective about it. I spoke to two priests about this and they give me conflicting messages.

The discussion on GAF was about a page or two. From my first post here

The genesis account was a nightmare for me in the Religion thread although I'm pretty easily at peace with it myself. I'm going to avoid the debate that hapened in there and just state my belief.

It is my belief that the creation account is not an allegory at all. However, I also don't believe there is a reason to interpret it as a timeframe that humans get, but is instead based on God's timeframe and each day decribes a beginning and an end to a creative period. I believe this for a bunch of reasons:

1. God's timetable is mentioned many times (Including in Genesis) as being different than mankind's. However, just because God's timetable is different doesn't mean that human's of the time were supposed to comprehend it beyond what they grasped - details into creation timeframes was not something they grasped or cared about.
2. Science disproves a literal translation of 24 hour periods and there is no reason for God to age the universe, fossils, etc... Science doesn't disprove creation in the slightest though.
3. Nowehere in the Scriptures does it indicate that the creation account is an allegory. All worshippers viewed it as true with Jesus being claimed as being a part of it & Jesus never doubting it.
EDIT: I forgot one
4. We are apparently still within God's day of rest. I'll try to find the verse that backs that up.

The creation account is a tough one to tackle since you can have opinons vary and no one knows for sure since it's largely irrelevant. The gist of it is God created the heavens and the earth, but it garners a lot of the debate since it is probably, more than anything else, open to interpretation even if the idea of creator is not imo...which is why my actual debating days of it are over.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I do believe that the controversy that arose out of the Garden of Eden is accurate and not open to interpretation at all as that's the whole issue in the Bible.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I have a question: What does Christian GAF think of God answering the prayers of non-Christians?

I would say that I am not God and will not pretend to know who he chooses to answer.

 

[Adam Prime]

I have a question: What does Christian GAF think of God answering the prayers of non-Christians?

Hmm, I would think depends on the prayers. Obviously God does listen to the prayers of non-Christians... since it's because you said a prayer in the first place to become a Christian!

 

[Laurentius]

Mormons are one of the few religions that believe that Job actually happened (along with some other "everything in the bible is literal!" groups)

It was one of the many straws upon the camel's back in my time with christianity. I couldn't believe in a God that would do that.

Hm? I'm Mormon and I'm aware of no church stance that Job is literal. And definitely no church doctrine that everything in the Bible must be taken literally.

There may be individual opinions regarding the matter, but I've never been under the impression that all of us take Job literally.

 

[Mael]

Except according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the US gives more than any other country in the world and easily doubles that of 2nd place France.

But that figure in in absolute $ and does not include private donations.

The United States has the quickest repsonding, most effective humanitarian organization in the world. However, that's is the organization tertiary purpose, its primary purpose being, killing.

Well considering how much richer the US is and how much more people there are....I wouldn't have guessed that btw...

 

[LosDaddie]

Checking in!

I like Christ, just not a lot of Christians. His message for us is awesome, but too many people have distorted it for their own personal gain. Most of the Christians I know believe in Supply Side Jesus.

The wife & I attend weekly service and try to volunteer when we can. Having a career, a 2yr old daughter, and a house to take care of just eats up all of our free time. I read the Bible in spurts....sometimes I'll read it daily during my lunchbreak (at work), other times I only touch it when in church.

 

[Shanadeus]

Why did God create Satan?

 

[WillyFive]

Why did God create Satan?

God created an angel. That angel ended up not liking God. Therefore Satan.

Why did Robert Lee create Lee Harvey Oswald?

 

[Lucky Forward]

Can somehow help me find a certain passage from the Bible?

It's something along the lines of "When the son of man comes he will not be knocking on the doors of churches or temples but on the doors of common people."

I can't seem to find which gospel, chapter, or verse it's from. I'm just curious about this passage and what it means. Does it mean that the son of man (or was it Jesus?) will come find the people who have the truth of God in their homes?

What do other people think about this verse? Are the missionaries who go knocking door to door related to this?

Perhaps you're thinking of Revelation 3:20

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

 

[Shanadeus]

God created an angel. That angel ended up not liking God. Therefore Satan.

Why did Robert Lee create Lee Harvey Oswald?

That angel had no choice but to become satan. Therefore God created Satan.

 

[WillyFive]

That angel had no choice but to become satan. Therefore God created Satan.

Why?

 

[Meus Renaissance]

God created an angel. That angel ended up not liking God. Therefore Satan.

Why did Robert Lee create Lee Harvey Oswald?

Another way to look at it is that whilst it it is true God created that angel, he is also omniscient and therefore knew the angel would 'fall' and become Lucifer. Then again if God is omniscient, he will also know the fate of all his creations and whether we end up in hell or heaven, so what is the point of creation? What is the meaning of life GAF?

 

[Beowulf28]

God created an angel. That angel ended up not liking God. Therefore Satan.

Why did Robert Lee create Lee Harvey Oswald?

Isn't God all knowing so wouldn't he have known Lucifer would fall before he made him?

EDIT: Beaten ^

 

[Meier]

I grew up going to Christian and Missionary Alliance ("Alliance") churches and then my parents decided we'd go to a Presbyterian church. I haven't been in years admittedly (Christmas 2+ years ago was the most recent time I think) but I still lean on the Big Guy. Personally, I think it's sad that so many don't have someone to put faith in regardless of which religion they belong to. Lacking it seems like a tough way to go through life.

 

[Laurentius]

Isn't God all knowing so wouldn't he have known Lucifer would fall before he made him?

EDIT: Beaten ^

This can get into a very deep discussion of free will in general. I don't have time to go too deep into it, but here's a few things to think about:

Since God created all of us, and he is omniscient, does that mean he's responsible for all of OUR sins? Why couldn't God have created us in a way that we wouldn't sin?

I believe the answer to that question is no. I can get into that more later, when I have some time.

 

[sajj316]

Checking in!

I like Christ, just not a lot of Christians. His message for us is awesome, but too many people have distorted it for their own personal gain. Most of the Christians I know believe in Supply Side Jesus.

The wife & I attend weekly service and try to volunteer when we can. Having a career, a 2yr old daughter, and a house to take care of just eats up all of our free time. I read the Bible in spurts....sometimes I'll read it daily during my lunchbreak (at work), other times I only touch it when in church.

You are just like me friend but with 2 daughters. Although I do wish I read a bit more of the good book. Nice to know there are others in my same situation.

 

[JGS]

Another way to look at it is that whilst it it is true God created that angel, he is also omniscient and therefore knew the angel would 'fall' and become Lucifer. Then again if God is omniscient, he will also know the fate of all his creations and whether we end up in hell or heaven, so what is the point of creation? What is the meaning of life GAF?

I've gotten into discussion about omniscience before, but my opinion is that just because God can know everything, that doesn't mean it's a requirement of his. Further him knowing it does not mean he intends to intervene, meaning that his subjects have free will whether he knows what they are going to do or not. So the angel that became Satan willfully chose to do so.

It's very similar to Jesus picking Judas. Now it was prophesied (I better add I think) that someone would betray him, but after much prayer and thought he still picked Judas because he didn't know at the time that Judas was the one to betray him. The assumption could be they were actually close friends since he was close to all of his apostles.

Scripture is pretty clear that in most instances, God fully expects people to make their own choices even if he knows what that choice is- although personally I don't think he actively does this except in terms of confidence such as his confidence that Jesus would redeem mankind.

God knew that the potential to reject him was there. The fact that standards are set to begin with would mean that there's a possibility to break them. However, there's nothing I can see that God actually wants to direct or know the direction his creation is going except in terms of his overall purpose which is tied to his sovreignty or right to rule.

All of that is basically me saying that if omniscience does indeed require him to know all things at all times, then God is not omniscient at all because he does not wish to know the decisions of his worshippers (or anyone for that matter) until they make them.

 

[SmokyDave]

Since God created all of us, and he is omniscient, does that mean he's responsible for all of OUR sins?

I wonder this too.

Also, given that he sent someone to earth to die for all of our sins, doesn't that mean that we ought to sin so the sacrifice was worth it? Otherwise the guy died for nothing. On that note, I don't understand repentance either. Why should I pay for the meal if Jesus settled the bill before he left the restaurant?

 

[Major Williams]

I wonder this too.

Also, given that he sent someone to earth to die for all of our sins, doesn't that mean that we ought to sin so the sacrifice was worth it? Otherwise the guy died for nothing. On that note, I don't understand repentance either. Why should I pay for the meal if Jesus settled the bill before he left the restaurant?

The only way your meal is being paid for is if you thank him for every piece you got. Your appreciation (love and relationship) is what matters most here.

If you're sitting there expecting piece after piece of chicken without even looking at the guy paying your bill, that's a bit rude, especially considering that's the WHOLE reason he invited you in the first place.