Evidence for God from Science

Fortigurn wrote:I believe that both body and spirit together make life. This is why I believe that life ends when body and spirit are no longer together.

Ahhh, I see. Well there you have it. Unfortunately you forget that God was life in the spirit before becoming flesh. So He from which all life comes is life and spirit without body. Incidently we are made in His image.

Additionally, there are angels which are 'celestial' beings. Unless you have another quirky definition of celestial they are also life with no body.

Funny how when you deny a little thing like the Divinity of Christ the entire message of Christ falls apart. Reminds me of yeast...

Galations 5:7-10
You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough."

Jbuza wrote:Why would God allow worship of JEsus, Why would he allow people to Bow down to Jesus? God is a Jealous God, and allows worship of JEsus because Jesus is Divine.

Another really good point. "You shall have no other gods before me." Yet, for some reason after millennia of "I AM" God decides to appoint Jesus as Lord and create a co-god at His right hand? lol... That explanation just makes so much less sense than the true, eternal and unchanging Triune nature of God.

August wrote:Hey Fortigurn, do you agree with this statement:

"That being so begotten of God, and inhabited and used by God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was Emmanuel, God with us, God manifested in the flesh-yet was, during his natural life, of like nature with mortal man, being made of a woman of the house and lineage of David, and therefore a sufferer, in the days of his flesh, from all the effects that came by Adam's transgression including the death that passed upon all man, which he shared by partaking of their physical nature."

Yes, I most cetainly do. It's a paraphrase of various passages of Scripture taken from the KJV.

Felgar wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:I believe that both body and spirit together make life. This is why I believe that life ends when body and spirit are no longer together.

Ahhh, I see. Well there you have it. Unfortunately you forget that God was life in the spirit before becoming flesh. So He from which all life comes is life and spirit without body.

I'm not applying to God what only applies to men.

Incidently we are made in His image.

I agree.

Additionally, there are angels which are 'celestial' beings. Unless you have another quirky definition of celestial they are also life with no body.

No, I believe that they are spirit beings.

Funny how when you deny a little thing like the Divinity of Christ the entire message of Christ falls apart.

How?

Jbuza wrote:Why would God allow worship of JEsus, Why would he allow people to Bow down to Jesus? God is a Jealous God, and allows worship of JEsus because Jesus is Divine.

Another really good point. "You shall have no other gods before me." Yet, for some reason after millennia of "I AM" God decides to appoint Jesus as Lord and create a co-god at His right hand? lol... That explanation just makes so much less sense than the true, eternal and unchanging Triune nature of God.

I have answered this on the previous page. Did you read my answer? Nowhere is Jesus worshipped as God. The Greek word used isn't even translated 'worship' all the time - because it literally means 'to bow down', or 'to prostate oneself'. It sometimes refers to an act of worship, but doesn't always. It is used of reverence paid to men as well as to God.

Jbuza wrote:"You belong to this world here below, but I come from above. You are from this world, but I am not from this world. That is why I told you that you will die in your sins. And you will die in your sins if you do not believe that 'I Am Who I Am' " (John 8:23-24).

I believe that Jesus is who he said he was, so I am not likely to 'die in my sins'. And please, if you are going to keep selecting quotes from paraphrase versions (rather than translations), expect me to keep posting standard evangelical (trinitarian), scholarship which identifies their errors.

Or should I just show you that the Greek text here does not say 'I Am Who I Am'?

IT appears that you have explanations for every evidence that says Jesus is Who he is.

Jesus claimed to be the son of God (not 'God the Son'):

John 10:
36 do you say about the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

John says that eternal life is found in believing that Jesus is the son of God (not 'God the Son'):

John 20:
31 But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

What is the issue?

Hebrews 1

I've already addressed Hebrews 1 before. Would you like me to do it again? Be aware that it will take us into the Old Testament (that's the big thick bit which trinitarians skip on the way to the gospel of John).

Fortigurn wrote: And please, if you are going to keep selecting quotes from paraphrase versions (rather than translations)

Out of curiosity what would you recommend? And is there something wrong with trying to convey the meaning phrase for phrase?

Jbuza wrote:

Fortigurn wrote: And please, if you are going to keep selecting quotes from paraphrase versions (rather than translations)

Out of curiosity what would you recommend?

I would recommend the New English Translation. It is thorougly evangelical, and unashamedly trinitarian (it even acknowledges that when it comes to certain passages in which the translation is difficult or uncertain, it will tend to translate them from the point of view of the theology of the translators).

I use it because I believe it is very accurate (though slightly biased), and most of all because it is almost totally transparent. The translators provide extensive footnotes which help you to understand the various translation decisions they have made.

They are very clear about why they translate certain passages the way they do, and when their translation is theologically motivated, they are not shy about telling you.

I really respect that.

And is there something wrong with trying to convey the meaning phrase for phrase?

Not at all. But the meaing is not conveyed by the version you quoted. I try to avoid versions, and use translations instead.

Fortigurn, you mention elsewhere that you don't believe we continue to exist after death. Does this mean at death but later risen from the resurrection, or just complete death? What I don't get is that you don't believe Jesus is God, yet you acknowledge He is unique to God. God sent Him, the Word, to earth and tell us of things that we should know including things like what constitutes for having eternal life with God. Otherwise, Jesus' mission was that just to teach good morals and that was it, there was no other purpose, so then him telling His apostles of how to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, he laid out rules to abide by with, as this also applies with us. How can you say we have no life after death?

Thinker wrote:Fortigurn, you mention elsewhere that you don't believe we continue to exist after death. Does this mean at death but later risen from the resurrection, or just complete death?

It means death then, and resurrection later. There's not much point in resurrection to judgment if we're already continuing to live elsewhere, and we have already been judged and received our judgment.

See the attached for details.

What I don't get is that you don't believe Jesus is God, yet you acknowledge He is unique to God.

What don't you get about this?

God sent Him, the Word, to earth and tell us of things that we should know including things like what constitutes for having eternal life with God.

I agree.

How can you say we have no life after death?

Resurrection.

Fortigurn wrote:

Thinker wrote:Fortigurn, you mention elsewhere that you don't believe we continue to exist after death. Does this mean at death but later risen from the resurrection, or just complete death?

It means death then, and resurrection later. There's not much point in resurrection to judgment if we're already continuing to live elsewhere, and we have already been judged and received our judgment.

See the attached for details.

What I don't get is that you don't believe Jesus is God, yet you acknowledge He is unique to God.

What don't you get about this?

God sent Him, the Word, to earth and tell us of things that we should know including things like what constitutes for having eternal life with God.

I agree.

How can you say we have no life after death?

Resurrection.

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood, I was thinking you didn't believe in the afterlife at all, lol . I don't want to engage in scripture wars, but I believe as any believer in Christ, you enter heaven at that time of death to be with God, and then when the judgement comes, your body is risen is a spiritual form, not physical. So basically you are swaped in a flash instant from heaven to earth and then the new earth. The non-believers await a physical rise, but they are sent to hell. I know this sounds absurd, and I know you COMPLETELY disagree with me since this is sloppy, but I believe this to an extent. You may be right though. I don't have the program to open .rar files, can you PM me the text from the .rar file? It's "Thinker", remember that, .

Thinker wrote: I don't want to engage in scripture wars, but I believe as any believer in Christ, you enter heaven at that time of death to be with God, and then when the judgement comes, your body is risen is a spiritual form, not physical.

Scripture please for 'a spiritual form, not physical'.

I don't have the program to open .rar files, can you PM me the text from the .rar file? It's "Thinker", remember that, .

You can open it with WinRAR.

Fortigurn wrote:

Thinker wrote: I don't want to engage in scripture wars, but I believe as any believer in Christ, you enter heaven at that time of death to be with God, and then when the judgement comes, your body is risen is a spiritual form, not physical.

Scripture please for 'a spiritual form, not physical'.

Don't have it, I just believe it, like an atheist believes in things that aren't logical . No, I just thought something up, I do believe it is physical, but I had been pondering that thought for a while and I too think that there is only a resurrection and judgement, no life after death immediately, however Jesus did say to that thief on the cross that he would be with Jesus in paradise TODAY. I also find that scripture mentions, in the twinkling of an eye. But then, where does the spirit go after physical death since the soul is what keeps us alive?

Thanks for the clarification. You'll find my answers to your questions in that file I uploaded. You'll find my answer to the thief on the cross issue in the thread on the immortal soul in this forum (reminds me, I have to get back to that thread).

Byblos wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:And what are the 'qualities' of God? Eternality. Thank you for finally acknowledging that the Word is eternal. Given that, and given that the Word was God, ergo the Word is eternal and the Word is God.

This is a very confused paragraph, which makes a serious error in committing the fallacy of equivocation - twice.

No it is not. It is what 1 John says. The Word was with God, the Word was God. God is eternal (or are you saying he is not?), the Word is eternal, The Word is God.

John says that the Word was with God, and that the Word was qualitatively Divine. He does not say that the Word was a part of the 'Godhead', or that the Word was a Divine person. He doesn't even say that the Word was a person at all.

God is eternal, and God's Word is eternal.

Fortogurn wrote:If you acknowledge that the Word was God qualitatively, then you cannot claim that the Word was God ontologically. In this statement of yours, you want to have it both ways, which is not possible.

I acknowledged no such thing. That is your argument.

So now you are disagreeing with the standard evangelical scholarship which reads this as qualitative?

The qualitative issue was resolved to me when I said one of the attributes of God is eternality and that is an attribute of the Word as well, wich makes the Word God as clearly stated by 1 John.

How does that resolve the issue at all? The issue is that either THEOS here is qualitative, or it is ontological. Standard evangelical scholarship (of which you appeared completely unaware), declares it to be qualitative. Here you make a statement which expresses your belief that it is ontological.

You are confusing the issues, a typical and expected reaction from you when you are cornered.

Can you explain how I am confusing the issues?

Fortigurn wrote:Either you understand the LOGOS to be qualitatively Divine, or you hold the LOGOS to be ontologically Divine, but you can't argue that the Greek here can be translated in two different ways simultaneously.

Already answered above.

No you haven't.

Fortigurn wrote:Really? If you were 'well aware', then why did you attribute this idea to me, and why did you appear so scornful of it? I suggest you were not aware at all, and that when you claimed it was my invention (supposedly created to avoid a doctrine in which I allegedly refuse to believe), you were saying what you believed to be true.

The attribute to you, sir, is NOT the evangelical 'qualitative' argument but rather the way you are using it to prove the non-eternality of the Word, something you are misunderstanding and misquoting from 'qualitative' argument.

I see. So when you said that the qualitative argument was something I had 'invented' you didn't really mean to say that it was something I had invented, you meant it was something that you were 'well aware' of, something you agreed with, and something I was 'misunderstanding and misquoting'.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't look anything like what I read here:

Byblos wrote:What in the world does 'qualitatively divine' mean? I will tell you what it means from your point of view. You do not have a choice but to dance around the Word being God specifically because it leads you to the fatal logical contradiction I lead you to.

So hmm, how do I (Fortigurn) escape that? Oh yes, I will invent 'qualitative divinity' in order to make the whole argument fit my (Fortigurn) understanding.

Just look at that. You didn't even know what 'qualitatively Divine' meant. You even asked me what it meant. You then attributed this argument directly to me, claiming it was an 'invention' of mine 'in order to make the whole argument fit my (Fortigurn) understanding'.

Not a word there about misquoting or misunderstanding. Sorry.

But what is unique to your side of the argument is that a qualitative attribute does not include eternality. It does.

I have never said that a qualitative reading of this passage does not include eternality, and I have affirmed more than once the eternal quality of the Word. You are not reading my posts.

Fortigurn wrote:

What is curious, however, is your lack of of response to the following, which I will take as a sign of agreement on your part:

I did in fact respond to that. You claimed that 'qualitative' was my 'invention', right here:

Byblos wrote:You do not have a choice but to dance around the Word being God specifically because it leads you to the fatal logical contradiction I lead you to. So hmm, how do I (Fortigurn) escape that? Oh yes, I will invent 'qualitative divinity' in order to make the whole argument fit my (Fortigurn) understanding.

As pertaining to the eternality of the Word not being part of the qualitative attribute yes. I still maintain that position.

I said nothing about the eternality of the Word not being 'part of the qualitative attribute'.

Fortigurn wrote: You seem to be turning Jesus into simply an 'immortal soul' in search of a body.

I am not turning Jesus into anything, you are. I am saying Jesus is eternal. You're the one saying he wasn't but then he became. Complete contradiction in terms and substance.

How is it a 'complete contradiction in terms and substance'? Scripture please. I'm currently not eternal, but by the grace of God I shall be when I am made immortal. Do you believe that the faithful will be rewarded with eternal life by God, or not?

Immortality is not eternality. To be eternal is to exist beyond the confines of time; to have existed from all time to all time - "Alpha and Omega" whereas to be immortal is to exist for all time from a certain point. An immortal being (angels, Satan (yeah, I know), and us) are still bound by time whereas God and Jesus are not.

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:And what are the 'qualities' of God? Eternality. Thank you for finally acknowledging that the Word is eternal. Given that, and given that the Word was God, ergo the Word is eternal and the Word is God.

This is a very confused paragraph, which makes a serious error in committing the fallacy of equivocation - twice.

No it is not. It is what 1 John says. The Word was with God, the Word was God. God is eternal (or are you saying he is not?), the Word is eternal, The Word is God.

John says that the Word was with God, and that the Word was qualitatively Divine. He does not say that the Word was a part of the 'Godhead', or that the Word was a Divine person. He doesn't even say that the Word was a person at all.

God is eternal, and God's Word is eternal.

Fortogurn wrote:If you acknowledge that the Word was God qualitatively, then you cannot claim that the Word was God ontologically. In this statement of yours, you want to have it both ways, which is not possible.

I acknowledged no such thing. That is your argument.

So now you are disagreeing with the standard evangelical scholarship which reads this as qualitative?

The qualitative issue was resolved to me when I said one of the attributes of God is eternality and that is an attribute of the Word as well, wich makes the Word God as clearly stated by 1 John.

How does that resolve the issue at all? The issue is that either THEOS here is qualitative, or it is ontological. Standard evangelical scholarship (of which you appeared completely unaware), declares it to be qualitative. Here you make a statement which expresses your belief that it is ontological.

The issue to me was that it looked to me that you were using the qualitative argument to mean the Word is not eternal. Since I know the Word is eternal and the evangelical qualitative argument does not preclude the eternality of the Word, the argument from my side is resolved. But now that you acknowledge the Word is eternal, then I take you back to my original argument where I showed you the fatal logical contradiction of your position. I.e. if the Word is eternal and it became Jesus, and Jesus was a mere mortal man, then you just killed God. There is no escaping that logic. It is either you think the Word is not divine and not eternal, therefore your position that Jesus was not divine would follow. (Or you believe the Word is divine and eternal and you killed the Word by attributing to a mortal being. Since you indicated that the Word is eternal, the latter is the position you are left with.

Fortigurn wrote:

You are confusing the issues, a typical and expected reaction from you when you are cornered.

Can you explain how I am confusing the issues?

In one instance you seem to indicate the Word is not eternal (and therefore attributing it to a mortal man is ok) then you say it is eternal (in which case your position falls apart because you just killed an eternal being, an inherent contradiction).

Fortigurn wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:Either you understand the LOGOS to be qualitatively Divine, or you hold the LOGOS to be ontologically Divine, but you can't argue that the Greek here can be translated in two different ways simultaneously.

Already answered above.

No you haven't.

Fortigurn wrote:Really? If you were 'well aware', then why did you attribute this idea to me, and why did you appear so scornful of it? I suggest you were not aware at all, and that when you claimed it was my invention (supposedly created to avoid a doctrine in which I allegedly refuse to believe), you were saying what you believed to be true.

The attribute to you, sir, is NOT the evangelical 'qualitative' argument but rather the way you are using it to prove the non-eternality of the Word, something you are misunderstanding and misquoting from 'qualitative' argument.

I see. So when you said that the qualitative argument was something I had 'invented' you didn't really mean to say that it was something I had invented, you meant it was something that you were 'well aware' of, something you agreed with, and something I was 'misunderstanding and misquoting'.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't look anything like what I read here:

Byblos wrote:What in the world does 'qualitatively divine' mean? I will tell you what it means from your point of view. You do not have a choice but to dance around the Word being God specifically because it leads you to the fatal logical contradiction I lead you to.

So hmm, how do I (Fortigurn) escape that? Oh yes, I will invent 'qualitative divinity' in order to make the whole argument fit my (Fortigurn) understanding.

Just look at that. You didn't even know what 'qualitatively Divine' meant. You even asked me what it meant. You then attributed this argument directly to me, claiming it was an 'invention' of mine 'in order to make the whole argument fit my (Fortigurn) understanding'.

Not a word there about misquoting or misunderstanding. Sorry.

A clear example of confusing the issues. I wasn't asking you for you to provide an answer. I was asking you so you can define how you are using the qualitative argument (whether or not qualitative includes eternality). Since you acknowledged that it does include eternality, now I know that your use of the qualitative argument doesn't make sense as it again leads you to the fatal logical contradition I described so many times.

Fortigurn wrote:

But what is unique to your side of the argument is that a qualitative attribute does not include eternality. It does.

I have never said that a qualitative reading of this passage does not include eternality, and I have affirmed more than once the eternal quality of the Word. You are not reading my posts.

Fortigurn wrote:

What is curious, however, is your lack of of response to the following, which I will take as a sign of agreement on your part:

I did in fact respond to that. You claimed that 'qualitative' was my 'invention', right here:

Byblos wrote:You do not have a choice but to dance around the Word being God specifically because it leads you to the fatal logical contradiction I lead you to. So hmm, how do I (Fortigurn) escape that? Oh yes, I will invent 'qualitative divinity' in order to make the whole argument fit my (Fortigurn) understanding.

As pertaining to the eternality of the Word not being part of the qualitative attribute yes. I still maintain that position.

I said nothing about the eternality of the Word not being 'part of the qualitative attribute'.

Fortigurn wrote: You seem to be turning Jesus into simply an 'immortal soul' in search of a body.

I am not turning Jesus into anything, you are. I am saying Jesus is eternal. You're the one saying he wasn't but then he became. Complete contradiction in terms and substance.

How is it a 'complete contradiction in terms and substance'? Scripture please. I'm currently not eternal, but by the grace of God I shall be when I am made immortal. Do you believe that the faithful will be rewarded with eternal life by God, or not?

Immortal is not eternal (Felgar already answered the above, no need to repeat).