Evidence for God from Science

B. W. wrote:First off, Mr. Fortigurn, do not try to side track the issue.

I wasn't the one who raised the issue of Jesus dying spiritually.

Jesus did die at the point of the cross, but He never died in the sense of non-existence, nor do we at the point of mortal death in our own time. Death can denote an entrance into a place of ruin and punishment or an entrance into everlasting life with God in heaven and the new heavens and new earth to come.

Please show me this from Scripture.

Ecclesiastes3:11 “God has made everything beautiful for its own time. He has planted eternity in the human heart, but even so, people cannot see the whole scope of God's work from beginning to end.” New Living Bible

When one dies, they do not cease to be, nor ever cease to exist at some point in the future.

Please show me this from Scripture.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke should give you a clue where Jesus went for three days and nights in conformance with the sign of Jonah (Matthew 12:38-42) as told by Jesus Himself.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke is a parable which takes the common beliefs of the Pharisees and ridicules them. Christ was in the grave for three days, as he himself said he would be.

Jesus' atoning death on the cross does not prove Jesus was not God in the flesh because, how could God die?

It proves he was not God because Jesus died, and God cannot die.

Jesus had to be both God and man reconciled in order to perform God's work of salvation - the very Glory which God will not share with any other.

Scripture please.

Only God can save, only God can provide the perfect sacrifice, as Genesis chapter three points out. Jesus came in the flesh to end the law of sin and death. The bible teaches this.

I agree. But the sacrifice is not what you think.

Let us therefore stick with the Topic of the Trinity:

It appears that you are confusing what sharing God's Glory means and do not comprehend what it is that God will not specifically share with any other. Yes, God can and does share His spiritual gifts as the bible teaches, anoint prophets, share power to do certain things to show forth His Glory. God even gave humanity its charge to have dominion over the earth and subdue it. This is all quite different than sharing one specific Glory that belongs to God alone and no other. There are things God will share and there is one specific thing God will not share — the bible tells us plainly what it is He will not share and what He will share.

Isaiah 42:5-9, Isaiah 46:9-13, Isaiah 48:9-11, Isaiah 53:1-12, Isaiah 55:7-11, Isaiah 59:1-4, 13, 15-21 declare what it is in context: and it is this — The work of Salvation. Only God can save. This is the Glory He will not share with any other: God's once and for all act of Salvation's Glory. Only His hand can provide the perfect sacrifice to redeem humanity as Genesis 3:21 reveals.

Therefore, do not confuse this type of God sharing power with the sharing of the once and for all act of bringing salvation to humanity. Those are two different matters. The grand glory of salvation God will not share with another, this came by His hand — not from a mere mortal man however empowered — as you proclaim how it happened.

You are confusing this issue. I believe that God brought salvation to humanity. Christ was the agent by which God did so.

Yes, Jesus died on the cross for far greater reason than you suppose, but again, He did not really die — but was risen from the dead for a reason and propose that only God could bring about and no other.

Thank you for making it absolutely clear that you do not believe that Jesus really died.

You say he 'did not really die', but you also say he was 'risen from the dead', which is confusing to say the least. But you've made it 100% clear that you don't believe that Jesus really died.

The Bible says otherwise.

B. W. wrote: Fortigurn, how is Taipei Taiwan?

Fortigurn wrote:It's crowded and polluted, but there are many things about it which I love.

Okay - this explains the time differences between us as recorded for post. Did work bring you too Taipei?

B. W. wrote:The reason I ask, is I like to be polite if you are from overseas and live in a different culture, we may being seeing things from a differing cross-cultural level. Knowing this - it may be best to redefine the terms used in this thread. If you are not from Taipei Taiwan - then where do you hale from?

Fortigurn wrote:I am actually from Australia.

Yes, your command of the English language has that 'Australian' flare too it. Now, For others reading the form - this flare maybe misread by us in the USA-Canada-UK as something else.

I thought I detected an accent in your writing but was not sure what dialect inflection it was. Thank you, this will help explain several prior answers of yours. Also, this would explain why you have trouble with USA slang expressions and symbolic stories. I'll try to do better for you when I use these to explain scripture. I also noted that I confused you in last post by use of USA terms.

B. W. wrote:I also would like to correctly address you by your correct Gender. I have referred to you as Mr. Fortigurn but you maybe a Ms. or Mrs. Fortigurn. I do not know. I am used to showing respect by using Mr. or Ms. or Mrs. when I respond to people on Forums. This is from my own USA Southern Culture. I am a Mr. if you would like to know and moved to Colordao, USA 24 years ago. How about you?

Fortigurn wrote:Thank you. I am a 'Mr', but please just call me 'Fortigurn'.

Okay, old habit of mine - from now on, I'll address you as you like as, Fortigurn, but I do have to ask, what does Fortigurn mean?

B. W. wrote:Next, do you believe in this statement from Christadelphians.org cite?

Jesus Christ - That Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, who was an ordinary woman of human nature. Jesus did not pre-exist nor was he the second person of the trinity. He was the Son of God, conceived by the power of God but inheriting a human nature from his mother. He was tempted yet was sinless. He died on a cross as a sacrifice for sins, as our representative not as our substitute. He was raised from the grave and given immortality by his father. He ascended to heaven where to the right hand of the father until he returns to the earth at his second coming. He is now the only mediator between men and God, prayer is made through Jesus to the father and forgiveness is obtained from him. There is therefore no need of human priests and pastors - all male baptized believers can pray and lead worship. Christ is our Priest and him alone.

Fortigurn wrote:Yes I do.

Would you mind briefly explaining your doctorial position? We have posted ours on the Trinity but we have not asked correctly, why you believe that Jesus did not pre-exist, or why you believe Jesus was not the second person of the Trinity and How could Jesus be the Son of God, and still be conceived by the power of God and yet remain a mortal man?

We on this forum keep explaining our position but doing so would not be fair to you if we do not allow you to explain your Doctrine and how it came about. From here we can proceed more smoothly and avoid chasing rabbits. In the USA, chasing 'rabbits' means getting off topic and following meandering dialog triads that have no bearing on the topic.
-
-

B. W. wrote: First off, Mr. Fortigurn, do not try to side track the issue.

Fortigurn wrote: I wasn't the one who raised the issue of Jesus dying spiritually.

Response: Okay, but the subject came up nevertheless.

B. W. wrote: Jesus did die at the point of the cross, but He never died in the sense of non-existence, nor do we at the point of mortal death in our own time. Death can denote an entrance into a place of ruin and punishment or an entrance into everlasting life with God in heaven and the new heavens and new earth to come.

Fortigurn wrote: Please show me this from Scripture.

Response: Hebrews 12:2, Ephesians 2:16, Romans 5:1-2, 6-21, Romans 6:9-10, Hebrews 9:27-28, Luke 20:38, I Thessalonians 1:10, Luke 23: 21, John 12: 27-23

B. W. wrote: When one dies, they do not cease to be, nor ever cease to exist at some point in the future.

Fortigurn wrote: Please show me this from Scripture.

Response: John 14:1-11, I Corinthians 15:16-28, Ecclesiastes3:11, Luke 16: 19-31, Matthew 25:41, Daniel 12:1-3, Jude 7, Ezekiel 32:17-31-32; John 11:25-26

B. W. wrote: The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke should give you a clue where Jesus went for three days and nights in conformance with the sign of Jonah (Matthew 12:38-42) as told by Jesus Himself.

Fortigurn wrote: The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke is a parable which takes the common beliefs of the Pharisees and ridicules them. Christ was in the grave for three days, as he himself said he would be.

Response: In what type of grave? What was he doing? Do you mean Jesus lied about this - The story of the rich man and Lazarus — if so — He sinned?

B. W. wrote: Jesus' atoning death on the cross does not prove Jesus was not God in the flesh because, how could God die?

Fortigurn wrote: It proves he was not God because Jesus died, and God cannot die. Scripture please.

Response: Jesus had to be both God and man reconciled in order to perform God's work of salvation - the very Glory which God will not share with any other. Only God can save, only God can provide the perfect sacrifice, as Genesis chapter three points out. Jesus came in the flesh to end the law of sin and death. The bible teaches this. As for scriptures here are just a few — Isaiah 42-66, John 1:29, 36; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 2:9-14; Hebrews 10:4-5, 10,12; Mark 10:45; John 10:27-29; Luke 24:27, 44-47 — I suggest you better start looking.

Fortigurn wrote: I agree. But the sacrifice is not what you think.

Response — state your case then.
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:Okay - this explains the time differences between us as recorded for post. Did work bring you too Taipei?

No, the gospel brought me to Taipei. I preach over here.

Yes, your command of the English language has that 'Australian' flare too it. Now, For others reading the form - this flare maybe misread by us in the USA-Canada-UK as something else.

I thought I detected an accent in your writing but was not sure what dialect inflection it was. Thank you, this will help explain several prior answers of yours.

You're welcome.

Also, this would explain why you have trouble with USA slang expressions and symbolic stories. I'll try to do better for you when I use these to explain scripture. I also noted that I confused you in last post by use of USA terms.

Which ones were they? My wife is from the US, and I've never found any difficulties in understanding her.

Okay, old habit of mine - from now on, I'll address you as you like as, Fortigurn, but I do have to ask, what does Fortigurn mean?

It's a slightly altered name of an ancient Welsh warlord (Vortigurn, which I changed to Fortigurn). I just like the sound of it.

Would you mind briefly explaining your doctorial position? We have posted ours on the Trinity but we have not asked correctly, why you believe that Jesus did not pre-exist, or why you believe Jesus was not the second person of the Trinity and How could Jesus be the Son of God, and still be conceived by the power of God and yet remain a mortal man?

We on this forum keep explaining our position but doing so would not be fair to you if we do not allow you to explain your Doctrine and how it came about. From here we can proceed more smoothly and avoid chasing rabbits. In the USA, chasing 'rabbits' means getting off topic and following meandering dialog triads that have no bearing on the topic.

Thank you. I did actually create a thread earlier in which I articulated my position on Christ as man (not God or 'God-man'), together with my understanding of how this informs Biblical soteriology and theology, but the entire thread appears to have vanished.

I may start another one (slightly condensed), and cross my fingers that it doesn't disappear like the last one.

B. W. wrote: Okay - this explains the time differences between us as recorded for post. Did work bring you too Taipei?

Fortigurn wrote: No, the gospel brought me to Taipei. I preach over here.

Response: Well that is work too!

Yes, your command of the English language has that 'Australian' flare too it. Now, For others reading the form - this flare maybe misread by us in the USA-Canada-UK as something else. I thought I detected an accent in your writing but was not sure what dialect inflection it was. Thank you, this will help explain several prior answers of yours.

Fortigurn wrote: You're welcome.

Response: People need to understand that different languages have their own style, I'll read your comments with the best 'Australian' accent I can.

B. W. wrote: Also, this would explain why you have trouble with USA slang expressions and symbolic stories. I'll try to do better for you when I use these to explain scripture. I also noted that I confused you in last post by use of USA terms.

Fortigurn wrote: Which ones were they? My wife is from the US, and I've never found any difficulties in understanding her.

Response: The hypostatic union illustrations I used and for those reading this forum who do not know what this means — see this link:

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/obj_Jesusdied.htm

B. W. wrote: Okay, old habit of mine - from now on, I'll address you as you like as, Fortigurn, but I do have to ask, what does Fortigurn mean?

Fortigurn wrote: It's a slightly altered name of an ancient Welsh warlord (Vortigurn, which I changed to Fortigurn). I just like the sound of it.

Response: Okay — I could not place the name. Now I do. By the way, here is an off topic question — do you own any green china dishes or have a green coffee mug? And when you were a child — did you swim a lot? Just curiosities…

B. W. wrote: Would you mind briefly explaining your doctorial position? We have posted ours on the Trinity but we have not asked correctly, why you believe that Jesus did not pre-exist, or why you believe Jesus was not the second person of the Trinity and How could Jesus be the Son of God, and still be conceived by the power of God and yet remain a mortal man? We on this forum keep explaining our position but doing so would not be fair to you if we do not allow you to explain your Doctrine and how it came about. From here we can proceed more smoothly and avoid chasing rabbits. In the USA, chasing 'rabbits' means getting off topic and following meandering dialog triads that have no bearing on the topic.

Fortigurn wrote: Thank you. I did actually create a thread earlier in which I articulated my position on Christ as man (not God or 'God-man'), together with my understanding of how this informs Biblical soteriology and theology, but the entire thread appears to have vanished. I may start another one (slightly condensed), and cross my fingers that it doesn't disappear like the last one.

Response: Well —you can post it here as long as you can be brief so we can both refer to it as we go along — more for a point of reference as I'll be asking you questions about it. If you do not mind.

B. W. wrote:

B. W. wrote: Jesus did die at the point of the cross, but He never died in the sense of non-existence, nor do we at the point of mortal death in our own time. Death can denote an entrance into a place of ruin and punishment or an entrance into everlasting life with God in heaven and the new heavens and new earth to come.

Fortigurn wrote: Please show me this from Scripture.

Response: Hebrews 12:2, Ephesians 2:16, Romans 5:1-2, 6-21, Romans 6:9-10, Hebrews 9:27-28, Luke 20:38, I Thessalonians 1:10, Luke 23: 21, John 12: 27-23

Could you explain to me where any of these passages say that Jesus didn't really die, and that we don't really die 'at the point of our mortal death in our own time'?

B. W. wrote: When one dies, they do not cease to be, nor ever cease to exist at some point in the future.

Fortigurn wrote: Please show me this from Scripture.

Response: John 14:1-11, I Corinthians 15:16-28, Ecclesiastes3:11, Luke 16: 19-31, Matthew 25:41, Daniel 12:1-3, Jude 7, Ezekiel 32:17-31-32; John 11:25-26

Can you explain to me why you believe these passages support your belief?

B. W. wrote: The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke should give you a clue where Jesus went for three days and nights in conformance with the sign of Jonah (Matthew 12:38-42) as told by Jesus Himself.

Fortigurn wrote: The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke is a parable which takes the common beliefs of the Pharisees and ridicules them. Christ was in the grave for three days, as he himself said he would be.

Response: In what type of grave?

In the normal grave - a hole in the ground.

What was he doing?

He was not doing anything. He was dead.

Do you mean Jesus lied about this - The story of the rich man and Lazarus — if so — He sinned?

No. A parable is not a lie.

B. W. wrote: Jesus' atoning death on the cross does not prove Jesus was not God in the flesh because, how could God die?

Fortigurn wrote: It proves he was not God because Jesus died, and God cannot die. Scripture please.

Response: Jesus had to be both God and man reconciled in order to perform God's work of salvation - the very Glory which God will not share with any other. Only God can save, only God can provide the perfect sacrifice, as Genesis chapter three points out. Jesus came in the flesh to end the law of sin and death. The bible teaches this. As for scriptures here are just a few — Isaiah 42-66, John 1:29, 36; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 2:9-14; Hebrews 10:4-5, 10,12; Mark 10:45; John 10:27-29; Luke 24:27, 44-47 — I suggest you better start looking.

I don't see any of those passages saying:

• That Jesus had to be both God and man to perform God's work of salvation
• That God never uses an agent in the process of salvation

Fortigurn wrote: I agree. But the sacrifice is not what you think.

Response — state your case then.

* Christ, out of his great love for us and his Father, submitted in perfect obedience to his Father's plan, which required Christ to be set forward to man as a representative of the weakeness of the flesh and the necessity of salvation by God.

* As a mortal man, fallible just as we are, and prone to sin, Christ suffered the same experiences as we do, and was tempted in exactly the same we are, but did not sin as we do. This means that we can identify with him in every way, just as he identified with us in every way.

* He is set forth to us as the mercyseat of God, the means by which we find forgiveness for sins and grace in God's sight, on the condition that we identify with Christ.

* Identification with Christ requires an acknowledgement that all flesh is grass, and that only the Word of God abides forever - we find life in Christ when we take into ourselves the Word which he preached, and are renewed by it.

* Identification with Christ requires putting to death our old way of thinking and way of life, crucifying the flesh, taking up our cross daily, and seeking to follow Christ, who is set forth to us as our example, that we may follow in his footsteps.

* For this reason, we submit to full immersion baptism as part of our public declaration that we have made the committment to be buried with Christ, to put aside our 'old man' (the fleshly way of thinking and living), so that we might strive to follow Christ's example of how to live.

* On the basis of our faith in God and Christ, confessed publicly and demonstrated by a change of mind and life, we are granted the grace of God which ensures our salvation

B. W. wrote:Response: The hypostatic union illustrations I used and for those reading this forum who do not know what this means — see this link:

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/obj_Jesusdied.htm

The illustrations of the 'hypostatic union' which you used weren't logically tenable. That's why I objected to them, not because I didn't understand what you were trying to say.

Response: Okay — I could not place the name. Now I do. By the way, here is an off topic question — do you own any green china dishes or have a green coffee mug? And when you were a child — did you swim a lot? Just curiosities…

I have never owned any green china dishes or a green coffee mug. I did used to swim a lot when I was a child. Australians usually do.

Response: Well —you can post it here as long as you can be brief so we can both refer to it as we go along — more for a point of reference as I'll be asking you questions about it. If you do not mind.

I'll see what I can do.

Fortigurn wrote: The illustrations of the 'hypostatic union' which you used weren't logically tenable. That's why I objected to them, not because I didn't understand what you were trying to say.

Response: So you are telling me that you do not understand logical progression?

B. W. wrote: Now I do. By the way, here is an off topic question — do you own any green china dishes or have a green coffee mug? And when you were a child — did you swim a lot? Just curiosities…

Fortigurn wrote: I have never owned any green china dishes or a green coffee mug. I did used to swim a lot when I was a child. Australians usually do.

Response: This is an excellent example of logical progression. Where I hail from, the question's phrase 'do you own any green china dishes or have a green coffee mug or tea cup' has a meaning — a local linguistic nuance. An outsider would not know what you were asking but a local would.

Basically, this question means, are you a person of culture, taste, a person of letters, intelligent, a person with class and not a snob. Why? Hundred or so years ago, Green China was rare and only people of culture would own a set. Over the passage of time, the phrase has died out in popular usage but still it is asked in some quarters.

Next, I asked a question with what we in the USA term as a 'Given' a 'Given' means the most obvious and logical. Oh course, I know that most children usually swim, even more so in Australia. Next, where would one swim - in an ocean or pool or river or stream or lake? I lived near the ocean when I was child and swam in it the most and inland — lakes and pooled rock quarries where I could high dive off cliffs into the deep cool waters below.

What is the point of all this you ask? Well, to illustrate proper linguist skills in interpreting writings, any writing including the bible. You see, I detected accent from your writing style — a personality — I knew it was of English origin but I could not figure out the country.

So I went to your CD forum and saw your avatar and that you were located in Taipei, Taiwan. Seeing your location puzzled me as your command of English had not hint of Chinese or Taiwanese attached to it. So I asked and you confirmed you are from Australia.

Now, I gathered this info from just observing how you write, your style, your writing personality. From this, I can deduce your meanings as well as many other things about you including your logical system of reason.

Here is the point I am getting at: God used Human beings to write his word — the Holy Bible. He chose people that had personality that would convey His message with nuances and style. For example, John had a style that is distinct from the rest. Gospel of John, John 1, 2, 3 and Revelations contain his style and reveal John's personality. The same goes for Luke, Matthew, Paul, and Peter they all have their individual styles. Even the first five books of the bible show traits of a single distinct writer.

Any person with the slightest knowledge of linguistic skills should understand that a good translator would read through the eyes of the writer to understand the idioms and expressions a writer uses and not use pure grammar alone along with what they think something means.

What happens when a writer uses a phrase or terms a translator knows nothing about — like the expression - do you own any Green China? Should the translator stick with the thick rules of their personal logic to understand a matter? If so they might miss the real meaning.

Fortigurn, this is not an insult but rather constructive criticism, every writer has a different style. Your style is singular, linear, technical, and dry. In other words, you only see things your way as your own personal logical analysis dictates. You insert this into queries and questions assuming you already know the answers. When an answer is granted — you reject it because your logic style cannot accept what the Bible is really saying.

Yes, you would make a great technical writer. If I were to use your logic when I read that Jesus was called the Lamb of God in the bible (John 1:29, 36) I would have to deduce that Jesus was part sheep. Of course that is absurd! You do know what that means as it is an idiom expression, but how many other nuances are you missing because of your logic?

I can post scripture after scripture that proves the 'hypostatic union' of Jesus Christ and you would reject them all except for the ones that pertain to the Humanity of Christ. Listen, Jesus was the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. He was the Sin offering.

If you cannot figure out what this means on your own and how this could only come about through the 'hypostatic union' of Jesus Christ then you will remain logically ignorant fostering the idea that only a mere mortal un-divine man did the work of God on the cross the work that only God could do by 'hypostatic union' so that all scriptures about Jesus and God could be fulfilled and nothing violated. Of course you want scriptures to prove this — here you go — I'll leave it up to you to seek and find - Luke 24:27, 44-45.

Why bother posting endless scriptures when you will not believe? How about just one more - John 5:38-39.
-
-

B. W. wrote: Jesus did die at the point of the cross, but He never died in the sense of non-existence, nor do we at the point of mortal death in our own time. Death can denote an entrance into a place of ruin and punishment or an entrance into everlasting life with God in heaven and the new heavens and new earth to come. Response: Hebrews 12:2, Ephesians 2:16, Romans 5:1-2, 6-21, Romans 6:9-10, Hebrews 9:27-28, Luke 20:38, I Thessalonians 1:10, Luke 23: 21, John 12: 27-23

Fortigurn wrote: Could you explain to me where any of these passages say that Jesus didn't really die, and that we don't really die 'at the point of our mortal death in our own time'?

Response: Sure - John 11:20-43 and Matthew 12:38-40, Hebrews 12:2 Jesus is where now? Hebrews 11:16 a heavenly country? Ephesians 2:16 was a typo error 2:6. Jesus spent three days and night somewhere called the bowels of the earth — idiom expression for the realm of the dead where departed souls wait the final resurrection/and judgment. This is not Greek mythology based — note - Matthew 22:32 and Matthew 27:50-54 and also Luke 23:43.

The Jesus we serve is alive now — not in a grave. So you need to prove why you believe Jesus is still dead — in a hole in the ground. That is if you really believe that way?

B. W. wrote: When one dies, they do not cease to be, nor ever cease to exist at some point in the future. Response: John 14:1-11, I Corinthians 15:16-28, Ecclesiastes3:11, Luke 16: 19-31, Matthew 25:41, Daniel 12:1-3, Jude 7, Ezekiel 32:17-31-32; John 11:25-26

Fortigurn wrote: Can you explain to me why you believe these passages support your belief?

Response: Sure — John 14:1-11 -Jesus is preparing what for his people and where? In Ezekiel 32:31 — old dead Pharaoh could see and feel in his grave. I Corinthians 15:19-20 depends on how a person defines the state of death. John 11:20-43 and Luke 16: 19-31. Ecclesiastes 3:11 see Ecclesiastes 12: 6-7. Matthew 25:41 see Matthew 5:29-30. Jude 6-7 note Matthew 12:43-45 an unclean spirit goes where? Daniel 12:1-3 note term sleep in the dust means a place where one resides till judgment. Luke 23:43 — Jesus said this guy will be where and on what day?

The Idioms and figure of speech are left out of your interpretations on this — too bad for you. You know, one day after you sleep, pass on, lay in the grave, die, the moment you leave your body you will discover that you will not be asleep, nor will you be laying in a grave or just dead flesh. You will pass on to live in another sphere — I am absolutely certain of this.

Your logic errs as you refuse to understand Humankinds own tri-nature (Spirit, soul, and body) and how all are rejoined at the resurrection of the dead. But this is a moot point; you'll one day discover the truth the hard way. I suggest you buy this book — Hell Under Fire, by Morgan and Peterson for all the scripture you want on the subject.

Fortigurn wrote: It proves he was not God because Jesus died, and God cannot die. Scripture please.

B. W. wrote: Jesus had to be both God and man reconciled in order to perform God's work of salvation - the very Glory which God will not share with any other. Only God can save, only God can provide the perfect sacrifice, as Genesis chapter three points out. Jesus came in the flesh to end the law of sin and death. The bible teaches this. As for scriptures here are just a few — Isaiah 42-66, John 1:29, 36; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 2:9-14; Hebrews 10:4-5, 10,12; Mark 10:45; John 10:27-29; Luke 24:27, 44-47 — I suggest you better start looking.

Fortigurn wrote: I don't see any of those passages saying:

---That Jesus had to be both God and man to perform God's work of salvation

---That God never uses an agent in the process of salvation

Response: You haven't? I am surprised - Colossians 1:15-20 and Philippians 2:5-11.
-
-
-

BW I am unable to reply to your posts in detail until I have been informed by the administration of this forum precisely what I may or may not write here. At present I am in communication with them regarding this issue, following certain comlaints and allegations levelled at me. Out of respect for their mandate, I am shutting my mouth on this topic for now.

I therefore confine myself to this at present:

• I have stated repeatedly that I believe Jesus is currently alive, not dead, that he was raised by God, and that he sits at God's right hand at present
• I agree that Scripture must be understood through a knowledge of the idioms and cultural context to which it belongs, but I question your knowledge of both, since your statements disagree with what is generally agreed to among authorities in this field
• Criticisms of my style would be better replaced with criticisms of what I actually write
• From the CEV:

  Ecclesiastes 3:11  God makes everything happen at the right time. Yet none of us can ever fully understand all he has done, and he puts questions in our minds about the past and the future.

  Is that really the verse you were thinking of?

Fortigurn wrote:BW I am unable to reply to your posts in detail until I have been informed by the administration of this forum precisely what I may or may not write here. At present I am in communication with them regarding this issue, following certain comlaints and allegations levelled at me. Out of respect for their mandate, I am shutting my mouth on this topic for now.

I therefore confine myself to this at present:

• I have stated repeatedly that I believe Jesus is currently alive, not dead, that he was raised by God, and that he sits at God's right hand at present
• I agree that Scripture must be understood through a knowledge of the idioms and cultural context to which it belongs, but I question your knowledge of both, since your statements disagree with what is generally agreed to among authorities in this field
• Criticisms of my style would be better replaced with criticisms of what I actually write
• From the CEV:

  Ecclesiastes 3:11  God makes everything happen at the right time. Yet none of us can ever fully understand all he has done, and he puts questions in our minds about the past and the future.

  Is that really the verse you were thinking of?

Okay, I misunderstood you about Jesus remaining in a hole in the ground and I can say we both agree that Jesus is still alive, today. Sorry for the miss-understanding on that point.

As for knowledge of the idioms and cultural context of bible books, I question your knowledge of both, since your statements disagree with what is generally agreed to among authorities in this field. This seems to apply more toward you than me and this is not an insult either.

You do have a way that marginalizes what passages can and cannot apply and that alone shows many reading this forum what you are doing: Marginalizing Christian faith and the advancement of a preconceived intellectual superiority. You should reassess your positions on what belongs in and out of scriptures and what makes a parable. This is advise and not insult.

For example, Parables of Jesus are based on truths - not cute stories that can be dismissed because they do not fit your doctrine. The Rich man and Lazarus story is prime example of this as well as Jesus telling one of the criminals he was crucified next to that this person wold be in paradise today, with Jesus. That should que you in that the spirit and soul of man live on in another realm waiting for the resurrection of the body at a latter time.

Again, I am not insulting you - just pointing out that you cannot pick and choose what scriptures apply and not. They all do. Also, please never tell another person that they do not know what they are talking about. This is a sign of an immature 'only kid in the sandbox' rule. Or you can say, trying to take a speck out of your brothers eye never seeing the beam in your own. It is childish and currish to do this to others to silence them.

Doing so, reminds me of this USA expression: the story of a man stuck in a waist deep vat of molasses next to a hive of hungry honey bees. For every scripture you use, we on this forum use the same to show why we believe what we do. In the process, you keep getting stung over and over again.

As for From the CEV: Ecclesiastes 3:11 "God makes everything happen at the right time. Yet none of us can ever fully understand all he has done, and he puts questions in our minds about the past and the future."

Yes it is what I meant and its point is clear - never be wise in your own eyes and always be of a teachable spirit.
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:As for knowledge of the idioms and cultural context of bible books, I question your knowledge of both, since your statements disagree with what is generally agreed to among authorities in this field. This seems to apply more toward you than me and this is not an insult either.

Would you like to provide evidence of this? To date, I have seen you appeal to 1 John 5:7 as a legitimate passage of Scripture, when the relevant authorities all insist it is not.

To date, I have seen you interpret the Greek word PARADEISOS in a manner which demonstrates that you do not know that it means 'garden', and that you do not know the Old Testament context in which it was used.

To date, I have seen you refer to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in order to justify contemporary Christian beliefs on the state of the dead, when in fact it is an alteration of the beliefs of 1st century Pharisees (not a representation of the beliefs of contemporary Christians).

You do have a way that marginalizes what passages can and cannot apply and that alone shows many reading this forum what you are doing: Marginalizing Christian faith and the advancement of a preconceived intellectual superiority.

What 'preconceived intellectual superiority' is this? What you actually mean is that I disagree with what you believe.

You should reassess your positions on what belongs in and out of scriptures and what makes a parable. This is advise and not insult.

I'm interested in your comments in this area, especially your assessment of the relevant textual scholarship and why you consider it to be wrong.

For example, Parables of Jesus are based on truths - not cute stories that can be dismissed because they do not fit your doctrine.

I agree entirely. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus, for example, contains a powerful truth about who will and who will not be saved at the judgment.

The Rich man and Lazarus story is prime example of this as well as Jesus telling one of the criminals he was crucified next to that this person wold be in paradise today, with Jesus. That should que you in that the spirit and soul of man live on in another realm waiting for the resurrection of the body at a latter time.

Firstly, you're doing this backwards - you're starting with the New Testament before reading the Old Testament.

Secondly, you're demonstrating no knowledge of the 1st century cultural context in which the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was told, and no knowledge of the meaning of the Greek word PARADEISOS and the manner in which it was used in the LXX (not to mention Revelation).

Again, I am not insulting you - just pointing out that you cannot pick and choose what scriptures apply and not. They all do.

I agree.

Also, please never tell another person that they do not know what they are talking about. This is a sign of an immature 'only kid in the sandbox' rule.

When it happens to be true, it is not a sign of immaturity, it is a simple fact. People shouldn't try to discuss issues on which they are uninformed.

As for From the CEV: Ecclesiastes 3:11 "God makes everything happen at the right time. Yet none of us can ever fully understand all he has done, and he puts questions in our minds about the past and the future."

Yes it is what I meant and its point is clear - never be wise in your own eyes and always be of a teachable spirit.

So why did you use this passage in a list of passages which were supposed to be showing that people don't cease to exist when they die? What did this passage have to do with the subject?

Did you actually quote it because you were thinking of the KJV translation of this passage, which says that God has placed eternity in man's heart, a reading which is commonly used by evangelicals to support their claim that God has put an immortal soul in every one of us?

B. W. wrote: As for knowledge of the idioms and cultural context of bible books, I question your knowledge of both, since your statements disagree with what is generally agreed to among authorities in this field. This seems to apply more toward you than me and this is not an insult either.

Fortigurn wrote: Would you like to provide evidence of this? To date, I have seen you appeal to 1 John 5:7 as a legitimate passage of Scripture, when the relevant authorities all insist it is not. To date, I have seen you interpret the Greek word PARADEISOS in a manner which demonstrates that you do not know that it means 'garden', and that you do not know the Old Testament context in which it was used. To date, I have seen you refer to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in order to justify contemporary Christian beliefs on the state of the dead, when in fact it is an alteration of the beliefs of 1st century Pharisees (not a representation of the beliefs of contemporary Christians).

Response: Division Fallacy - assuming that the, what is true of the whole is true for the parts. Example: Rich man and Lazarus is false because it is alteration of the beliefs of 1st century Pharisees (not a representation of the beliefs of contemporary Christians). Therefore: John 6:63, John 8:31-32, John 14:6-7, is false and you can no longer trust anything Jesus says.

Next the Genetic Fallacy - The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim: Example — only an alteration of the beliefs of 1st century Pharisees (not a representation of the beliefs of contemporary Christians). Only Christadelphains are contemporary Christians and maintain the truth. We on this forum cannot interpret bible any other way except by Fortigurn's rules that dismiss entire Church History as irrelevant except when it conveniently agrees with Fortigurn's rules. How many pages on this thread are devoted to this? Just about them all.

B. W. wrote:You do have a way that marginalizes what passages can and cannot apply and that alone shows many reading this forum what you are doing: Marginalizing Christian faith and the advancement of a preconceived intellectual superiority.

Fortigurn wrote: What 'preconceived intellectual superiority' is this? What you actually mean is that I disagree with what you believe.

Response: see your own comment above as example of the - Ad hominim technique - Attacking the individual instead of the argument. More examples: B. W., Byblos, Forge, Felgar, PL, Thinker, IRQ Conflict, Locker, Kurieuo and others you are so stupid your arguments can't possibly be true about the Trinity as I have proven all wrong by my superior intellect. From page one to current page of this thread.

B. W. wrote: You should reassess your positions on what belongs in and out of scriptures and what makes a parable. This is advise and not insult.

Fortigurn wrote: I'm interested in your comments in this area, especially your assessment of the relevant textual scholarship and why you consider it to be wrong.

Response: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 it is you whom are defying scriptures by simply saying this scripture does not apply here, and cannot mean what it says there because the best opinions of men say so as long as they agree with you.

B. W. wrote: For example, Parables of Jesus are based on truths - not cute stories that can be dismissed because they do not fit your doctrine.

Fortigurn wrote: I agree entirely. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus, for example, contains a powerful truth about who will and who will not be saved at the judgment.

B. W. wrote: The Rich man and Lazarus story is prime example of this as well as Jesus telling one of the criminals he was crucified next to that this person would be in paradise today, with Jesus. That should que you in that the spirit and soul of man live on in another realm waiting for the resurrection of the body at a latter time.

Fortigurn wrote: Firstly, you're doing this backwards - you're starting with the New Testament before reading the Old Testament. Secondly, you're demonstrating no knowledge of the 1st century cultural context in which the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was told, and no knowledge of the meaning of the Greek word PARADEISOS and the manner in which it was used in the LXX (not to mention Revelation).

Response: Another Genetic Fallacy - The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim: example, based on assumption one does not know meanings to Greek words or usage — Paradeisos - compound with use of the Ad hominim technique - Attacking the individual's intelligence instead of the argument so as to discredit them and mock their future response…

B. W. wrote: Again, I am not insulting you - just pointing out that you cannot pick and choose what scriptures apply and not. They all do.

Fortigurn wrote: I agree.

Response: it is apparent that you do not.

B. W. wrote: Also, please never tell another person that they do not know what they are talking about. This is a sign of an immature 'only kid in the sandbox' rule.

Fortigurn wrote: When it happens to be true, it is not a sign of immaturity, it is a simple fact. People shouldn't try to discuss issues on which they are uninformed. .

Response: This is a good example of you 'Poisoning the well' - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument. Example: B. W., Byblos, Forge, Felgar, PL, Thinker, IRQ Conclict, Locker, Kurieuo and others on this forum shouldn't try to discuss issues on which they are uninformed but go ahead and speak as I like to hear what you all have to say on the subject of the Trinity anyways.

B. W. wrote: As for From the CEV: Ecclesiastes 3:11 "God makes everything happen at the right time. Yet none of us can ever fully understand all he has done, and he puts questions in our minds about the past and the future." Yes it is what I meant and its point is clear - never be wise in your own eyes and always be of a teachable spirit.

Fortigurn wrote: I agree. So why did you use this passage in a list of passages which were supposed to be showing that people don't cease to exist when they die? What did this passage have to do with the subject? Did you actually quote it because you were thinking of the KJV translation of this passage, which says that God has placed eternity in man's heart, a reading which is commonly used by evangelicals to support their claim that God has put an immortal soul in every one of us?

No Fortigurn — you do not get it:

Proverbs 12:23 “Wise people don't make a show of their knowledge, but fools broadcast their folly.” New Living Bible

Proverbs 3:7 “Don't be impressed with your own wisdom. Instead, fear the LORD and turn your back on evil.” New Living Bible

Proverbs 12: 5-8 “The plans of the godly are just; the advice of the wicked is treacherous. The words of the wicked are like a murderous ambush, but the words of the godly save lives, the wicked perish and are gone, but the children of the godly stand firm. Everyone admires a person with good sense, but a warped mind is despised.” New Living Bible

Proverbs 6:16-19 “There are six things the LORD hates--no, seven things he detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord among brothers.” New Living Bible

Ecclesiastes 3:11 “God has made everything beautiful for its own time. He has planted eternity in the human heart, but even so, people cannot see the whole scope of God's work from beginning to end.” New Living Bible

You choose a version that missed a word but according to your opinion, eternity is not an option implied; only your interpretations are valid and all others are false. This reveals much about who you really are and what you believe — a Pharisee of the Word.

However, question about eternity is moot as we all will face death someday. I face it with complete hope and extreme confidence as I know what lies beyond the grave is more than a mere hole in the ground.
-
-
-

This thread has gone far enough and is now locked.

Thanks for all the contributions.