Evidence for God from Science

I wrote Prior:
Genesis 9:4-5 speaks about blood and so does Hebrews chapter 9. I ask, who's blood can truly atone?

Fortigurn you then answered:
Blood does not atone

My next relpy was:
How so?

Your answer:
Redemption is provided by forgiveness. Blood doesn't forgive, people forgive.

Hebrews 10: 11 And every priest stands day after day serving and offering the same sacrifices again and again—sacrifices that can never take away sins

My response:

Hebrews 9:22 — “and according to the law almost all things are purge by blood, and without shedding of blood, there is no remission.”

Deut 17: 1 states - You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep which has a blemish or any defect, for that is a detestable thing to the Lord your God. Also, please note Leviticus chapter Four (entire) states the same thing. Yes, The blood of animals cannot purge sin due their nature. What can and what was God demonstrating in Genesis 3:21?

Why does God make such a fuss over a sacrifice?

What importance was Jesus' experience on the cross?

Do you believe that Jesus was a sacrifice to atone for sins? Or not? I mean a perfect sacrifice that reconciles, covers, cleanses forever!

B. W. wrote:I wrote Prior:
Genesis 9:4-5 speaks about blood and so does Hebrews chapter 9. I ask, who's blood can truly atone?

Fortigurn you then answered:
Blood does not atone

My next relpy was:
How so?

Your answer:
Redemption is provided by forgiveness. Blood doesn't forgive, people forgive.

Hebrews 10: 11 And every priest stands day after day serving and offering the same sacrifices again and again—sacrifices that can never take away sins

My response:

Hebrews 9:22 — “and according to the law almost all things are purge by blood, and without shedding of blood, there is no remission.”

Thank you for this passage, it was the next passage to which I was heading. This says that under the Law, almost all things are purged by blood, and under the Law, without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

But we are not under the Law, and Christ was not an animal sacrifice under the Law. Note that even under the Law, forgiveness was available without shedding of blood.

Deut 17: 1 states - You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep which has a blemish or any defect, for that is a detestable thing to the Lord your God. Also, please note Leviticus chapter Four (entire) states the same thing. Yes, The blood of animals cannot purge sin due their nature. What can and what was God demonstrating in Genesis 3:21?

What can is described in Psalm 51, which is what God was demonstrating in Genesis 21.

Why does God make such a fuss over a sacrifice?

Because of what it cost Him, and what He gains from it.

What importance was Jesus' experience on the cross?

John 3:16; 12:32, Romans 3:25-26, 1 Peter 2:21-25.

Do you believe that Jesus was a sacrifice to atone for sins? Or not? I mean a perfect sacrifice that reconciles, covers, cleanses forever!

If you mean a perfect sacrifice that reconciles, covers and cleanses (rather than the propitiation of an angry God who was intent on destroying us), then I agree.

B. W. wrote:My Response to you:

That was the point that I was making in the New Zealand didactic, for example, you stated that Psalms 45:6-7 means only Christiandelphanian doctrine is correct and all else is wrong and is thus an illegitimate totality transfer.

I didnt't say any such thing, and what I did point out was that your 'New Zealand' analogy was totally irrelevant because it was a straw man (it was arguing against a position which I don't hold).

I don't think you understand what the illegitimate totality transfer is, by the way.

I will prove it by using the English words to translate Psalms 45:6-7 in the direct word order the Hebrew Scriptures use. I will also place the Hebrew grammatical form/tenses used following each word in brackets. Each single Hebrew word will be grouped according to English translated words:

Psalms 45: 6-7
6-Your throne (Noun, Pronominal Suffix, Construct) God (Plural Noun) is forever (Noun) and ever (Waw Conjunctive, Noun) a scepter of (Construct with Noun) uprightness (Noun Usage) is the scepter of (Construct — Noun) your kingdom (Noun, Pronominal Suffix, Construct). You love (Qal Perfect) rightwiseness (Noun Usage) and hate (Waw Conjunctive) wickedness (Noun Usage).
7-Therefore has (Preposition, Adverb) anointed You (Noun, Pronominal Suffix, Construct) God (Plural Noun), Your God (Noun, Pronominal Suffix, Construct) with the oil of (Construct — Noun) gladness (Noun Usage) more than your companions (Preposition, Noun, Pronominal Suffix, Construct).

Note verse 7 again in the Hebrew word chronological order:
Therefore has anointed You! God! Your God! with the oil of gladness more than your companions.

The person mentioned anointing is in verse 6 is God and He is the one anointing — follow context and continuity, and flow. This speaks of the Messiah to come. This is in direct reference to Jesus (Hebrews 1: 8, Revelation 1:17-20, Revelation 22:16).

Therefore, if God is anointing the Messiah as God and God shall send forth His word to accomplish it then who dare Jesus be? God? Man?

Firstly, God is not annointing Jesus as God (you're exegeting the English). Secondly, if Jesus was annointed as God by God, then he wasn't God to start with. Your exposition currently has a man whom God raised to the position of God (Mormons would like this, but most Christians don't).

Are you saying that the fact that 'elohim' is used of Christ here proves that he is God? What about the fact that 'elohim' is used here of King David? Does that make him God also?

If you define the Messiah as being only a man then what about the biblical phrase — there is no God before God, None!

It's precisely because I believe that there is no God before God that I am convinced that the Messiah was and is a man.

And, here, somebody is being anointed God - not a human judge/ruler - God - not a person endowed with power, instead, God! Hebrew grammar is emphatic on this.

You're exegeting the English. This man is called 'elohim', not 'God'.

The Hebrew text shouts this in the Noun, Pronominal Suffix, Construct which means it is an absolute emphatic expression. You cannot not change the Hebrew grammar, nor change its contextual flow to fit Christiandelphanian doctrine.

I am not changing the Hebrew grammar at all. It refers first to King David, and also to the Messiah, as 'elohim', and I agree that this is what it is doing. Where's the problem?

When the bible says “Therefore has anointed You! God! Your God!” in the actual flow of Hebrew — you cannot read it any other way unless you use one or two definitions of a single word to define every scripture using the same word — as Christiandelphanian doctrine does: A movement founded by physician John Thomas in the 1840's to uphold his beliefs.

I am not using 'one or two definitions of a single word to define every scripture using the same word', and my denomination is not 'A movement founded by physician John Thomas in the 1840's to uphold his beliefs'. It actually grew because he joined with others he met who already held the same beliefs.

How, by committing the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer as evidence by Christiandelphanian abundant use of scriptures used to dazzle the poor eyes of the unwise just as 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Timothy 2:15 states.

Could you show me how we commit the fallacy of the illegitimate totality transfer in this passage? The opposite is the case - we deny that every possible definition of the word 'elohim' is possible in this passage.

Christiandelphanians speak from founder's belief system to prove reliability of what they believe. It appears that they like to accuse anyone disagreeing with them of committing the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer.

No, I've only pointed out that this is what you're doing. I haven't actually told anyone else that they're doing it, but if they do I'll let them know.

How, basically, in my opinion, like this, the church founders all met one day in the back smoke filled rooms and concocted the doctrine of the Trinity by falsifying meaning of bible text to only mean their view. My response to this why? No reason too.

I have no idea why you posted this, because I don't believe any such thing.

Bible shouts truth - do not twist it.

I agree.

The church founders in history came to the word of God itself and said — show me Lord, teach me Lord. They read Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and many languages and noted that certain passages in the bible cannot be altered in meaning due to grammar, syntax, construction, continuity of flow, etc.

Unfortunately Latin doesn't do you any good when it comes to reading the Bible, because the Bible wasn't written in Latin. Furthermore, I'm not altering the meaning of passages in the Bible, and I'm following 'grammar, syntax, construction, continuity of flow, etc'.

They read and discovered: Jesus was the Messiah, The reconciler, the sacrifice for sin once and for all, Jesus both God and man, divine and Human for a specific reason and purpose. They discovered that Jesus is Lord!

They 'discovered' all kinds of things, some of which are in the Bible and some of which aren't. They also disagreed with each other repeatedly on what the Bible meant.

Fortigurn, can you call Jesus Christ your only Master and Lord?

Fortigurn, can you like Thomas says in John 20:28, " My Lord and my God!"

Yes.

Who is really guilty of committing an illegitimate totality transfer?

Christiandelphanian's understand that only their doctrine is the only correct one and all else is wrong and is thus an illegitimate totality transfer.

An over-abundant use of scriptures does not prove anything other than an illegitimate totality transfer of ones idea at the expense of the honest scriptural investigation.

You've just proved that you don't know what the 'illegitimate totality transfer' actually is.

Stick with the subject - who was Jesus Christ - Fortigurn?

I posted an entire thread in reply to that question, but it appears to have been deleted.

I'll post the key statements of the apostles, from their preaching campaigns:

In his speech to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter tells them that Jesus is a man attested by God:

Acts 2:
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him, just as you yourselves know—
23 this man, who was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles.

The apostle Peter taught that Jesus is a man, not God, or even a God, or even on the same level as God. Three thousand people were baptized into Christ that day, with the understanding that he was a man. True Christians therefore are baptized with the belief that Jesus is a man.

Note also that Peter distinguishes Christ from God, and says that Christ was a man through whom God worked, not that he was God who became man.

In his speech to the people after he had healed the lame mand, the apostle Peter tells them that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecy given by Moses, that God would send them a Messiah who was a man like them:

Acts 3:
22 Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must obey him in everything he tells you.
23 Every person who does not obey that prophet will be destroyed and thus removed from the people.'

Note that Peter tells the crowd that Jesus was a prophet like Moses, from among their brothers. He does not tell them that Jesus is God, or that he came down from heaven.

In his speech to a law court, the apostle Stephen likewise tells them that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecy given by Moses, that God would send them a Messiah who was a man like them:

Acts 7:
37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, 'God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers.

He uses the same quote as the apostle Peter had used, telling them that the prophet God would send (the Messiah), would be 'of your brethren, like unto me' - in other words, a man, a human being.

When he was in Athens, the apostle Paul was speaking to some people about who Jesus was. In his speech, he told them clearly that Jesus was a man who received authority from God:

Acts 17:
30 Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent,
31 because he has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Here Paul says that Jesus is a man appointed by God to judge the world. Paul does not preach that Christ is God. He preaches that Christ is a man authorised by God, a man whom God has appointed.

In his first letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul says that there is one God, and that there is one mediator between God and men, and that is Jesus Christ, who he says is a man:

1 Timothy 2:
5 For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, revealing God's purpose at his appointed time.

Here we have God on one side, and humans on the other. In between we have Christ - a man, not God.

It couldn't be any clearer. The apostles all taught time and time and time again that Jesus was a man at his birth, and was still a man after his resurrection and going to the Father.

Note also how the apostles repeatedly distinguished God and Christ from each other in their public preaching:

[Acts 2:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Acts 2:
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Acts 3:
15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

Acts 3:
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Acts 4:
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Acts 5:

30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 13:
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Again and again we see it - God and Jesus, God and Christ, Jesus Christ whom God raised from the dead, God and His son Jesus. The two are clearly distinguished, and the term 'God' is used synomously with the Father (not in the generic trinitarian sense of 'the triune godhead').

So we can see that Jesus both was and still is a man. A human being. Nothing at all strange about that. It's very clear. But we also know that he is a man with special power, and special authority, and special qualities, which he received from God.

I wrote:
Note verse 7 again in the Hebrew word chronological order:
Therefore has anointed You! God! Your God! with the oil of gladness more than your companions.

The person mentioned anointing is in verse 6 is God and He is the one anointing — follow context and continuity, and flow. This speaks of the Messiah to come. This is in direct reference to Jesus (Hebrews 1: 8, Revelation 1:17-20, Revelation 22:16).

Therefore, if God is anointing the Messiah as God and God shall send forth His word to accomplish it then who dare Jesus be? God? Man?

You said:
Firstly, God is not annointing Jesus as God (you're exegeting the English). Secondly, if Jesus was annointed as God by God, then he wasn't God to start with. Your exposition currently has a man whom God raised to the position of God (Mormons would like this, but most Christians don't).

You Wrote:
Are you saying that the fact that 'elohim' is used of Christ here proves that he is God? What about the fact that 'elohim' is used here of King David? Does that make him God also?

My response:
It is apparent that you do not understand the Hebrew language, customs, nor the use of Elohim. You interpret Elohim to mean angel, or messenger, or ruler. Jesus was from the line of David. King David's throne was never established. King David blew it with the census and a host of other wrongs. God promised a new kingdom that would last forever. Jewish custom and tradition still hold that the Messiah will be from the line of David and last forever. Jesus was the promised Messiah bringing forth a kingdom that He would rule forever.

If you define the Messiah as being only a man then what about the biblical phrase — there is no God before God, None!

You responded:
It's precisely because I believe that there is no God before God that I am convinced that the Messiah was and is a man.

I stated:
And, here, somebody is being anointed God - not a human judge/ruler - God - not a person endowed with power, instead, God! Hebrew grammar is emphatic on this.

You replied:
You're exegeting the English. This man is called 'elohim', not 'God'.

My response:
You are rejecting the Hebrew grammar — bible says what it says. The Hebrew text shouts this in the Noun, Pronominal Suffix, Construct which means it is an absolute emphatic expression. You cannot not change the Hebrew grammar, nor change its contextual flow to fit Christiandelphanian doctrine.

You said:
I am not changing the Hebrew grammar at all. It refers first to King David, and also to the Messiah, as 'elohim', and I agree that this is what it is doing. Where's the problem?

I stated:
When the bible says “Therefore has anointed You! God! Your God!” in the actual flow of Hebrew — you cannot read it any other way unless you use one or two definitions of a single word to define every scripture using the same word — as Christiandelphanian doctrine does: A movement founded by physician John Thomas in the 1840's to uphold his beliefs.

You responded:
I am not using 'one or two definitions of a single word to define every scripture using the same word', and my denomination is not 'A movement founded by physician John Thomas in the 1840's to uphold his beliefs'. It actually grew because he joined with others he met who already held the same beliefs.

Answer in next frame

My response: So you are a Christiandelphanian?

And you asked me to show you how Christiandelphanian commits the fallacy of the illegitimate totality transfer ? I have and done so by your answer:

No, I've only pointed out that this is what you're doing. I haven't actually told anyone else that they're doing it, but if they do I'll let them know.

As for an example of illegitimate totality transfer:

I asked:
Fortigurn, can you call Jesus Christ your only Master and Lord?

Fortigurn, can you like Thomas says in John 20:28, "My Lord and my God!"

You answered - Yes.

My Answer:
Therefore the bible tells us not to place our trust in man but if you call Christ your only Master and Lord and My Lord and my God then what about God the Father? Is He not also your Lord and Master?

Since you call Jesus Christ your only Lord and Master, are you not therefore committing idolatry?

If you do not call Jesus Christ your only Lord and Master, then are you not disobeying the truth of God's word?

Have you really received Jesus the Bible really teaches or just a man?

When we sin, we sin against God because it is His law we violate. God is the one who must forgive us because we have offended Him by breaking His Law. The One offended is the One who forgives. Someone or something else cannot forgive us for our breaking of God's Laws and sinning against God. God is offended and only God can forgive.

How is it then that Jesus is the one who forgives sin -Luke 5:20- if Jesus is not God, the one who was offended by transgressing the law?

What law was violated on the cross? Man offending man or man offending God?

I wrote -
Stick with the subject - who was Jesus Christ - Fortigurn?

Your answer was:

I posted an entire thread in reply to that question, but it appears to have been deleted.

I'll post the key statements of the apostles, from their preaching campaigns:

In his speech to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter tells them that Jesus is a man attested by God:

Acts 2:
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him, just as you yourselves know—
23 this man, who was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles.

The apostle Peter taught that Jesus is a man, not God, or even a God, or even on the same level as God. Three thousand people were baptized into Christ that day, with the understanding that he was a man. True Christians therefore are baptized with the belief that Jesus is a man.

Note also that Peter distinguishes Christ from God, and says that Christ was a man through whom God worked, not that he was God who became man.

In his speech to the people after he had healed the lame mand, the apostle Peter tells them that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecy given by Moses, that God would send them a Messiah who was a man like them:

Acts 3:
22 Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must obey him in everything he tells you.
23 Every person who does not obey that prophet will be destroyed and thus removed from the people.'

Note that Peter tells the crowd that Jesus was a prophet like Moses, from among their brothers. He does not tell them that Jesus is God, or that he came down from heaven.

In his speech to a law court, the apostle Stephen likewise tells them that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecy given by Moses, that God would send them a Messiah who was a man like them:

Acts 7:
37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, 'God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers.

He uses the same quote as the apostle Peter had used, telling them that the prophet God would send (the Messiah), would be 'of your brethren, like unto me' - in other words, a man, a human being.

When he was in Athens, the apostle Paul was speaking to some people about who Jesus was. In his speech, he told them clearly that Jesus was a man who received authority from God:

Acts 17:
30 Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent,
31 because he has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Here Paul says that Jesus is a man appointed by God to judge the world. Paul does not preach that Christ is God. He preaches that Christ is a man authorised by God, a man whom God has appointed.

In his first letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul says that there is one God, and that there is one mediator between God and men, and that is Jesus Christ, who he says is a man:

1 Timothy 2:
5 For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, revealing God's purpose at his appointed time.

Here we have God on one side, and humans on the other. In between we have Christ - a man, not God.

It couldn't be any clearer. The apostles all taught time and time and time again that Jesus was a man at his birth, and was still a man after his resurrection and going to the Father.

Note also how the apostles repeatedly distinguished God and Christ from each other in their public preaching:

[Acts 2:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Acts 2:
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Acts 3:
15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

Acts 3:
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Acts 4:
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Acts 5:

30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 13:
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Again and again we see it - God and Jesus, God and Christ, Jesus Christ whom God raised from the dead, God and His son Jesus. The two are clearly distinguished, and the term 'God' is used synomously with the Father (not in the generic trinitarian sense of 'the triune godhead').

So we can see that Jesus both was and still is a man. A human being. Nothing at all strange about that. It's very clear. But we also know that he is a man with special power, and special authority, and special qualities, which he received from God.[/quote]


I asked:
Fortigurn, can you call Jesus Christ your only Master and Lord?

Fortigurn, can you like Thomas says in John 20:28, "My Lord and my God!"

You answered -

Yes.

My Answer again is:

Therefore the bible tells us not to place our trust in man but if you call Christ your only Master and Lord and My Lord and my God then what about God the Father? Is He not also your Lord and Master?

Since you call Jesus Christ your only Lord and Master, are you not therefore committing idolatry?

If you do not call Jesus Christ your only Lord and Master, then are you not disobeying the truth of God's word?

Have you really received Jesus the Bible really teaches or just a man?

When we sin, we sin against God because it is His law we violate. God is the one who must forgive us because we have offended Him by breaking His Law. The One offended is the One who forgives. Someone or something else cannot forgive us for our breaking of God's Laws and sinning against God. God is offended and only God can forgive.

How is it then that Jesus is the one who forgives sin -Luke 5:20- if Jesus is not God, the one who was offended by transgressing the law?

What law was violated on the cross? Man offending man or man offending God?

As a Christiandelphanian, do you believe-


(1) There is no Trinity - Scriptures that Christians use to support the Trinity doctrine referring to Elohim are dismissed as only referring to angels. The angels they say, did the work of creation, because it was beneath God to engage in such a work.

(2) Jesus Christ is not God. They deny that Jesus existed in any form before he was born of Mary. In The Christadelphian', official journal of the church, No XI, from 1874 they say, "He (Jesus) was not God, neither a mere man, nor had he any existence prior to his supernatural birth". Again in Christendom Astray', page 1089 they say, "Jesus was a manifestation of the Father in man, begotten by the Spirit. He did not become the Christ until his water baptism; until then he simply had a body prepared for the divine manifestation that was to take place through him..."

(3) The Holy Spirit is not a person but a "...radiant visible power from the Father. It is an unseen power emanating from the Deity, filling all space, and by which God is everywhere present. It is the medium by which God created all things..." (Christadelphians by Lita Hutchins, page 7).

(4) Do you believe that the devil does not exist? Do you agree that the term Devil appears in the Bible is a synonym for the word "sin?"

(5) Do believe in the doctrine of soul sleep and conditional immortality and reject Personal immortality of ALL souls?

(6) Man is just a body - and not a body and soul?

(7) Jesus was just a man with a special power?

I interviewed a man over the course of his tenure at the local Community Corrections Detention Center where I worked for the past 5 years. He was a convicted serial killer that claimed that the bible lead him to commit his deeds. He was absolutely convinced his interpretation was the only correct one because the Bible did not teach death as everlasting, nor that people could be punished for sins forever because the bible boldly declared, “The Lord has no delight in the death of the wicked.”

He thus concluded that since the bible said this then therefore when bible talks of punishment; it meant that God zapped offenders into a state of none-existence on the final judgment day. Next he read that Judas, the betrayer, hung himself and this lead to his belief that all betrayers must be killed by strangulation.

He read that God's ministers are angels of fire. And concluded that he was one and since there was no eternal punishment but only non-existence to the betrayers, he had the right as an angel to rid the world of these whom God lead across his path because it was written in the bible, “I delight to do thy will oh God.”

The point is this: without exploring the meaning of the bible in its original languages and using strict laws of interpretations, a person can make the bible say anything they desire it to say and adhere to their interpretations despite all reason.

For example, many believe the word Elohim — God - means just messengers or angels or persons endowed with power from God. Thus, the first time God is used in the bible is the word Elohim in Genesis chapter One is translated as such. The Bible says in Psalms 33: 6-9 states God created the world, not angels doing this, but Yehowah.

Psalms 104:1-35 makes it clear that God created the world Himself and not through the agency of angels but if one wanted to build a belief that He did, they could attempt to do so with verse 4 and 5. However, if tried, the grammar must be ignored or explained away, as well as all scriptures pertaining that God creating the world by Himself.

In this psalm, the Hebrew language uses pauses, like how we use in poetry. When translated, this flow is lost. Let's look at the Hebrew word order and you'll see what I Mean by using the flow. These pauses are divided between 6 to 10 Hebrew words on average and here I place these so in direct word order translation:

Bless O my soul, Yehowah! O Yehowah! My God (Elohim)! You are very great, majesty and honor you have put on…

Covering Yourself with radiant light like a cloak; stretching out the heavens like a curtain...

You Who lay beams in the waters of Your upper rooms, Who sets thick clouds as your chariot who marches on the wings of wind...

He makes angels winds, His ministers a fire of flames...

He founded the earth on its foundations, not shall it shake forever and ever...

The grammar construction of the original Hebrew shows clearly that it is God who founded the earth as all the who's and He's refer directly to the, Yehowah, O Yehowah, my God (Elohim) of the first lines, and not to angels.

Instead, angels were made too be part of God's design. According to entire bible Angels were more or less taking care of what God had already made and issuing forth God's commands, etc.

This does not mean Angels helped create the world and that Elohim can only to be inferred as angels as used in Geneses chapters 1, 2, 3, 4 and etc. What did God create with out help, was the heavens, earth, angels and humanity. After this, these were charged with doing what? For humanity — tending and taking care of earth created by God.

You cannot take bible passages that speak about angel's duties and thus use it to justify that God used angels to create the heavens and earth and all else when angels were created beings themselves within the universe of God's creation.

The phrase: Bless O my soul, Yehowah, O Yehowah, my God (Elohim) points out that early Hebrew idea of Elohim was intended as God as He chooses to revel Himself to humanity — hence the generic usage for God.

When Hebrew is used to infer man ruling as a god it does so with same note: one ruling like a god. We all have meet people who do this. Also, a different grammar make-up is used when denoting someone or thing acting like a god to rule, etc.

To twist meaning of scripture to fit what the language does not teach to fit interpretation else where does injustice to the entire bible and God Himself.

This would be inferred as committing the fallacy of the illegitimate totality transfer — denying what the bible really is saying into what one wants to hear almost in the same manner as the serial killer did.

B. W. wrote:Therefore the bible tells us not to place our trust in man but if you call Christ your only Master and Lord and My Lord and my God then what about God the Father? Is He not also your Lord and Master?

God is my Lord and Master in a different sense.

Since you call Jesus Christ your only Lord and Master, are you not therefore committing idolatry?

No, why?

Have you really received Jesus the Bible really teaches or just a man?

Yes, I have really received the Jesus the Bible teaches (see my list of teachings from the apostles themselves).

When we sin, we sin against God because it is His law we violate. God is the one who must forgive us because we have offended Him by breaking His Law. The One offended is the One who forgives. Someone or something else cannot forgive us for our breaking of God's Laws and sinning against God. God is offended and only God can forgive.

Not only can God forgive, but He can delegate this authority to forgive, to men.

How is it then that Jesus is the one who forgives sin -Luke 5:20- if Jesus is not God, the one who was offended by transgressing the law?

I have answered this about half a dozen times now. The fact is that God delegated authority to forgive sins, to Christ. Christ in return delegated authority to forgive sins to the apostles (who were men).

What law was violated on the cross? Man offending man or man offending God?

Man offending God.

B. W. wrote:It is apparent that you do not understand the Hebrew language, customs, nor the use of Elohim.

Not only do I understand, but I have demonstrated my understanding several times in this thread with regard to the word 'elohim'. Have you read my posts?

You interpret Elohim to mean angel, or messenger, or ruler.

No, I understand it can also mean 'God'.

Jesus was from the line of David. King David's throne was never established. King David blew it with the census and a host of other wrongs. God promised a new kingdom that would last forever. Jewish custom and tradition still hold that the Messiah will be from the line of David and last forever. Jesus was the promised Messiah bringing forth a kingdom that He would rule forever.

David's throne will be established by the great son of David, who is the Messiah. What's the issue?

B. W. wrote:As a Christiandelphanian, do you believe-


(1) There is no Trinity...

Yes, I believe that the trinity is a false doctrine.

...Scriptures that Christians use to support the Trinity doctrine referring to Elohim are dismissed as only referring to angels.

No that is not true. We understand that the word 'elohim' can refer to men, to God's angels, or to God Himself.

The angels they say, did the work of creation, because it was beneath God to engage in such a work.

I have never heard any Christadelphian say this. Perhaps you're confusing us with another group.

(2) Jesus Christ is not God. They deny that Jesus existed in any form before he was born of Mary. In The Christadelphian', official journal of the church, No XI, from 1874 they say, "He (Jesus) was not God, neither a mere man, nor had he any existence prior to his supernatural birth".

Yes, I agree with that.

Again in Christendom Astray', page 1089 they say, "Jesus was a manifestation of the Father in man, begotten by the Spirit. He did not become the Christ until his water baptism; until then he simply had a body prepared for the divine manifestation that was to take place through him..."

I have never read that book, but I doubt very much that it has over 1,000 pages (I have seen copies, and it's nowhere near that large). Nor do I know what the author is saying there, so I won't bother commenting (the book was written in the 19th century, using 19th century language, which I don't always comphrend).

(3) The Holy Spirit is not a person but a "...radiant visible power from the Father. It is an unseen power emanating from the Deity, filling all space, and by which God is everywhere present. It is the medium by which God created all things..." (Christadelphians by Lita Hutchins, page 7).

Yes, pretty much. I would just say that the Holy Spirit is the power of God.

(4) Do you believe that the devil does not exist?

I believe that the 'devil' of popular Christianity does not exist. The devil of the Bible most certainly exists.

Do you agree that the term Devil appears in the Bible is a synonym for the word "sin?"

No I do not agree that the term 'Devil' appears in the Bible as a synoym for the word 'sin'. It does appear in the Bible as a metonym for the principle of sin (the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life).

(5) Do believe in the doctrine of soul sleep and conditional immortality and reject Personal immortality of ALL souls?

We don't believe in 'soul sleep', becase we believe in conditional immortaliy, and reject the personal immortality of the souls of mortal beings.

(6) Man is just a body - and not a body and soul?

No, man is both body and 'soul' (or 'breath', or 'spirit', to use the Biblical term). We reject the idea that man is just 'soul' (in the sense of an immortal spirit which exists separate from the body after death).

(7) Jesus was just a man with a special power?

I have already explained this in copious detail in my previous post, using direct quotes from the apostles. He was not 'just a man', he was the son of God, invested with authority from the Father.

B. W. wrote:I interviewed a man over the course of his tenure at the local Community Corrections Detention Center where I worked for the past 5 years. He was a convicted serial killer that claimed that the bible lead him to commit his deeds. He was absolutely convinced his interpretation was the only correct one because the Bible did not teach death as everlasting, nor that people could be punished for sins forever because the bible boldly declared, “The Lord has no delight in the death of the wicked.”

He thus concluded that since the bible said this then therefore when bible talks of punishment; it meant that God zapped offenders into a state of none-existence on the final judgment day. Next he read that Judas, the betrayer, hung himself and this lead to his belief that all betrayers must be killed by strangulation.

He read that God's ministers are angels of fire. And concluded that he was one and since there was no eternal punishment but only non-existence to the betrayers, he had the right as an angel to rid the world of these whom God lead across his path because it was written in the bible, “I delight to do thy will oh God.”

The point is this: without exploring the meaning of the bible in its original languages and using strict laws of interpretations, a person can make the bible say anything they desire it to say and adhere to their interpretations despite all reason.

Oh, I certainly agree.

For example, many believe the word Elohim — God - means just messengers or angels or persons endowed with power from God.

But Christadelphians do not believe this. We agree that it also means 'God'.

Thus, the first time God is used in the bible is the word Elohim in Genesis chapter One is translated as such. The Bible says in Psalms 33: 6-9 states God created the world, not angels doing this, but Yehowah.

Psalms 104:1-35 makes it clear that God created the world Himself and not through the agency of angels but if one wanted to build a belief that He did, they could attempt to do so with verse 4 and 5. However, if tried, the grammar must be ignored or explained away, as well as all scriptures pertaining that God creating the world by Himself.

I agree with all of this. But the trinitarian does not - the trinitarian believes that God the Father created all things through Christ, not on His own.

In this psalm, the Hebrew language uses pauses, like how we use in poetry. When translated, this flow is lost. Let's look at the Hebrew word order and you'll see what I Mean by using the flow. These pauses are divided between 6 to 10 Hebrew words on average and here I place these so in direct word order translation:

Bless O my soul, Yehowah! O Yehowah! My God (Elohim)! You are very great, majesty and honor you have put on…

Covering Yourself with radiant light like a cloak; stretching out the heavens like a curtain...

You Who lay beams in the waters of Your upper rooms, Who sets thick clouds as your chariot who marches on the wings of wind...

He makes angels winds, His ministers a fire of flames...

He founded the earth on its foundations, not shall it shake forever and ever...

The grammar construction of the original Hebrew shows clearly that it is God who founded the earth as all the who's and He's refer directly to the, Yehowah, O Yehowah, my God (Elohim) of the first lines, and not to angels.

Instead, angels were made too be part of God's design. According to entire bible Angels were more or less taking care of what God had already made and issuing forth God's commands, etc.

This does not mean Angels helped create the world and that Elohim can only to be inferred as angels as used in Geneses chapters 1, 2, 3, 4 and etc. What did God create with out help, was the heavens, earth, angels and humanity. After this, these were charged with doing what? For humanity — tending and taking care of earth created by God.

You cannot take bible passages that speak about angel's duties and thus use it to justify that God used angels to create the heavens and earth and all else when angels were created beings themselves within the universe of God's creation.

I agree with all of this. What's the issue?

The phrase: Bless O my soul, Yehowah, O Yehowah, my God (Elohim) points out that early Hebrew idea of Elohim was intended as God as He chooses to revel Himself to humanity — hence the generic usage for God.

Yes, I agree.

When Hebrew is used to infer man ruling as a god it does so with same note: one ruling like a god. We all have meet people who do this. Also, a different grammar make-up is used when denoting someone or thing acting like a god to rule, etc.

Could you explain this point please? Could you also please deal with this standard evangelical exposition of the psalm?

sn O God. The king is clearly the addressee here, as in vv. 2-5 and 7-9. Rather than taking the statement at face value, many prefer to emend the text because the concept of deifying the earthly king is foreign to ancient Israelite thinking (cf. NEB “your throne is like God's throne, eternal”). However, it is preferable to retain the text and take this statement as another instance of the royal hyperbole that permeates the royal psalms.

Because the Davidic king is God's vice-regent on earth, the psalmist addresses him as if he were God incarnate. God energizes the king for battle and accomplishes justice through him. A similar use of hyperbole appears in Isa 9:6, where the ideal Davidic king of the eschaton is given the title “Mighty God” (see the note on this phrase there).

Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows: “No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique” (see M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67).

Ps 45:6 and Isa 9:6 probably envision a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king's enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself.

That is from the New English Translation, a standard orthodox evangelical translation, from people who firmly believe in the trinity.

To twist meaning of scripture to fit what the language does not teach to fit interpretation else where does injustice to the entire bible and God Himself.

Oh, I certainly agree.

This would be inferred as committing the fallacy of the illegitimate totality transfer — denying what the bible really is saying into what one wants to hear almost in the same manner as the serial killer did.

No that is not the illegitmate totality transfer. Please don't use this term if you don't know what it means.

Fortigurn wrote:

B. W. wrote:Therefore the bible tells us not to place our trust in man but if you call Christ your only Master and Lord and My Lord and my God then what about God the Father? Is He not also your Lord and Master?

God is my Lord and Master in a different sense.

Since you call Jesus Christ your only Lord and Master, are you not therefore committing idolatry?

No, why?

Have you really received Jesus the Bible really teaches or just a man?

Yes, I have really received the Jesus the Bible teaches (see my list of teachings from the apostles themselves).

When we sin, we sin against God because it is His law we violate. God is the one who must forgive us because we have offended Him by breaking His Law. The One offended is the One who forgives. Someone or something else cannot forgive us for our breaking of God's Laws and sinning against God. God is offended and only God can forgive.

Not only can God forgive, but He can delegate this authority to forgive, to men.

How is it then that Jesus is the one who forgives sin -Luke 5:20- if Jesus is not God, the one who was offended by transgressing the law?

I have answered this about half a dozen times now. The fact is that God delegated authority to forgive sins, to Christ. Christ in return delegated authority to forgive sins to the apostles (who were men).

What law was violated on the cross? Man offending man or man offending God?

Man offending God.

I'll begin a few clues and hope you catch on.

The formation of a Human being in the womb is an amazing thing. What percent of the DNA comes from the father and what percent comes from the mother? I'll let you find the answer on your own.

The miraculous birth of Jesus points out something neglected by Christadelphians: Jesus' Father. Bible states that the Holy Spirit and the power on High overshadowed Mary.

If the Holy Spirit is just only a creative force of God's divine power, then how could she conceive? Without a Father, the DNA percent is not complete. If a divine force can produce life, then who is Jesus' Father? Think on it for awhile. All I ask - just ponder it for awhile.

The bible adds a conjunction — and — between The Holy Spirit and power from on High denoting a difference: interesting. If the Holy Spirit is God, then the gene DNA sequence remains intact. If the Holy Spirit is a creative divine wind, the DNA sequence remains intact: Who then is Jesus and Who was His Father?

How does this apply to your answers - See Next Frame…

I wrote:
Therefore the bible tells us not to place our trust in man but if you call Christ your only Master and Lord and My Lord and my God then what about God the Father? Is He not also your Lord and Master?[/quote]

Your answer:
God is my Lord and Master in a different sense.

I asked:
Since you call Jesus Christ your only Lord and Master, are you not therefore committing idolatry?

You asked in reply:

No, why?

My answer - Here is why:

Endless bible quotes only cloud the issue in endless round robin debates. Let's cut the chase and get to the point. Christadelphians believe that Jesus Christ was only a sinless man, who kept the law and thus was able atone for sins by being without sin.

The Bible tells us the Jesus kept the law and remained sinless. This we both agree upon but how Jesus kept the law and remained sinless, we do not. For Christadelphians, Jesus remains a perfect man who kept the law and was thus sinless but how can this be?

If you say that Jesus kept the law by the power of God, he still remains a man. If He were only a man endowed with power from on High, just like the prophets of old were, how come Jesus never qualified His statements with the prophets phrase, Thus says the Lord? When the prophets spoke in the name of the Lord, they all qualified that they were only a messenger and spoke for God on God's behalf. Jesus never did this.

If Jesus were only a man, how could He say, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am He. (John 8:23-24 RSV)”

And again in John 8:54-58 it declares - Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that He is your God. But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad. The Jews then said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple (RSV).

If Jesus was just a man influenced by a divine wind, he remains a man and if only a man he sinned by declaring that he existed before he was begotten. Jesus lied. If Christadelphians say Jesus did not sin and clearly we see here that he did so: lied. If Christadelphians say that man wrote the scriptures and left out something then the fallacy of the illegitimate totality transfer applies.

In John 10:30-31 Jesus said boldly states, without any thus saith the lord to qualify speaking on God's behalf that - I and the Father are one and then the Jewish religious leaders took up stones again to stone him for saying this.

If Christadelphians say Jesus was influenced, or inhabited by God's Spirit Power, then Jesus would be divine. To say this, denies that Jesus was only just a human man because He had to be divinely inspired to say these things. If only divinely inspired, Jesus remains only just a man, and thus sinned and is not perfect.

If Jesus was only a man endowed with divine power, he remains a man, and if a man, he transgressed the law by blaspheming. According to Christadelphians, Jesus was only a sinless man who kept the law but we see clearly, that if Jesus were only just a man, he sinned.

How could Jesus be sinless, when we can see clearly that he broke the law? If Christadelphians say that man wrote the scriptures and left out something then the fallacy of the illegitimate totality transfer applies. Or if Christadelphians say Jesus was inspired by God to say these things, the scriptures need to be stretched and contorted thus proving Christadelphians committing the illegitimate totality transfer to prove their bias.

Christadelphians build their doctrine of atonement on the premise that Jesus was only a man endowed with power from on high. If this was the case, then Jesus could not say these things. If so, then Jesus was Divine. If not, He lied and committed sin. You cannot have it both ways.

If Jesus, only a man, sinned then the Christadelphians are still lost in sin and the atonement they declare is built upon false premises and construct. A divinely inspired man sinned by declaring that He existed before he was begotten and that he and the Father were one, all without declaring a qualifying statement of — thus says the lord proves Jesus sinned. Christadelphians believe that Jesus was sinless and kept the whole law. How could he? You cannot have it both ways.

Next Frame…

For Jesus not to lie, He would have to be God as it is written in I Timothy 3:16 - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory (KJV).

Philippians 2:5-12 - …Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

We Christians affirm the scriptures without any fallacy of the illegitimate totality transfer. The Bible says what it says. We come to the bible in humble prayer and say, teach me Lord, how can this be? You are both God and Man show me how? He does so and we discover the great mystery of godliness — One God in three persons, blessed Trinity.

Christadelphians discover a man and sacrifice that can never atone and remain without hope and without God in this world and in the age to come. Why, Jesus as only a man truly sinned.

You cannot have it both ways. Bible says Jesus kept the law and did not sin. How is this possible for a man who lied about existing before he was begotten and being one with the Father? Please, take up stones and throw at Jesus and not us. We did not declare this, Jesus did. The bible says what it says — stop adding to it.

Proverbs 3:5-8 - Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away from evil. It will be healing to your flesh and refreshment to your bones.

Proverbs 6:16-19 - There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers.

Fortigurn, haughty eyes are the look of disdain upon others that spend countless hours (as this thread clearly displays) attempting to destroy faith and hope in the true God that the bible really teaches. Are you doing this? Is this your purpose here?

You know not the work of the cross, nor do you know the real Jesus of the Bible. You cannot hide your haughty eyes looking down on the rest of Christendom because they cannot acknowledged a Jesus that lied and sinned as you do.

You cannot have it both ways: Jesus, if only a man, sinned. To not have sinned - Jesus would have to be God. To be God, or even both God and man, Christadelphians disdain. Again, you cannot have it both ways in this matter. Choose pride or reason — choose.

As Christians, we do not stretch God's word out of all proportion, as is the manner of Christadelphians: to prove that Jesus was only a man whose blood cannot atone, as you wrote and boldly professed on this thread many times and admit.

I again implore you by the love of God do you want to know the real Jesus?

Jesus said:

And I tell you, every one who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; but he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God. And every one who speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

Mr. Fortigurn, if the Holy Spirit is not also God, you could not blaspheme an - it.

Again Jesus speaks,

Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Mr. Fortigurn, Jesus is knocking on your door...


Mr. Fortigurn, are you denying Jesus?
-
-
-
-
Mr. Fortigurn, are you denying Jesus?
-
-
-
-
Mr. Fortigurn, why are you still denying Jesus?
-
-
-
-
-