Evidence for God from Science

bbyrd009 wrote:

In the beginning was (I AM) the Word, and the Word was (face to face) God and God was the word ...

Hasn't God also said that He was, and that He will be? So this seems to diminish the meaning of "Understand I AM," wadr, if the "AM" is made a title instead of being seen as emphatic; wherein "Am" would work just fine.

bbyrd009 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:...Go to all the world and preach the Gospel.

ok well that is very noble; but we are going to have to answer the charges of setting the world on fire, ok?

My comment was referring to the passage in Matthew 28 the last couple of verses -- many times referred to as The Great Commission. Believers are to 'go to the world' -- starting where we live / our neighborhood / town / radiating outward to other people -- sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ will all -- whomever will listen, but not to Force the Bible / God's Word on anyone. Making disciples of them -- that which people believe in their heart to share with others in the form of water baptism by immersion -- and then through our daily lives. We Are to let our light so shine before others that they will see Christ through us. I started that sentence with a particular verse in mind, but can't remember the rest of it. It's not so much 'being responsible for setting the world on fire', as it is sharing Gospel of salvation with people around me and They pass it on to Their friends, and on and on. Some will accept some reject. God's Word is never supposed to be Forced on anyone.

nice. If only it were true. You might tell that to the closet satanist back there trying to impress me with his Authoritay, who can't seem to answer a question.

crochet1949 wrote: BTW- I Don't want to be grouped with you as a 'we'. If that was your intention of using the 'we' in your sentence.

ah, sorry; i was trying to be kind. I am not a pledger of allegiances to flags, or a voter, so really i meant you. For of course it will be you that is charged with displacing...ha, like half of the planet, at this point. You vote and pay taxes, right? And while Europe might be bearing the brunt of your sins at the moment, as you elect Carnival Barkers who assure you that they will build higher walls for you, and obstruct Syrian immigration after your paid mercenaries have leveled the country--another country, btw, hardly your first--you can't imagine that you are going to escape God for this crime, do you?

Is that what this is all about? Y'alls nascent guilt at your culpability for ruining the mideast so you can keep swimming in cheap oil and heroin analogs?

crochet1949 wrote: Your presentation of your beliefs is So confusing to try to figure out -- 90% of the time you make No sense.

so then why not interact with the 10%, and leave the rest alone? How confusing is "I serve a risen Lord and i am of the Body of Christ, and i have the Spirit available to me?" That is confusing? "If you believe in a Papist trinity, that is ok by me?" Throws you for a loop, does it? That just puts you in a mood to start condemning, crochet?

crochet1949 wrote: Your attitude towards the Biblical teachings of the Godhead / Trinity is totally ...... So far out in left field that it's not even in the ball park. I don't like to use the word 'obnoxious' but ........

but you did, even though there are a lot of nontrinitarian and even antitrinitarian denominations. So, may as well pile on, i guess. I mean, i might understand this better if i had brought out the obviously pagan origins of trinity doctrine or something, but i didn't. So what gives?

You guys are just that in love with your Supremacy Justifications, imo. You like...no, you love having a doctrine that you can beat everyone else over the head with, huh. That's why you can't name a single bit of fruit from it, and you get so rabid and show your true colors when someone points out that the doctrine is your god, huh.

And surely the Bible is widely held here to be the Word, too, right? So the Bible is your god, too. You got gods coming out every orifice here huh?

jenna wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:One point that seems to be missed by those that are against or don't understand the Trinity is that of love.
IF God is Eternal ( which He must be) then that means that He has always existed.
If God is a single being ( for lack of a better term) then it means that, before there was a Son ( not to even go into the HS thing) it means that God had no one to love but Himself, which means His love was self-centered and self-centered love is INFERIOR to other-centered love ( not to mention that God would not have brought forth ANYTHING if He was self-centered).
God, by the very definition of God MUST be superior to ALL and if He was self-centered, He would be inferior to a God that was other-centered.

In short, if God is NOT a Triune "being" then he is NOT a relational being, which makes Him inferior and as such, NOT God.

sorry, but this went completely over my head. If i am reading this correctly, you say God cannot love if He is not triunal? and what is this about before there was a Son? Christ has always existed, so there never was a "before".

jenna wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

jenna wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

RickD wrote:Again, for the benefit of those following along, bbyrd is asking for the fruit of the doctrine of the Trinity.

And he claims it's biblical to look for fruit of this doctrine, even after he was shown that his "biblical " argument, was about the fruit of false teachers. And the fruit that the false teachers produce, is their false doctrine. Keep that in mind. Bbyrd is using scripture that talks about doctrine as the fruit, and he's trying to use that as a basis for fruit of the Trinity.

So, essentially when taking scripture out of context, bbyrd is literally looking for the doctrine of a doctrine.

Confused yet?

fine then go with that, ok? If you cannot judge by the results, and you want to characterize me as being a fool for suggesting as much, then fine. I am ok with my concept of trinity, wherein i am called to pick up my cross and follow, and i am the Body of Christ, and hopefully you are satisfied with your understanding of the trinity, too. I don't expect any of you to directly address why that might not be sufficient for you, or your perception of your allegiance to the physical trinity, or any of the other questions that might lead you to truth, that might be uncomfortable for you, ok? By all means consider those rhetorical, and continue on stoning me however you see fit instead.

img host

yikes,, you guys don't even bother with the sheep's clothes, huh? What is it with this doctrine that you are defending so...rabidly? that you can't even name the benefits of?

And you openly attack someone who presents what is, after all, just the opinion of the rest of Christianity, who nonetheless says that your trinity doctrine is fine, if that is where the Spirit has led you? So the more i agree, the nastier you guys get?

No one sees any issues here? I mean this is turning into like a SNL church lady skit or something

ok, first off, lets be clear on this. I AM NOT DEFENDING THE TRINITY. I do not agree with it, i think it is not biblical, blah blah blah. What I DO have an issue with is your apparent inability to speak plainly, instead of using some hyped up mumbo-jumbo that nobody can understand. all you have been using are strung together sentences filled with big words, which are not making any sense to anyone. maybe we would treat you with more respect if you at least tried to listen when we tell you what is going on.

RickD wrote: Maybe you can do what bbyrd009 failed to do, by making an actual, coherent argument as to why the Trinity isn't biblical.

B. W. wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

In the beginning was (I AM) the Word, and the Word was (face to face) God and God was the word ...

Hasn't God also said that He was, and that He will be? So this seems to diminish the meaning of "Understand I AM," wadr, if the "AM" is made a title instead of being seen as emphatic; wherein "Am" would work just fine.

bbyrd... this is a discussion between Jac and myself.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 79#p216879

You are hijacking this thread and I ask that you please refrain form this.

You have admitted to Aspergers and much of your dribble is from that. If you have a treatment team are they not trying to help you control your thoughts and perception of the world?

Recall you will be treated as anyone else on this forum and are under the same guidelines as anyone else. You are hijacking the thread and thus may find yourself suffering the consequences for this.

There are other people on this public forum who have a right to respond. Be respectful and please kindly let them...

Thank You...
-
-
-

PaulSacramento wrote:

jenna wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:One point that seems to be missed by those that are against or don't understand the Trinity is that of love.
IF God is Eternal ( which He must be) then that means that He has always existed.
If God is a single being ( for lack of a better term) then it means that, before there was a Son ( not to even go into the HS thing) it means that God had no one to love but Himself, which means His love was self-centered and self-centered love is INFERIOR to other-centered love ( not to mention that God would not have brought forth ANYTHING if He was self-centered).
God, by the very definition of God MUST be superior to ALL and if He was self-centered, He would be inferior to a God that was other-centered.

In short, if God is NOT a Triune "being" then he is NOT a relational being, which makes Him inferior and as such, NOT God.

sorry, but this went completely over my head. If i am reading this correctly, you say God cannot love if He is not triunal? and what is this about before there was a Son? Christ has always existed, so there never was a "before".

If Christ is eternal, which of course He is, then He is God.
The father is eternal, as such He is God.
The Son is eternal, as such he is God.
The HS is eternal, as such he is God.
So...

My point about love is that the relationship of Father, and HS MUST have always existed ( and it has) and as such, all persons must be eternal and their love must be equal which makes all three:
Eternal and Equal, in short, God.

See, the JW's ( for example) make the mistake by stating that Christ was a created being, the first all all creation BUT created nevertheless, which means that as some point there was only The Father and that means that All he could do was love himself and be self centered, which is inferior to other-centered/ relational love.
This self-centered God then, for some reason, created a being, Christ, that was other-centered in His love, which means that he, Christ, is superior to The Father.
The logical issue is obvious.
How can an inferior being create a superior one?

jenna wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Jenna -- I'd like to hear Your thoughts about 'a trinity'. Why the hesitancy on your part about the trinity. God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit.

haha, i was just posting the above reply.

jenna wrote:...true. the issue i have with the trinity is that God and Christ are not one, in the sense that they are one being. I believe they are separate, but are One in the sense that they are of one mind. and i do not believe the HS is part of that "one".

Isa 46:5 "To whom would you liken Me And make Me equal and compare Me, That we would be alike?

Jer 10:6 There is none like You, O LORD; You are great, and great is Your name in might.

Isa 46:9 "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me...

Deut 33:26 "There is none like the God of Jeshurun, Who rides the heavens to your help, And through the skies in His majesty. all verse quoted from the NASB

Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen

jenna wrote:part of God

bbyrd009 wrote:

RickD wrote: Maybe you can do what bbyrd009 failed to do, by making an actual, coherent argument as to why the Trinity isn't biblical.

yikes, someone actually lets you moderate a forum? You are disgusting, and you cannot quote me saying that the Trinity is not Biblical, you silly little man. And you are perfectly aware that my objection is to what men make of it, which is of course your favorite part, so of course you are forced into this antichrist position of belittling and dismissal, rather than face reality, which is that the Trinity as you currently grasp so desperately onto it is a completely pagan understanding, it is just a very thinly veiled attempt at polytheism, and the RCC picked it up at Nicea--or quite early anyway, before that even i think--and you are just a closet Papist, and also quite obviously exposing yourself in your insistence on your pov, so that you can add yourself to your list of gods, which are multiple, and include the Bible, and your own reflection in the mirror.

Jac3510 wrote:

jenna wrote:part of God

B. W. wrote:Athanasian Creed
https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

jenna wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

jenna wrote:part of God

?

Jac3510 wrote:

jenna wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

jenna wrote:part of God

?

I literally wrote an entire book on this subject. God does not have parts, not of any kind whatsoever. If something has parts, then it cannot be God, anymore than if something did not create the world, it cannot be God. Put differently, if you can say, "That thing has parts," then the thing you are talking about is not and cannot be God; just like if you can say, "That thing did not create the world," then the thing you are talking about is not and cannot be God.