Is Jesus God In The Flesh?

[JoshuaJacob 25]

Is Jesus God? I have often heard some christains say He was not. What are Your thoughts?

[Guest Tommy]

  JoshuaJacob said:

Is Jesus God? I have often heard some christains say He was not. What are Your thoughts?

61271[/snapback]

Surely he was of the same substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit? This is pretty fundamental doctrine. I think Jehovah's Witnesses see Jesus as angelic which leads to some complications.

[Ron 10]

  Tommy said:

Surely he was of the same substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit?  This is pretty fundamental doctrine.  I think Jehovah's Witnesses see Jesus as angelic which leads to some complications.

61299[/snapback]

No complications at all Tommy. The Jehovah's Witnesses’s twist the scripture to make it fit their needs. They are neither “Christiansâ€ÂÂ, “Christian Theists†or “Biblical Theistsâ€ÂÂ. The complications come in when one attempts to lend credence to their non-Biblical stance, as a Biblical stance.

[Harry 1]

  Quote

The Jehovah's Witnesses’s twist the scripture to make it fit their needs.

And therein lies the problem with interpreting anything "literally".

[Bex 3]

  Harry said:

And therein lies the problem with interpreting anything "literally".

61427[/snapback]

Wrong, therein lies the problem with not taking anything literally.

[ikester7579 19]

  Harry said:

And therein lies the problem with interpreting anything "literally".

61427[/snapback]

Why? If you literally understand what it means.

 

Example: The Bible refers to the earth as having ends. Does a sphere have ends?

 

A ball is a sphere. When you grab the ball, where do you grab it?

 

 

The Bible also says that the earth has 4 corners. How can a sphere have 4 corners?

 

 

4 corners in context: rev 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

 

The 4 winds give the location of the 4 corners.

 

Does the Bible know the the earth is round?

 

is 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

 

It only seems not logical when you take scripture out of context.

[Ron 10]

  Harry said:

And therein lies the problem with interpreting anything "literally".

61427[/snapback]

Should I interpret your post literally?

 

Should I interpret any of your posts literally?

[Harry 1]

  Ron said:

Should I interpret your post literally?

 

Should I interpret any of your posts literally?

61440[/snapback]

Absolutely. But my posts aren't contradictory.

[Ron 10]

  Harry said:

Absolutely. But my posts aren't contradictory.

61443[/snapback]

You just now posted a contradiction to your post in #4.... Therefore you just negated yourself.

[Harry 1]

  Ron said:

You just now posted a contradiction to your post in #4.... Therefore you just negated yourself.

61446[/snapback]

Just because I said you could interpret my posts literally doesn't mean there wont be problems in doing so.

 

If you read what I actually said instead of what you think you read there wouldn't be any contradiction. Thanks for proving my point, Ron.

[Ron 10]

  Harry said:

Just because I said you could interpret my posts literally doesn't mean there wont be problems in doing so.

61450[/snapback]

That’s not what you said Harry, and you know it. You said:

  Harry said:

And therein lies the problem with interpreting anything "literally".

61427[/snapback]

And that presents a major problem for you.

 

  Harry said:

If you read what I actually said instead of what you think you read there wouldn't be any contradiction.

61450[/snapback]

I did read what you actually said:

 

  Harry said:

And therein lies the problem with interpreting anything "literally".

61427[/snapback]

You said “interpreting anything literally". You really need to read your own posts, and the double standards you build within said statements; unless you are committing the egregious fallacy of relativistic hubris? If you cannot interpret “anything literally", then, by your logic, we cannot interpret “any†of your posts as “literalâ€ÂÂ. Further, we can only take your posts (all of them, by your logic) as metaphorical, and therefore totally disregard all of them as metaphorical.

 

  Harry said:

Thanks for proving my point, Ron.

61450[/snapback]

Warning: Your entire post consists of equivocation, time wasting tactics, self defeating statements, and accusatory misdirection because you cannot admit your mistake.

[Harry 1]

  Bex said:

Wrong, therein lies the problem with not taking anything literally.

61430[/snapback]

So which story of creation do you take literally and why?

[Ron 10]

  Harry said:

So which story of creation do you take literally and why?

61457[/snapback]

The Biblical Creation story, because it has yet to be proven incorrect, and it logically follows.

 

Which creation story do you prefer, and why?

[Harry 1]

  Ron said:

The Biblical Creation story, because it has yet to be proven incorrect, and it logically follows.

61459[/snapback]

Which of the two versions do you take literally and why?

[Ron 10]

  JoshuaJacob said:

Is Jesus God? I have often heard some christains say He was not. What are Your thoughts?

61271[/snapback]

Jesus said He is God on several occasions (even the Scribes and Pharisees understood what he was saying, and therefore started planning to kill Him for blasphemy) . Jesus also insinuated (again, on several occasions) that if you don’t hear His voice, and believe and obey His words and teachings, then you are none of His (i.e. not a follower of His, therefore not a Christian).

[Ron 10]

  Harry said:

Which of the two versions do you take literally and why?

61460[/snapback]

There is only one version in Genesis Harry. Your confusion is that you (or wherever you are copying your argument from) fail to understand the literary style of Hebrew writers (especially from antiquity) to re-tell the same narrative from a different perspective for emphasis on different points. It is a merely a common literary device.

 

Again... Which creation story do you prefer, and why?

[Harry 1]

  Ron said:

There is only one version in Genesis Harry. Your confusion is that you (or wherever you are copying your argument from) fail to understand the literary style of Hebrew writers (especially from antiquity) to re-tell the same narrative from a different perspective for emphasis on different points. It is a merely a common literary device.

61464[/snapback]

Reading the two stories literally causes problems because the order in which creation supposedly took place is not the same. One story has god creating man after the animals while the other has god creating the animals so that man would not be alone.

 

1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

 

2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

 

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

 

2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

[Ron 10]

I see, you want to ask questions, but not answer questions.

[Harry 1]

  Ron said:

I see, you want to ask questions, but not answer questions.   

61470[/snapback]

Oh, I'm sorry.

 

I don't prefer either creation story.

[Cassiterides 1]

  Harry said:

Reading the two stories literally causes problems because the order in which creation supposedly took place is not the same. One story has god creating man after the animals while the other has god creating the animals so that man would not be alone.

 

1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 

 

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 

 

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 

 

2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 

 

2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 

 

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 

 

2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 

 

2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

61468[/snapback]

There is no contradiction, note the NIV translation:

 

'''Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field…'' (Genesis 2: 19)

 

God had already created the animals before man. The Hebrew Yatsar, should be translated ''had formed'' not just ''formed''.

 

There are no contradictions in Genesis, or the Bible for that matter. The only people who are obsessed with proving contradictions are atheists, but none have degrees or education in Hebrew. No Hebrew scholar believes there are contradictions in Genesis.

[scott 3]

  Harry said:

Oh, I'm sorry.

 

I don't prefer either creation story.

61472[/snapback]

Harry, you said " Anything Literally " so yes you did contradict yourself.

[Harry 1]

  Cassiterides said:

There is no contradiction, note the NIV translation:

 

'''Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field…'' (Genesis 2: 19)

 

God had already created the animals before man. The Hebrew Yatsar, should be translated ''had formed'' not just ''formed''.

 

There are no contradictions in Genesis, or the Bible for that matter. The only people who are obsessed with proving contradictions are atheists, but none have degrees or education in Hebrew. No Hebrew scholar believes there are contradictions in Genesis.

61479[/snapback]

Then you admit there are problems with the translation?

 

I can't help but see a chronological discrepancy between the two stories. One has god creating the animals for man while the other has god creating man after the animals.

[Harry 1]

  scott said:

Harry, you said " Anything Literally "  so yes you did contradict yourself.

61481[/snapback]

Only if you take what I said literally...

 

"And therein lies the problem with interpretting anything literally."

 

The point, Scott, was that two people can interpret the same story differently while still taking what they perceive to be a literal interpretation.

 

Should you take the story literally? If it was intended to be taken literally, which Ikester claimed it was, then yes.

 

Is your literal interpretation going to be correct? Probably no more than anyone else's.

[scott 3]

  Harry said:

Only if you take what I said literally... 

 

"And therein lies the problem with interpretting anything literally."

 

The point, Scott, was that two people can interpret the same story differently while still taking what they perceive to be a literal interpretation.

 

Should you take the story literally? If it was intended to be taken literally, which Ikester claimed it was, then yes.

 

Is your literal interpretation going to be correct? Probably no more than anyone else's.

61493[/snapback]

Are you trying to say that there aren't any absolute truths? Are you saying that reality is subjective?

[Harry 1]

  scott said:

Are you trying to say that there aren't any absolute truths?  Are you saying that reality is subjective?

61494[/snapback]

No, what I AM saying is that even if absolute truths do exist we may not be able to ascertain them.

 

But I'm an agnostic, so I'm probably not the right person to ask.