Evidence for God from Science

Do you still believe I am being spiritually blinded?[/quote]

KBCid wrote:Ok lets see what you are really saying here.
1) because my understanding doesn't match yours then I am lacking understanding
2) I can't have proper understanding until I accept Christ as my lord. Thus by inference you assume that you have and I have not.
3) Any christian has the proper understanding.

You don't understand what is plainly written to you by me. Please provide evidence that I affirmed 1 and 3, above. As for #2, above, are you saying that you are now born of the Spirit, as in John 3:3?

KBCid wrote:

Do you still believe I am being spiritually blinded?

I sense that there is something about you that is fake. Either you are self-deceived or you have just recently became a Christian. Are you now Christian?

FL

KCBid,

I would say that the context of these papers you have linked must initially be understood. The makers of the papers are assuming no God/ inteligent designer with the ability to choose brought about the conditions we currently observe. So, they are trying to rationalize a beginning that just happened. Poof!. Their argument has no valid method of proving and would intrinsically remain a hypothesis forever.

Nowhere do they say that no God exists. In fact many Christian astronomers and physicists agree with these papers. Regardless of what they may want to believe, the equations show that an expanding universe (or even an expanding multi-verse) must have a cause independent of the space-time of this universe. Even outspoken sceptics like Hawking and Krauss agree. Non-believers may suggest causes for the universe, but the fact still remains that the causes are transcendent to the mater, energy, space and time of this universe.

Likewise, the equations show that time only moves forward from its beginning, and this is what we see around us. We cannot reverse time.

What does eternity, eternal and everlasting mean?
'Infinite time'... You see there cannot be a beginning of time and a state of eternity at the same time. Either God is 'eternal' or time had a beginning and God had a beginning. Thus, when properly interpreted 'in the beginning can only apply to that point in infinite time when something came to exist. God made a choice at some point in infinite time to create something.

I gave you a link dealing with this.

"In the Beginning" (bereshit)
This exact phrase is used only four other times in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 26:1, 27:1, 28:1, 49:34) and once with a slight variation (Hosea 9:10). In one of these meaning of the phrase is not defined, but for the other four, the meaning seems clear.

Jeremiah 28:1 defines both here and 27:1 as encompassing the first four years of Zedekiah's eleven-year reign; about 36% of his entire reign (see Jere. 52:1). The context suggests same can be said of Jehoiakim's 11 yr. reign (see 2 Kings 23:36; Jere. 25:1, 26:1, 36:1, 45:1 and 46:2). Hosea 9:10 uses the variation of the phrase to speak of a fig tree's first fruit-bearing season. All of these are periods of time and rule against "In the beginning" of Genesis 1:1 being restricted to an instant or some other part of a 24-hour period.

Job 38:4, 7-9, Psalm 104:5-6, etc give us information about things that happened during the period called "In the beginning."

God never commanded - "let there be time" He did not create time. What he did create was a reference to track time so that it could be measured. he defined the method of measuring time in;
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Actually, this was only one of the time measuring methods. Genesis 1:14 gives us more. It is these heavenly bodies that allow astronomers to look all the way back to when the universe was only about 10 to the -34 seconds old. God gave us the ability to measure the time dimension of this universe. The temporality in which He exists has no measurability. Our temporality only moves forward, but His is unlimited.

Even if we ignore 1 Peter 1:20, you still skipped the clear passages which said that things occurred before time existed.

Since the Bible clearly states that cosmic time must have a beginning, should we ignore all of the church fathers and Jews who taught that the Bible teaches a beginning of time?

Now to Genesis 2:17
There are many interpretations and definitions. Begining with english seems like a good starting point.

No, it is not a good starting point. This was written in Hebrew that is why I used Hebrew.

Yes. You and I can certainly rationalize in hindsight that 'in the day' meant an undefined period of time.

That was not my point at all. I was not making an argument for the length of "in the day." That is irrelevant to what I am saying.

I stated that the assurance of death "you will surely die" was put in place that day. I pointed to Genesis 3:22-23 where God, "on that day," assured Adam's death. God had already stated that Adam would die, but not right away (Gen. 3:17, 19). "In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life." "....you will eat bread, until you return to the ground."

Again, the timing was of the assurance of death, not the actual death. Shimei died two or three days after he was sentenced to death. Adam died about 930 years after his sentence. Both of them were sentenced to death that day and they both died. So, Shimei's situation is not a problem for my position.

Since God's word and God's world are telling us that our time had a beginning, you have to ignore one or both to come up with another answer. Time is a dimension of the universe, which is why physicists call it space-time. If you came across a set of coordinates to locate me (latitude, longitude and height, because I am in a building) it would do you know good to look for me if you did not know the time. If it were my place of business, you could only find me there when I was working. If you're looking for a supernova, you can only see it while it is exploding.

If I am looking for God, I am not limited by space or time. He is everywhere, always and He has been, is and will be everywhere, always.

KCBid,

I now see the problem, your profile says that you are not a Christian, so Scripture is not an authority to you. You are still stuck with the space-time theorems.

The pagan myths are just that. The myths I have looked at can be tested and do not match reality. The theory of evolution is also full of holes.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:You don't understand what is plainly written to you by me. Please provide evidence that I affirmed 1 and 3, above. As for #2, above, are you saying that you are now born of the Spirit, as in John 3:3?

#1 (because my understanding doesn't match yours then I am lacking understanding) was based on this;

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Your posts show a lack of understanding of the Bible.

This would be evidence which you stated in your post.

#3 (Any christian has the proper understanding)

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: "and you will not accept the explanations Christians give"

I have spoken to a number of 'Christians' who have been part of a number of Christian faiths and they do not all agree on everything. They are not one the way Christ and his father are. They each assert various points which are not in harmony with each other. Thus, it is fair to ask if you believe that just 'any Christian' has the correct explanation. If you do agree that not all Christians have a correct explanation then where is the line of demarcation?

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:are you saying that you are now born of the Spirit, as in John 3:3?

I neither said that I was nor did I say that I wasn't which is why I pointed out that you assumed I hadn't in point #2 (I can't have proper understanding until I accept Christ as my lord. Thus by inference you assume that you have and I have not.) A more proper way to interact would have been for you to ask me prior to making an assumption.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: I sense that there is something about you that is fake. Either you are self-deceived or you have just recently became a Christian. Are you now Christian? FL

What might I possibly gain by being fake? I quite plainly stated that I am testing my understanding of scripture. I also stated plainly that I am seeking to understand how others have derived their understandings. Is it unreasonable for me to seek such things via interaction with people on a Christian forum. It would certainly be hard to gain such an understanding by going to an atheist forum right? At this point in my life I have heard more than I ever wished to hear from such people. None of them see the created forest for the trees. So if I am understanding something wrong then by all means show me how it is wrong.

I would also ask you how someone such as myself who quite plainly stated that "Jesus Christ is the son of God" would be faking anything?
consider these verses;
Mat 12:25-26 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

I am simply seeking to understand and not convert others to my understanding which at this point may be in error. You have the option to define where and how I am erring according to your understanding. Simply telling me I am wrong does not accomplish anything.

dayage wrote:Nowhere do they say that no God exists. In fact many Christian astronomers and physicists agree with these papers.

Of course none would say He doesn't exist... God is not part of the considered causes which is clear in how they assert that something came to exist. the fact that some or many who profess a Christian belief agree with the papers does not lend any credibility to the hypothesis posited..

dayage wrote:Regardless of what they may want believe, the equations show that an expanding universe (or even an expanding multi-verse) must have a cause independent of the space-time of this universe. Even outspoken sceptics like Hawking and Krauss agree. Non-believers may suggest causes for the universe, but the fact still remains that the causes are transcendent to the matter, energy, space and time of this universe. Likewise, the equations show that time only moves forward from its beginning, and this is what we see around us. We cannot reverse time.

The question remains how might one test the validity of the math to allow an inference beyond mere hypothesis?

KBCid wrote:What does eternity, eternal and everlasting mean?
'Infinite time'... You see there cannot be a beginning of time and a state of eternity at the same time. Either God is 'eternal' or time had a beginning and God had a beginning. Thus, when properly interpreted 'in the beginning can only apply to that point in infinite time when something came to exist. God made a choice at some point in infinite time to create something.

dayage wrote:I gave you a link dealing with this.

Indeed you gave me a link to what someone else believes is a sarisfactory answer to you. It was not however satisfactory to me. One cannot posit a beginning of time without first a way to verify it and second without altering the meaning of eternity, eternal and everlasting. Time must always exist for there to be an eternity.

dayage wrote:"In the Beginning" (bereshit)
This exact phrase is used only four other times in the Old Testament...

I quite agree that it is used to define something starting however, at no time past its first usage does its use infer that time didn't
exist prior to its use.

dayage wrote:All of these are periods of time and rule against "In the beginning" of Genesis 1:1 being restricted to an instant or some other part of a 24-hour period.

In truth it doesn't actualy imply a specifiable period of time it asserts the beginning of a specific design "the heavens and the earth". It's use in Gen 1:1 does appear to match with Gen 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens".
Suppose instead of Gen 1:1 being the first act God performed that instead it is a summary of what the text following it is going to explain in more detail. Notice how 2:4 appears to restate Gen 1:1 and resummerises the end of the story which explained how God created "the heavens and the earth".

dayage wrote:Job 38:4, 7-9, Psalm 104:5-6, etc give us information about things that happened during the period called "In the beginning."

Both Job and Psalms refer specifically to the forming of the earth. which is quite nicely a further description of;
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

I have no problem at all with any of the references that provide further illumination of how God formed the design of all the physical things. I have no doubt whatsoever that he did fashion everything that he stated he did according to his own design. These things which he stated he formed was specifically "the heavens and the earth".

KBCid wrote: God never commanded - "let there be time" He did not create time. What he did create was a reference to track time so that it could be measured. he defined the method of measuring time in;
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

dayage wrote:The temporality in which He exists has no measurability. Our temporality only moves forward, but His is unlimited.

Where do you derive these points from? As far as I know from the text God is eternal and his Son stated;

Pro 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
Pro 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth...

Christ could not have been 'set up' or 'brought forth 'from everlasting' if time didn't exist since everlasting defines the existence of infinite time.

dayage wrote:Even if we ignore 1 Peter 1:20, you still skipped the clear passages which said that things occurred before time existed.

Let us not ignore anything pls. I must consider everything to hope for a proper understanding. So lets look at 1Pe 1:20 "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world...". Christ was ordained prior to the formation of the world, I have understood that quite clearly. It is quite clear that there was a time prior to the founding of the earth when Christ was with his father and it was decided that he would come to save those who would be created. The only thing not reffered to in that passage is a begining of time. There was only a reference to a begining of the earth. If you have other verses that state or infer a begining of time pls. post them.

dayage wrote:Since the Bible clearly states that cosmic time must have a beginning, should we ignore all of the church fathers and Jews who taught that the Bible teaches a beginning of time?

Now just so you understand me here. I am not saying your understanding is in error I am simply trying to understand how you derived your
understanding vs. what I have read and understood directly from the text on my own without outside input.
I am interested in the reference verses you feel "clearly states that cosmic time must have a beginning". I have not yet seen anything from "the church fathers and Jews" which I have ignored. You may want to reference them at some point so that they may be considered as well. The entirety of my study has been strictly the biblical text since it is possible that outside sources could have erred in their interpretation.

KBCid wrote:Now to Genesis 2:17 There are many interpretations and definitions. Begining with english seems like a good starting point.

dayage wrote:No, it is not a good starting point. This was written in Hebrew that is why I used Hebrew.

Even now I am studying the various interpretations of hebrew. Unfortunately there is no one alive who can empirically state how correct the interpretations are and it is quite obvious that even those who are professionals at interpreting hebrew have varying opinions as to what the hebrew actually translates too;
Creationism to Be Renamed Separatism After New Interpretation Released of Genesis
Professor Ellen van Wolde, a world acclaimed Old Testament scholar... ...looked at the first line of Genesis that reads “in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth” and found that the Hebrew text had been translated incorrectly. The proper translation, she argues, is that the Earth was already there when God created humans and animals. The use of bara she argues was “meant to say that God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself.” She concludes “[t]he traditional view of God the Creator is untenable now.” http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/18/cr ... f-genesis/

This is essentially why begining in english is a good starting point for me as this gives you all the opportunity to assert any of the various hebrew translations as a possible better explanation, and really by all means use any evidence at your disposal, what more can I ask for than to be able to consider things I may have missed.

KBCid wrote:Yes. You and I can certainly rationalize in hindsight that 'in the day' meant an undefined period of time.

dayage wrote:That was not my point at all. I was not making an argument for the length of "in the day." That is irrelevant to what I am saying. I stated that the assurance of death "you will surely die" was put in place that day. I pointed to Genesis 3:22-23 where God, "on that day," assured Adam's death. God had already stated that Adam would die, but not right away (Gen. 3:17, 19). "In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life." "....you will eat bread, until you return to the ground."

My apologies then, I misunderstood. I definitely understand that Adam and Eve learned that God would not in fact kill them instantly. However, I also made a reference to them not knowing that ahead of time. Adam and Eve cannot be assumed to have known that God's commandment of death would not be instant. You and I who are now able to read (Gen. 3:17, 19) which was not available to Adam and Eve can clearly see that at some point "in the day" when God confronted them they realized that they had a timed death.

dayage wrote:Again, the timing was of the assurance of death, not the actual death. Shimei died two or three days after he was sentenced to death. Adam died about 930 years after his sentence. Both of them were sentenced to death that day and they both died. So, Shimei's situation is not a problem for my position.

I asked you to put yourself in Adams shoes and tell me what you would have assumed when God said you will surely die? Do you believe at that point in the conversation with God that you would understand it to be timed vs. an instant death. Do you think Adam could have said "its no big deal to disobey God, we will still live for nearly a thousand years more anyway"?

dayage wrote:Since God's word and God's world are telling us that our time had a beginning, you have to ignore one or both to come up with another answer.

All things that have been caused to exist have a time of their beginning.Every single star and planet God ever formed has a time of their begining. God's word so far has not told me that time has a begining. Every created thing all the way down to atoms themselves tell me they had a time of their begining but there is no way one might infer that time started when these physical constructions of God came to exist.

dayage wrote:Time is a dimension of the universe, which is why physicists call it space-time. If you came across a set of coordinates to locate me (latitude, longitude and height, because I am in a building) it would do you know good to look for me if you did not know the time. If it were my place of business, you could only find me there when I was working. If you're looking for a supernova, you can only see it while it is exploding.

Time is a perception of an intelligent being. Time exists for every intelligent being. We can perceive time independant of physical motions of planets and stars. We could exist as a blind person does and perceive time as our thoughts come one after another. God who is eternal, existing forever in infinite time past is also intelligent. He would experience time. Actually time has to exist as long as anything exists. Thus, if God existed prior to matter and is the eternal cause then time has always existed.

dayage wrote:If I am looking for God, I am not limited by space or time. He is everywhere, always and He has been, is and will be everywhere, always.

This particular point may be debateable. You are specifically talking about God the father correct?

Joh 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

If the father were everywhere then Christ had no need to go anywhere. there would also be no reason for Christ to send a comforter;

John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

See its not very easy to rationalize that he is everywhere at once. As far as I understand form the text the presence of God is a consuming fire which is why the comforter is sent to dwell within us. This is how we become one in spirit with him just as his Son is one in spirit with him.

A word about Christ saying that The father is greater then He:
This has to do with the authority of God and the place in which the Son holds the Father.
Christ openly submits himself to His father and views Him (rightly) as greater than Him.
I as the son of MY father also say My father is greater than I, for the respect and reverance I have to my father.
I doesn't change that Mt father and I are both the same in nature and this is even more so for The Son and The Father, who are in a perfect union that we can't even begin to comprehend.
Those that use that verse to somehow make the Father and Son different in nature or make Christ a "created" being are not grasping what John is saying and ignoring ALL else that John says about the nature and identity of Jesus.

I went back and reviewed your posts since you bacame a member and saw that on two occasions you described yourself as a ''weak agnostic''; you also said that you have been studying religions for over 30 years. I also saw - as dayage pointed out - that you do not identify yourself as a Christian in your profile. My apologies! I should have checked this out before.

KBCid wrote:I have spoken to a number of 'Christians' who have been part of a number of Christian faiths and they do not all agree on everything. They are not one the way Christ and his father are. They each assert various points which are not in harmony with each other. Thus, it is fair to ask if you believe that just 'any Christian' has the correct explanation. If you do agree that not all Christians have a correct explanation then where is the line of demarcation?

Where does it say in the Bible that people (Christians or otherwise) are to agree on everything? What is this ''correct explanation'' you are talking about?

KBCid wrote:I neither said that I was nor did I say that I wasn't which is why I pointed out that you assumed I hadn't in point #2 (I can't have proper understanding until I accept Christ as my lord. Thus by inference you assume that you have and I have not.) A more proper way to interact would have been for you to ask me prior to making an assumption.

Nothing is clear in what you have written, above. You have given a very vague answer.

KBCid wrote:What might I possibly gain by being fake? I quite plainly stated that I am testing my understanding of scripture. I also stated plainly that I am seeking to understand how others have derived their understandings. Is it unreasonable for me to seek such things via interaction with people on a Christian forum. It would certainly be hard to gain such an understanding by going to an atheist forum right? At this point in my life I have heard more than I ever wished to hear from such people. None of them see the created forest for the trees. So if I am understanding something wrong then by all means show me how it is wrong.

When I said that there was something fake about you, I assumed that you were posing as a Christian. I now know that you are an unbeliever. I'm sorry; please accept my apologies.

KBCid wrote:I am simply seeking to understand and not convert others to my understanding which at this point may be in error. You have the option to define where and how I am erring according to your understanding. Simply telling me I am wrong does not accomplish anything.

You are right, again. I'm sorry. I hope you find what you are looking for on godandscience.org. Welcome to the Board!

FL

PaulSacramento wrote:A word about Christ saying that The father is greater then He...
...Those that use that verse to somehow make the Father and Son different in nature or make Christ a "created" being are not grasping what John is saying and ignoring ALL else that John says about the nature and identity of Jesus.

At no point do I assert that father and son have a differing nature. The fact that they are of the same nature is what allows them to assert that they are one, one in spirit. The assertion of 'created' by me was an error since creation is aligned with a design implementation. However, just as you can be a father to your begotten son does show that the father and the son are separate entities.

In order for the son to be begotten from the father he had to have come out of his father and become a separate being just as eve was taken from adam and they are both distinct and separate entities. The only way all the scriptures make logical sense is if the father and the son are distinct and individual entities;

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person...

Joh 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me...

Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Joh 16:3 ...because they have not known the Father, nor me.

Joh 20:17 ...I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Each of these entities are one in nature and spirit but separate beings.

KBCid wrote:

Each of these entities are one in nature and spirit but separate beings.

That would be polytheism. God is one being, in three distinct persons.
It might seem like semantics, but this is where some groups deviate from true Christianity.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

KBCid,

When you reference the Book of John, write ''Jn'' not ''Joh'' because Jn 1:1 will give your readers a link to the verse, whereas Joh 1:1 forces us to look it up. If in doubt, write the whole name out, John 1:1. Thanks!

KBCid wrote:The only way all the scriptures make logical sense is if the father and the son are distinct and individual entities;

Actually, you've made a profound statement above. Perhaps the seeking after ''logic'' is what created such heresies as Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science and Mormonism, to name but three. The Bible will never make sense to you until you repent and accept Jesus as Lord of your life. Until you do that, all these Bible references you post will just serve to harden your heart towards God all the more.

FL

KBCid wrote: Each of these entities are one in nature and spirit but separate beings.

RickD wrote:That would be polytheism. God is one being, in three distinct persons. It might seem like semantics, but this is where some groups deviate from true Christianity. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

It certainly can be interpreted that way if it is viewed separate from the context provided from other parts of the bible. If however, you take into account other texts then you must rationalize all the verses;

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me...

Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

I seems that there is different meaning when God is saying there is no other gods because Christ himself made sure that we understood that "ye are gods" and that "scripture cannot be broken" Thus if we are gods and we have separate being then the same would hold true for Christ. In fact, later in John there is a description of just what is meant by Christ and his father being one;

John 17:21-22 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

We too may someday be one with the father just as Christ says "even as we are one". Yet each of us has our own identity our own separate being. How is it that we could be one with the father just like Christ if in fact Christ doesn't have his own separate identity? Do you propose that we will lose our unique identities upon becoming one with Christ and our father?

One thing of note here is that I am providing a plethera of verses to back the point I am making and so far I am not seeing anything in reply to them. It is hard to delve into the subject if there is no distinction between what one believes and why one believes it. Showing that Christ is a separate entity than God the father provides unity for every verse in the bible. Asserting that he can't have a separate identity from his father and still be part of the oneness of God is where an interpretational line is being placed that isn't warranted by the context provided by a variety of verses. We can clearly see that at some point all of creation will one day also have this same oneness with the Father that Christ says he has with him and we all have our own unique God given identities. We will even be given new names.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Why get a new name if we have no unique identity?

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:KBCid, When you reference the Book of John, write ''Jn'' not ''Joh'' because Jn 1:1 will give your readers a link to the verse, whereas Joh 1:1 forces us to look it up. If in doubt, write the whole name out, John 1:1. Thanks!

So sorry, I am clipping from e-sword and it shortens the names on its own so no intentional devising there. I just never noticed it did that.

KBCid wrote:The only way all the scriptures make logical sense is if the father and the son are distinct and individual entities;

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Actually, you've made a profound statement above. Perhaps the seeking after ''logic'' is what created such heresies as Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science and Mormonism, to name but three. The Bible will never make sense to you until you repent and accept Jesus as Lord of your life. Until you do that, all these Bible references you post will just serve to harden your heart towards God all the more. FL

I would think the seeking isn't so much the culprit as the making of a stand and drawing a line prior to understanding everything correctly.
The bible and its references are there for a reason. If we cannot study it and refer to it then it would be a useless document.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
2Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
1Peter 2:2 as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby
Acts 17:11 ...they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

It would be quite hard to separate false teachings and false teachers if we had no dependable guide to compare them to.

You assert that the bible won't make sense to me until I do what you say to do, but it is not the bible that doesn't make sense to me... it is the interpretations of others that make no sense when compared to the bible. My heart is not hardened against God. It was by his will and love that I exist. I have no desire to do anything other than what he wants me to do. I have studied the various religions and found all of them failing except one. This one book maintains its truth in every way I have looked at it. It would be my position that if I didn't love God I wouldn't read his word and try to understand exactly what he wants. By observing what other Christian sects have done I know that they can make huge errors by the method they used to set themselves apart and it is quite clear to me that not everyone who claims to be Christian will become one with the father. It would appear that many, many Christians who claim to have repented and accept Jesus as Lord don't speak with the oneness of God.

RickD wrote:That would be polytheism. God is one being, in three distinct persons. It might seem like semantics, but this is where some groups deviate from true Christianity.

There is something further I would like to point out here. The trinity was defined by the early catholic church the same church that melded pagan rites into the Christian faith and thought that worshiping Mary was an ok thing to do. I think it may be of some help if you consider what is said here; http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/d ... rinity.htm

"many historians and Bible scholars agree that the Trinity of Christianity owes more to Greek philosophy and pagan polytheism than to the monotheism of the Jew and the Jewish Jesus."

"This trinity was a ‘new idea to the Romans,’ and yet it became so ‘typical of Rome’ that it quickly spread throughout Italy (26). Even the names of the Roman trinity: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, reflect the ancestry. That Christianity was not ashamed to borrow from pagan culture is amply shown by Durant: ‘Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it’ (Caesar 595)."

"With this background, the growth and evolution of the Trinity can be clearly seen. As previously stated, the Bible does not mention the Trinity. Harnack affirms that the early church view of Jesus was as Messiah, and after his resurrection he was ‘raised to the right hand of God’ but not considered as God (1: 78). Bernard Lonergan, a Roman Catholic priest and Bible scholar, concurs that the educated Christians of the early centuries believed in a single, supreme God (119). As for the holy Spirit, McGiffert tells us that early Christians considered the holy Spirit ‘not as an individual being or person but simply as the divine power working in the world and particularly in the church’"

'It was Tertullian (c.160-230) who first coined the term trinitas from which the English word ‘trinity’ is derived. He clarifies thus the ‘mystery of the divine economy... which of the unity makes a trinity, placing the three in order not of quality but of sequence, different not in substance but in aspect, not in power but in manifestation’ (qtd. in Lonergan 46). At other times he used other images to show his point, such as the monarchy: ‘... If he who is the monarch has a son, and if the son is given a share in the monarchy, this does not mean that the monarchy is automatically divided, ceasing to be a monarchy’ (qtd. in Lonergan 47). Again, Tertullian explains the concept of being brought forth: ‘As the root brings forth the shoot, as the spring brings forth the stream, as the sun brings forth the beam’ (qtd. in Lonergan 45).
Tertullian did not consider the Father and Son co-eternal: ‘There was a time when there was neither sin to make God a judge, nor a son to make God a Father’ (qtd. in Lonergan 48); nor did he consider them co-equal: ‘For the Father is the whole substance, whereas the Son is something derived from it’ (qtd. in Lonergan 48). In Tertullian we find a groundwork upon which a trinity concept can be founded, but it has not yet evolved into that trinity of the Nicene Creed."

There is also this bit of information;

I John 5:7-8, For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in Earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. AV

Editors added the bracketed words in the early fourth century to the Latin Vulgate translation. They are not in the older Greek manuscripts. For this reason, modern translations omit them. Bible commentaries explain that these words were never in the apostle John's manuscript or any existing early copies of it. http://www.reluctant-messenger.com/Lost ... ity009.htm

Essentially, I John 5:7-8 would read "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Dear Lord, not another one please, I can't take it any more.

Byblos wrote:Dear Lord, not another one please, I can't take it any more.

It's ok Byblos.