Jump to content


Photo

Is Jesus God In The Flesh?


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#1 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 23 August 2010 - 04:12 PM

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

#2 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 August 2010 - 10:21 PM

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

View Post


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.

#3 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 August 2010 - 03:49 AM

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.

View Post


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

#4 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 25 August 2010 - 06:24 PM

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

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

#5 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 25 August 2010 - 08:37 PM

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

View Post


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

#6 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 August 2010 - 08:57 PM

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

View Post


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?

Posted Image

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

Posted Image

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.

#7 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 August 2010 - 03:29 AM

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

View Post

Should I interpret your post literally?

Should I interpret any of your posts literally?

#8 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 26 August 2010 - 04:46 AM

Should I interpret your post literally?

Should I interpret any of your posts literally?

View Post

Absolutely. But my posts aren't contradictory.

#9 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 August 2010 - 04:53 AM

Absolutely. But my posts aren't contradictory.

View Post


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

#10 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 26 August 2010 - 05:30 AM

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

View Post

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.

#11 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 August 2010 - 06:07 AM

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

View Post

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

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

View Post

And that presents a major problem for you.

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

View Post


I did read what you actually said:

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

View Post


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 “literal”. Further, we can only take your posts (all of them, by your logic) as metaphorical, and therefore totally disregard all of them as metaphorical.

Thanks for proving my point, Ron.

View Post


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

#12 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 26 August 2010 - 08:38 AM

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

View Post

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

#13 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 August 2010 - 09:04 AM

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

View Post


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

Which creation story do you prefer, and why?

#14 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 26 August 2010 - 09:08 AM

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

View Post

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

#15 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 August 2010 - 09:09 AM

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

View Post


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).

#16 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 August 2010 - 09:34 AM

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

View Post


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?

#17 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 26 August 2010 - 09:51 AM

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.

View Post

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.

#18 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 August 2010 - 09:58 AM

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

#19 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 26 August 2010 - 10:02 AM

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

View Post

Oh, I'm sorry.

I don't prefer either creation story.

#20 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 26 August 2010 - 10:57 AM

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.

View Post


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.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users