Image via WikipediaI've been waiting for the final part of Mariano's essay regarding Sam Harris' book the "The Moral Landscape". Follow the link to read it.
Sam Harris “The Moral Landscape” aka “The End of Morality”, part 2 of 2 | True Freethinker
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Sam Harris “The Moral Landscape” aka “The End of Morality”, part 2 of 2 | True Freethinker
Image via WikipediaI've been waiting for the final part of Mariano's essay regarding Sam Harris' book the "The Moral Landscape". Follow the link to read it.
Sam Harris “The Moral Landscape” aka “The End of Morality”, part 2 of 2 | True Freethinker
Answering Atheism - audio, page 2 of 3 | True Freethinker
Answering Atheism - audio, page 2 of 3 | True Freethinker
Thursday, October 7, 2010
FacePalm Quote of the Day #11: Debunking Christianity: God Cannot Exist if Yahweh Didn't.
Almost everyday John Lofuts writes something so silly that he provides no end of material for posts like this one. Thank you, Mr. Loftus. Look at one of his latest posts to see what I mean. Yahweh did not exist. He is much too tribal of a god, created the world in conflict with the sea God Rahab, married to Asherah, accepted child sacrifice, commanded genocide, forbid worship of all other gods (didn't deny their existence), and chose Israel like the others gods did to other nations.Why is this a failed argument? Simple. What does it mean to be "too much of a tribal god"? Yahweh was the one who promised Abraham that through him all nations would be blessed. How does that mean that Yahweh is only concerned with Jews? Look at the promise God made to Abraham.
1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
2 "I will make you into a great nationWhat about sending Jonah to Nineveh so that the city would be warned to repent and when the people of the city humbled themselves and repented, they were not destroyed. Get a clue...the people of Nineveh were not Jews. Child sacrifice was completely condemned and was never accepted by Yahweh. If John Loftus has Jephthah in mind as evidence that the God of Bible accepted child sacrifice I sure would like him to point out where Jephthah was commanded to sacrifice his daughter (she was a young adult of marrying age too not a child) or where he was commended for it. He made vow that no one asked him for and he was bound to his word. Not God's fault. If Loftus has Isaac's near sacrifice in mind we must remember that Abraham was not required to go through with it and again we don't know how old Isaac was at the time. Some Jews teach that Isaac was adult who allowed his father to strap him to that altar - It was meant to foreshadow what Jesus would ultimately do for us.
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you." - Genesis 12:1-3
Also where does it say in the Bible that the world was created through conflict? Most creation myths say that...the Bible doesn't. No where in the Bible does it say God has or ever has had a wife.
The commandment was to have no other gods ahead of Yahweh. Anything can be placed too high in your life to be worshiped instead of Yahweh.It doesn't have to be an idol made of stone, wood, or gold or even some supernatural being. It could be yourself putting your desires above God's purpose for your life. Of course it doesn't deny the existence of other gods because it leaves room to cover anything and everything.
I'd also argue that Yahweh did not choose Israel like other gods chose their nations. The story of God choosing Israel does not start in Exodus. It starts when Adam was created and all the way through choosing Abraham. He picked one man...brought him out of his culture and trappings and made a nation that continues to exist today out of him! Who else is like that? I know what Loftus and others are suggesting: That people write stories about gods sponsoring their nations because they are special in some way. The problem with that logic is that Israel does not fit that model. In the Old Testament, God says why He chose Israel for himself out of all the other nations on earth.
33 Has any other people heard the voice of God speaking out of fire, as you have, and lived? 34 Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by testings, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes?Do you really think a man would write that kind of humbling and scaring thing about why they were chosen by the most powerful and awesome God ever?! I don't think so.
35 You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other. 36 From heaven he made you hear his voice to discipline you. On earth he showed you his great fire, and you heard his words from out of the fire. - Deuteronomy 4:33-36
6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.
7 The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. 8 But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands. Deuteronomy 7:6-9
Lastly, the sentence "Yahweh does not exist" is a contradiction . The Tetragrammaton, YHWH (Yahweh), literally means "He is". The name literal means there has never been nor will there ever be a time when Yahweh does not exist! So in effect Lofus wrote: "HE is does not not exist." Truly a completely nonsensical statement.. just like the rest of the argument.
Debunking Christianity: God Cannot Exist if Yahweh Didn't.
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument «
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument «
Marvel and DC Roll Back Comics Prices From $3.99 to $2.99! - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
One thing I have certainly noticed since I first started collecting comic books in the 1980's is that the price of Comics books have certainly increased. Therefore I'm greatly pleased to see the cost of comics come down by a $1.Marvel and DC Roll Back Comics Prices From $3.99 to $2.99! - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The Army Of The Future Could Look A Lot Like Iron Man - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
The Army Of The Future Could Look A Lot Like Iron Man - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Answering Atheism - audio, page 1 of 3 | True Freethinker
Here is a great summary of audios about answering Atheism that Mariano has compiled and put on his blog. Check it out. Some of them I have listened to and some I have not.Answering Atheism - audio, page 1 of 3 | True Freethinkerhttp://www.blogger.com/blog_this.pyra?t=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truefreethinker.com%2Farticles%2Fanswering-atheism-audio-page-1-3-4&n=Answering+Atheism+-+audio%2C+page+1+of+3+%7C+True+Freethinker
Smallville and Friedrich Nietzsche — Superman and the Ubermensch | True Freethinker
Image by xploitme via FlickrI enjoyed this post by Mariano so much I had to link to it. I do understand exactly what he means because I saw the latest episode of Smallville and Nietzsche's philosophy was brought up and endorsed.
Mariano wrote:
In the most recent episode Carter Hall aka Hawkman refers to Friedrich Nietzsche, “To him, the true hero was the person who embraced the life that he or she was given and made it better. He called that person ‘ubermensch” to which Lois Lane states, “A Superman.” Yet, along with the concept it is stated that, in essence, we can all be an ubermensch.I like science fiction and fantasy because you can explore themes and ideas that can't be reasonably done in other genres. This is a good example. I think we should be careful in embracing Nietzche's ideas because while he did have some good ones that can be spun positively as it has on Smallville, his philosophy was also an inspiration for the Nazis. Also I don't think Nietzsche thought all people could be ubermensch - only the elite. And when you look at how Nietzsche's ubermensch is described by Nietzche himself do you really wanna be that kind of person? Mariano wrote:
I do not know if they realize that whist to the unlearned in this area this sounds very nice—I can be Superman, after all—to Friedrich Nietzsche the ubermensch were merciless and uncompassionate iron fisted survival of the fittest domineers. Keep in mind that uber is translatable as "super," "above," "over," etc.I most definitely don't want to be that kind of person if that is what an ubermensch is supposed to be.
Smallville and Friedrich Nietzsche — Superman and the Ubermensch | True Freethinker
Free audio book: John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book One” | True Freethinker
Free audio book: John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book One” | True Freethinker
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: My Study Bible
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: My Study Bible
FacePalm of the Day Quote #10 - Debunking Christianity: The Irrational Christian: The John Loftus Trinity Argument
Some things are hard to explain in a video, but Rhetorical Bullshit gives it a try:
Truly an epic fail. But I am gratified that the comments on the post are lively and informative. There is so much wrong with the analysis of the Trinity given in the video. But let's just discuss the first key point. Neither Loftus nor the video author understands what the Trinity is - so of course it doesn't make sense. It is also not what I believe.
One of the comments made by john I summed up my main problem with the video:
the continual use of terms like "3 people but 1 person" and "3 beings but 1 being" shows this guy does not understand the trinity as defined by theists. if this is a remake of Loftus' argument, and Loftus uses the same language, Loftus doesnt get it either.I agree with him. The problem is that they wrongly equate "person" with "being". They are not the same thing and can't be used interchangeably. Being is "what" and person is "who"? There is one "what" and three "whos". God is one being! The Trinity is the doctrine that three persons make up the one being. Three people cannot equal one person and three beings cannot equal one being. That is truly illogical, but that is not what Christians are saying.
its hard to criticize something you don't understand. however if either does actually understand it, but explains it like this on purpose, then both are just attacking a strawman, and purposefully misrepresenting the trinity in an effort to make Christians appear illogical.
philosophers a great deal smarter than these two, even atheists, recognize the trinity as properly defined, is not illogical.
I did see the point that many Christians do explain the Trinity, and even outright reject it, the way it's explained here, but it just means that they don't understand who and what God is. All I can do personally is just follow what I understand from Scripture. Understanding the Trinity does not save you. Neither does misunderstanding the Trinity damns you. Romans 10:9-10 tells you all you need to be saved and it does not include a correct understanding of the Trinity. Good thing because I don't think anyone fully understands it...but that doesn't make it untrue.
I have to give this one my FacePalm of the day because the argument has been knocked down for 2000 years. Please get something else.
Debunking Christianity: The Irrational Christian: The John Loftus Trinity Argument
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Mormonism and multiple godheads
THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Mormonism and multiple godheads
Another atheist against my article on atheism | True Freethinker
How on earth can I, or any other thinking adult, accept a dismissal of Epicurus' lethal refutation of the existence of god on the grounds that, well, god really wants to eliminate evil, and he can do it, but he will do it in his own time?
Why can't people come up with something that hasn't been answered or refuted? Read Mariano's answer at the following link:
Another atheist against my article on atheism | True Freethinker
Christopher Hitchens Elucidates the Atonement | True Freethinker
Image via WikipediaMariano has done it again. I really enjoyed this essay. In it Mariano makes an important argument about ethics:
Now, he [Christopher Hitchens] considers that “human solidarity” is “in our genes” and “inscribed” because “we wouldn't have gotten this far if we didn't have these qualities.” In other words, this is another it just is of the gaps: it must be because if it were not we would not be here to discuss it. Moreover, it is so because of Darwinian self preservation and reproduction.I totally agree.
What Christopher Hitchens has hit upon is an affirmation of the Bible’s statements about ethics, some of which are:
“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts” (Jeremiah 31:33, reiterated in Hebrews 10:16).
“the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing” (Romans 2:15).
Thus, “human solidarity” is “in our genes” and “inscribed” but not because of animalistic concerns of self preservation and reproduction but due to humans being an expression of God’s image; God who is relational and loving in nature.
Christopher Hitchens Elucidates the Atonement | True Freethinker
FacePalm Quote of the Day #9 - Debunking Christianity: Bill O'Reilly vs. Bill Maher On Religion - 09/30/10
John Loftus have posted this clip from the Bill O'Reilly show where O'Reilly interviews Bill Maher on Religion. Both of them deserve facepalm because of their arguments. IT was like watching a train wreck. I have to give Maher some credit, he understands the Bible better than O'Reilly does although Bill O'Reilly claims to be a Christian. Of course Maher gives with one hand but takes with two. Maher attempted to argue that the Bible was immoral because of the law to kill someone for not resting on Sunday. Although Maher got the day wrong - the Bible says "Sabbath" not Sunday - at least he knew about the law and O'Reilly didn't. It quickly degenerated into a shouting match and to be honest O'Reilly only managed to prove he didn't know what he was talking about. It was an excellent example of Biblical illiteracy - on both sides! I'm afraid that Glen Beck seems to know more about what the Bible actually says than either of these guys. I want to see Bill Maher actually go up against a scholar who knows how to defend Christianity and give answers to the questions Maher asks. One thing that makes Maher successful is that he asks the questions that everyone, who gives any thought to religion, asks but he spins it to make it seem like that there are no answers and only morons believe what the Bible says. Maher seems to find people to talk to who couldn't possibly answer his questions. His movie "Religulous" is all about him tripping up people who have not really given any thought to what they believe and why and may have never been challenged on it. If Bill O'Relly is a Christian and really wants to further the work of Christ he should do one of two things:1. Educate himself so he can truly dialogue on such matters;
2. Stand down on religious matters - he is embarrassing himself and the rest of us.
I'm hoping he takes the first option.
The most embarrassing thing about the segment was at the end, O'Reilly tried to make it seem like Bill was completely wrong about killing your neighbors for desecrating Sundays when he did not know anymore but less than what Maher knew about it. To make it worse, he even gave the wrong answer to the objection!!! A complete facepalm.
Debunking Christianity: Bill O'Reilly vs. Bill Maher On Religion - 09/30/10
Biblos.com: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages
Biblos.com is a one-stop shop for Bible study online. It offers tons to tools plus the Bible in many different languages including Greek and Hebrew that you can read and peruse online!
Biblos.com: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages
Biblos.com: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages
Greek Bible
I found a great website for searching the Greek New Testament. You can actually see what the original text looks like online this day. One way to use it is to see how Greek words are spelled and then it's even easier to look up the word in a lexicon if you can't use one of the numbering systems.
Greek Bible
Greek Bible
Iron Sharpens Iron: Fred G. Zaspel: The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary
Iron Sharpens Iron: Fred G. Zaspel: The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary
FacePAlm Quote of the Day #8: Debunking Christianity: Praise God for the Candiru Parasite! Isn't God Good?
When did God create the Candiru parasite? And why didn't he tell us how to avoid it? Seems to me a good God who cared for us would at least tell us, don't you?
To read up on other parasites get the book Parasite Rex. Read it Christian and let it strengthen your faith! Funny thing is that in our ecosystem we need them. But with a God who could perform perpetual miracles we don't need them at all! Which alternative seems most likely?
Oh, and no using the Omniscience Escape Clause.
12 Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. 13 As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. 14 For the LORD your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you. - Deuteronomy 23:12-14Now tell me: if we followed this would we have to worry about a parasite swimming into our ureatha? No.
Is God good? YES! God is good and all the time God is good!
Debunking Christianity: Praise God for the Candiru Parasite! Isn't God Good?
Monday, October 4, 2010
Sam Harris “The Moral Landscape” aka “The End of Morality”, part 1 of 2 | True Freethinker
Sam Harris “The Moral Landscape” aka “The End of Morality”, part 1 of 2 | True Freethinker
Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: John Frame
Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: John Frame
Free audio book: Saint Augustine of Hippo, “Confessions” | True Freethinker
Confessions (Latin: Confessiones) is the name of an autobiographical work, consisting of 13 books, by St. Augustine of Hippo, written between AD 397 and AD 398. Modern English translations of it are sometimes published under the title The Confessions of St. Augustine in order to distinguish the book from other books with similar titles, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Confessions. (Summary by Wikipedia)I'm looking forward to wading through this material. It was Augustine who prayed when he was young, "Lord, grant me chastity....but not yet."
Free audio book: Saint Augustine of Hippo, “Confessions” | True Freethinker
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Debunking Christianity: Harry McCall on God, Yahweh and Elohim
So, in Genesis 1:1, did an assembly of male gods create the heavens and the earth or did one god create? (If you want to play the Trinity card, then I’ll let your explain the other names of אל + prefixes in the MT text.)What I want to focus on is the point about how the Tetragrammaton (יהוה or YHWH) does not occur in the entire New Testament. McCall is wrong. It does. Recall that the New Testament was written in Greek not Hebrew. Therefore what you want to know is what does the name look like when it is translated into Greek. A great Old Testament text to use to study this point is Exodus 3:14. יהוה is the name by which Moses was to identify God with to the Israelites. It is often pronounced "Yahweh" although we don't know how its really supposed to be announced (but that is another story I don't have time for now). Let's look at Exodus 3:14 in English, Hebrews, and Greek (as it appears in the Septuagint). Please note that Hebrew is read right to left not left to right.
Can you show me why the divine name יהוה does not occur in the entire New Testament? Could it just be that “son of god” fit the Hellenic context of the Greek would while יהוה would have been an abhorrent pagan name for them, especially after the Jews were expelled from Rome in 46 CE?
Secondly, my view is in line with that of Edward Gibbons The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Weather or nor Gibbons was anti-Christian, his views of the end of the Roman Empire agrees with mine.
Another insider's look at how Christianity really worked in the late Empire is discussed in G.W. Bowersock’s award winning book: Julian the Apostate.
Julian, the grandson of Constantine, gives a horrific story about members of his own Christian family were murders and why he remained a non-Christian ("pagan", a derogatory term
English
God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
Hebrew
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־ מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃
Greek
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶςThe Tetragrammaton comes over to English as "I AM". In Greek it is ἐγώ εἰμι. So now ask yourself..."Does this name appear anywhere in the New Testament? Further who is this name applied to in the New Testament?" Of course ἐγώ εἰμι appears in the New Testament and Jesus applies the divine name to himself that is why the Jews wanted to stone Him. The best indisputable place to see this in John 8:58
English
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
Greek
εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.
Let me be clear: Jesus applied the same Name - "Yahweh" ("ἐγὼ εἰμί") to himself that God used when God spoke to Moses on Mt Sinai!
Debunking Christianity: Harry McCall on God, Yahweh and Elohim
Face Palm Quote of the Day #7 - from thegrandverbalizer
Well McElhanehy hopefully after you post your refutation of the Jewish understanding of Genesis 18 on the messiahtruth forum you will keep me updated on how the exchanges is going.
I don't feel a need to write comments on the forum you provided. I'm amazed that you seem naive enough to think all Jews understand Genesis 18 the way this link explains it. They don't. Michael Brown doesn't see it that way. Neither does Mariano Grinbank. I consider a Mariano a friend of mine he has written many great articles regarding Jewish vs Christian exegesis of Torah and Tanak. I suggest you look to his work as well as continue reading and listening to Michael Brown.
One thing that is hard for me to take you seriously McElhaney is that I do believe that you do have a good heart no doubt, but I see you more of a cheerleader and a yes man than someone who actually does the leg work.
ge, geo = earth where we get the word geodesic or geometry
and sus suis swine; hog, pig sow:
So running around and screaming out the name 'Earth Pig' is just not going to cut it folks!
Don't you have a little more respect for someone you claim to worship as God? If you claim that this person has a name above every name surely it would be a name with dignity and respect?
Is that really good scholarship? What orifice did you pull that argument out of? "Jesus" is the English transliteration of a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic name "Yeshua". It doesn't take Google to see serious flaws in your argument. "Jesus" has nothing to do with "Earth" or "pig". Come' on. If this enough wasn't worthy of a "FacePalm there is a lot more.
" I also know that it was in medieval times that Jews began interpreting Genesis 18 differently than Christians do"
Could you give me some references prior to medieval times that show Orthdox Jews interpreting Genesis 18 in the same way that Christians do?
See this is where I think serious research stops with you and you simply google up or look for whom ever it is that agrees with your presupposition.
I have also read over your article.
Let's just start with this piece shall we?
"Bad example. The situation is more like the Bible defines a circle. And the grandverbalizer is disagreeing with the definition because he disagrees with the concept based ON THE IDEA THAT THE QUR'AN GIVES A DIFFERENT DEFINITION and that you don't agree with the definition."
McElhaney could you show me where I say the Qur'an gives a different definition of the Trinity? In fact could you show me any any place where I say the Qur'an definites the Trinity?
Thegreatverbalizer did not say that the Qur'an defines the Trinity. Dr. James White's argument in his debate against Abdullah Al Andalusi was that the Qur'an misdefines it and thereby refutes a strong man. I was saying that thegreatverbalizer disagreed with the orthodox definition of the Trinity given by Dr. White and if I understand why it was because the Qur'an disagrees with the definition of who and what God is. My point is that the Qur'an doesn't seem to know what the Trinity is. I agree with Dr, James White.
McElaheny you said,
"No, I'm not saying that Jesus had two natures. He was human in his physical being. But He was God in Human flesh. Just like you and I are spirits in flesh. Profoundly not the same thing."
Than I am curious how many natures are you saying Jesus had when he was on Earth?
I'm not attempting to give an answer to how many natures Jesus had on Earth. As Christians we often refer to the incarnation as Jesus taking on "an additional nature". For centuries many have attempted to try to explain what that means. To date, I don't think anyone has been able to really explain how Jesus simultaneously man and God. I think the best way to understand it is think of it not as God and Man simultaneously but as God putting on flesh and assimilating into creation. It is a subject that takes a lifetime to study and I intend to keep studying it.
You also asked McElhaney "Where did Paul say that?"
Well if you read the whole of 1 Corinthians 15 you will see it's not very far away from the text you are quoting. It says,
"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." 1 Corinthians 15:50
I have read all of 1 Corinthians 15 and it is one of my favorite passages. The point Paul makes is that the perishable is changed into imperishable and the corruptible becomes incorruptible. If you are going to quote the Bible quote the entire thought. 1 Corinthians 15:50-58
50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."
55"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?" 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.
McElhaney I can see you struggling guy.
You see where you say above, "Of course Jesus shed his blood... but that doesn't make Jesus created. No one made Him. WE ARE CREATED-MIND BODY AND SOUL. Jesus' mind and soul was not."
Notice you said, "Jesus' mind and soul was not........his body silence! Interesting indeed. Wonder why you didn't complete the thought?
I said it several times. Go back and look at my comments that you did not quote from. I'll keep saying it. Jesus' body was created in time. So what? That doesn't make Jesus created. This is another "FacePalm" passage.
McElhaney you said, "Here is the problem. You are separating out Jesus' humanity and his divinity."
So did Jesus have two natures one human and one divine? Or did he have one nature fully human and fully divine?
Not only is thegrandverbalizer attempting to separate Jesus' humanity from his divinity, he attempts to play them against one another as if there is some conflict in logic. Desperate and lame. I think it best to answer this as Paul did nearly 2000 years ago.
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Colossians 1:15-20Oh and "firstborn" is referring to Jesus' preeminence. Don't get it twisted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)