Evidence for God from Science

Jbuza wrote:Well sort of I meant this

Youngs
because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;
8and three are who are testifying in the earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.

KJV
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

I sort of meant this:

1 John 5:
7 For there are three that testify,
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.

You are aware that 1 John 5:7 as you quote it is corrupt?

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Fortigurn it appears that your most important beliefs are that the trinity cannot be and Jesus is not God.

Actually my most important belief is probably Genesis 1:26. Everything else follows.

I find it puzzling that gen 1:26 is your most important belief yet you do not believe that we have body and spirit, at least in the sense that they can be separated (or do you?).

I believe in what the Bible says - that we consist of a body which has within in the the breath of life. Note that even in the KJV God is said to have breathed into Adam the breath of life, and man became a 'living soul'. Man was not given an 'immortal soul'.

That's because you are not reading what it actually says. Man became a 'living soul' not because the 'soul' was dead and now it is alive. It is because the soul was breathed into a living physical being and now became a 'living' soul.

Fortigurn wrote:The breath of life which is in us is exactly the same breath of life which is in all living creatures:

Genesis 2:
7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis 7:
21 And all living things that moved on the earth died, including the birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.
22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.

Job 34:
14 If God were to set his heart on it, and gather in His spirit and His breath,
15 all flesh would perish together and human beings would return to dust.

Ecclesiastes 3:
19 For the fate of humans and the fate of animals are the same; as one dies, so dies the other. Both have the same breath; there is no advantage for humans over animals, for both are fleeting.
20 Both go to the same place, both come from the dust, and both return to dust.

It's very clear. Nowhere is an 'immortal soul' referred to.

Once again, I beg to differ with you (what a surprise, right?). It is no more evident than in the scripture you quoted above, specifically Job 34:14,15:

Job 34:
14 If God were to set his heart on it, and gather in His spirit and His breath,
15 all flesh would perish together and human beings would return to dust.

This clearly indicates that there is a spirit and a body. If God decides to separate the spirit from the body then the body will perish. It cannot be read any other way, no matter what spin you put on it.

Fortigurn wrote:

Since God does not have a physical image, in what image do you then think God created us? If you say in his spiritual image, then why do you subscribe to the belief that body and spirit cannot be separated?

Firstly, I don't know what you mean by 'spiritual image'. Secondly, God certainly doesn't have a physical image, but certainly does choose to represent Himself anthropomorphically, so we can say that we are literally in the image and likeness of the form He chooses to represent Himself (a humanoid form).

But that's not what Genesis says. It does not say God made us in the image God would choose to represent himself in. It says God made us in his image, period. Since God does not have a physical image, what other images could there possibly be? I can think of only one, and that being the spiritual image.

Fortigurn wrote:Thirdly, I do believe that this refers not only to the form in which God chooses to represent Himself (a form which is obviously also shared by the angels), but that it relates to God's personal character, which can be expressed visibly by His actions, and by the actions of those who live likewise (see Exodus 33:18-20; 34:5-7, Matthew 5:16).

Here you are contradicting yourself. So is it an anthropomorphical, humanoid image or is it an angelic image? Considering that you acknowledge the existence of angels and you further acknowledge their existence with God, that to me is a clear indication of what God's image is. I just don't see your point of view, I'm sorry.

Fortigurn wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Well sort of I meant this

Youngs
because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;
8and three are who are testifying in the earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.

KJV
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

I sort of meant this:

1 John 5:
7 For there are three that testify,
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.

You are aware that 1 John 5:7 as you quote it is corrupt?

Does your private belief differ?

I reject this teaching of yours that says that Jesus is not God, and I know that you have a problem with both translations because youngs is a to exact interpreation, and KJV is to loose an interpretation that just tries to communicate the meanings of each phrase.

I know that Jesus is God because I know it from the Holy Spirit. I will not answer it anymore.

Byblos wrote:That's because you are not reading what it actually says. Man became a 'living soul' not because the 'soul' was dead and now it is alive. It is because the soul was breathed into a living physical being and now became a 'living' soul.

Could you show me where it says 'the soul was breathed into a living physical being and now became a 'living' soul'? How does something which is already 'living', become 'living'?

You also seem to believe that animals have immortal souls. Is this true?

Once again, I beg to differ with you (what a surprise, right?). It is no more evident than in the scripture you quoted above, specifically Job 34:14,15:

Job 34:
14 If God were to set his heart on it, and gather in His spirit and His breath,
15 all flesh would perish together and human beings would return to dust.

This clearly indicates that there is a spirit and a body. If God decides to separate the spirit from the body then the body will perish. It cannot be read any other way, no matter what spin you put on it.

You are not reading my posts. I have stated repeatedly that there is a spirit/breath in us which gives life. I have also demonstrated that this is nothing more than the same spirit/breath which is in the animals, that it returns to God when we die, and that it is not sentient.

Fortigurn wrote:

Since God does not have a physical image, in what image do you then think God created us? If you say in his spiritual image, then why do you subscribe to the belief that body and spirit cannot be separated?

Firstly, I don't know what you mean by 'spiritual image'. Secondly, God certainly doesn't have a physical image, but certainly does choose to represent Himself anthropomorphically, so we can say that we are literally in the image and likeness of the form He chooses to represent Himself (a humanoid form).

But that's not what Genesis says. It does not say God made us in the image God would choose to represent himself in. It says God made us in his image, period. Since God does not have a physical image, what other images could there possibly be? I can think of only one, and that being the spiritual image.

You're begging the question. It says that God made us in His image, and there is only one image of God which we find in Scripture - the image which He has revealed to us.

Fortigurn wrote:Thirdly, I do believe that this refers not only to the form in which God chooses to represent Himself (a form which is obviously also shared by the angels), but that it relates to God's personal character, which can be expressed visibly by His actions, and by the actions of those who live likewise (see Exodus 33:18-20; 34:5-7, Matthew 5:16).

Here you are contradicting yourself. So is it an anthropomorphical, humanoid image or is it an angelic image?

How am I contradicting myself? The word 'anthropomorphic' means 'in the form of a man', the word 'humanoid' means 'in the form of a human' and the image which the angels have is also in the form of a human.

Jbuza wrote:Does your private belief differ?

I don't know what you mean by my 'private belief'. This passage has been known for over 400 years to be spurious.

I reject this teaching of yours that says that Jesus is not God, and I know that you have a problem with both translations because youngs is a to exact interpreation, and KJV is to loose an interpretation that just tries to communicate the meanings of each phrase.

I have never heard Young's described as 'exact' (it's not 'exact', it's woodenly literal to the point of inaccuracy), and I have certainly never heard the KJV described as 'loose' or a meaning for meaning translation (it isn't).

I am not a professional Bible translator, and I am not the one who determined that this passage is not in the Bible. Hundreds of scholars (professional, and trinitarian), have come to this conclusion. The only reason to retain this reading is doctrinal bias.

Jbuza wrote: Does your private belief differ?

Fortigurn wrote:I don't know what you mean by my 'private belief'. This passage has been known for over 400 years to be spurious.

Jbuza wrote: I reject this teaching of yours that says that Jesus is not God, and I know that you have a problem with both translations because youngs is a to exact interpreation, and KJV is to loose an interpretation that just tries to communicate the meanings of each phrase.

Fortigurn wrote:I have never heard Young's described as 'exact' (it's not 'exact', it's woodenly literal to the point of inaccuracy), and I have certainly never heard the KJV described as 'loose' or a meaning for meaning translation (it isn't).

I am not a professional Bible translator, and I am not the one who determined that this passage is not in the Bible. Hundreds of scholars (professional, and trinitarian), have come to this conclusion. The only reason to retain this reading is doctrinal bias.

Greetings Jonathan 'Fortigurn' Burke,

You have stated clearly your doctrinal views concerning the Trinity on the Trinity thread. Most of your info brought up on this thread you used on the currently locked Trinity thread.

You are a Christadelphian and have a reputation — you and you your brother, Evangelion, have reputations which precede you.

Basically Christadelphians do not believe in the tri-nature of man or God. Nor do they hold that Jesus Christ was able to be both God and man through 'hypostatic union'. If you can prove that Jesus was not God manifest in the Flesh — you disprove the Trinity and the tri-nature of Spirit, soul, and body.

Christadelphians believe, according to Jonathan Burke, that Jesus Christ was only a mere mortal man, a special messenger, some type of angel messenger, who was endowed with power from God to be sinless and thus accomplish all Jesus, did upon the cross. In Fortigurn's estimation, Jesus will remain forever a man who was able forgive sins, etc, as you so posted on the Trinity Thread many times.

Clearly, from all your post on the Trinity Thread, you continually place dependence on a mere mortal empowered man to save people in a manner that shares this unique glory of God with another; as well as rely heavily on the works of human translations and grammars to bolster your doctrine. Also from your own abundant posts this reliance is based solely on human logical deductions.

Since this is all apparent, your position and stance, dictates an all around dependence on man, I'll let the bible- the word of God speak to you regarding this position:

Scripture wrote: Jeremiah 17:5-6 “This is what the LORD says: "Cursed are those who put their trust in mere humans and turn their hearts away from the LORD. They are like stunted shrubs in the desert, with no hope for the future. They will live in the barren wilderness, on the salty flats where no one lives.” New Living Translation

In the NET - Jeremiah 17:5-6 “ The Lord says, “I will put a curse on people who trust in mere human beings, who depend on mere flesh and blood for their strength, and whose hearts have turned away from the Lord. They will be like a shrub in the desert. They will not experience good things even when they happen. It will be as though they were growing in the desert, in a salt land where no one can live.” New English Translation

Jonathan, from the scripture, it states that such reliance on mere mortal men places a person directly under a curse from God. The Bible boldly declares those that depend on mere men are under a curse. Its time to be free from this curse, Jonathan, Jesus is still knocking! The bible says what it says. This is no mindless rant. What is your decision, Fortigurn? Man's work or God's ways?

Scripture wrote:John 5:39-43 "You search the Scriptures because you believe they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! Yet you refuse to come to me so that I can give you this eternal life. "Your approval or disapproval means nothing to me, because I know you don't have God's love within you. For I have come to you representing my Father, and you refuse to welcome me, even though you readily accept others who represent only themselves.” New Living Bible

John 3:11-15 “I tell you the solemn truth, we speak about what we know and testify about what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony. If I have told you people about earthly things and you don't believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven — the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” New English Translation

-
-
-

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:That's because you are not reading what it actually says. Man became a 'living soul' not because the 'soul' was dead and now it is alive. It is because the soul was breathed into a living physical being and now became a 'living' soul.

Could you show me where it says 'the soul was breathed into a living physical being and now became a 'living' soul'? How does something which is already 'living', become 'living'?

What I'm showing you is that 'living soul' doesn't mean that the soul became living. It means the soul is now in a physical body that is living. It is the joining of the two mediums, the physical and the spiritual. This idea is repeated throughout the Bible from the OT to the NT (particularly in Psalms): believe with all your heart and soul. Heart and soul (body and spirit), heart and soul (body and spirit). This concept is literally all over the place.

Fortigurn wrote:You also seem to believe that animals have immortal souls. Is this true?

No, that's your belief, not mine.

Fortigurn wrote:

Once again, I beg to differ with you (what a surprise, right?). It is no more evident than in the scripture you quoted above, specifically Job 34:14,15:

Job 34:
14 If God were to set his heart on it, and gather in His spirit and His breath,
15 all flesh would perish together and human beings would return to dust.

This clearly indicates that there is a spirit and a body. If God decides to separate the spirit from the body then the body will perish. It cannot be read any other way, no matter what spin you put on it.

You are not reading my posts. I have stated repeatedly that there is a spirit/breath in us which gives life. I have also demonstrated that this is nothing more than the same spirit/breath which is in the animals, that it returns to God when we die, and that it is not sentient.

Please let's not start with the 'you are not reading my posts' again. I may have missed it and if I did I apologize but I've never read anything from you remotely suggesting that we receive something from God and it goes back to him after death. Can you re-quote that for me, please? This is a rather major admission on your part (now or before). So you now appear to be saying after we die, that which God gave us is returned to him. Now that thing we receive from God, since God is eternal, it should follow that whatever we did receive from him is also eternal. Would that be a fair statement? Would you agree with that (albeit insentient)?

Fortigurn wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:

Since God does not have a physical image, in what image do you then think God created us? If you say in his spiritual image, then why do you subscribe to the belief that body and spirit cannot be separated?

Firstly, I don't know what you mean by 'spiritual image'. Secondly, God certainly doesn't have a physical image, but certainly does choose to represent Himself anthropomorphically, so we can say that we are literally in the image and likeness of the form He chooses to represent Himself (a humanoid form).

But that's not what Genesis says. It does not say God made us in the image God would choose to represent himself in. It says God made us in his image, period. Since God does not have a physical image, what other images could there possibly be? I can think of only one, and that being the spiritual image.

You're begging the question. It says that God made us in His image, and there is only one image of God which we find in Scripture - the image which He has revealed to us.

He also revealed to us that there's evil in the world. Are you saying that's also a part of God's image?

Fortigurn wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:Thirdly, I do believe that this refers not only to the form in which God chooses to represent Himself (a form which is obviously also shared by the angels), but that it relates to God's personal character, which can be expressed visibly by His actions, and by the actions of those who live likewise (see Exodus 33:18-20; 34:5-7, Matthew 5:16).

Here you are contradicting yourself. So is it an anthropomorphical, humanoid image or is it an angelic image?

How am I contradicting myself? The word 'anthropomorphic' means 'in the form of a man', the word 'humanoid' means 'in the form of a human' and the image which the angels have is also in the form of a human.

Exactly. Angels are not in the form of humans. They appear in the form of humans so we can relate to them. The same way God sent his eternal Word in the form of a human so we can relate to him. God's image is not a human image it is a spiritual image.

In any case, I'm interested in hearing your own description of God. What do you think He looks like? What is his essence?

Who Can Tell Me the Number of Times I've Changed The Name

3 times. The question is why?

Byblos wrote:Who Can Tell Me the Number of Times I've Changed The Name

3 times. The question is why?

Ok, I give up. Somebody explain please.

It amuses me...didn't expect a reply to my titles...

B. W. wrote:Greetings Jonathan 'Fortigurn' Burke,

Could I ask you politely not to use my personal name online, in public? Firstly it's excessively rude, and secondly you don't even know me.

You have stated clearly your doctrinal views concerning the Trinity on the Trinity thread. Most of your info brought up on this thread you used on the currently locked Trinity thread.

This is irrelevant to the topic we are currently discussing.

You are a Christadelphian and have a reputation — you and you your brother, Evangelion, have reputations which precede you.

I'm so glad to hear it.

Basically Christadelphians do not believe in the tri-nature of man or God. Nor do they hold that Jesus Christ was able to be both God and man through 'hypostatic union'. If you can prove that Jesus was not God manifest in the Flesh — you disprove the Trinity and the tri-nature of Spirit, soul, and body.

I honestly don't see that either of these subjects have anything remotely to do with each other. I am perfectly happy discussing the nature of man without discussing the nature of God.

Others, however, are not so happy. That is precisely why they have dragged the trinity into a discussion which was never about the trinity in the first place.

Christadelphians believe, according to Jonathan Burke, that Jesus Christ was only a mere mortal man, a special messenger, some type of angel messenger, who was endowed with power from God to be sinless and thus accomplish all Jesus, did upon the cross.

I do not believe that he was 'some kind of angel messenger', that is false.

In Fortigurn's estimation, Jesus will remain forever a man who was able forgive sins, etc, as you so posted on the Trinity Thread many times.

That's about right, at least.

Clearly, from all your post on the Trinity Thread, you continually place dependence on a mere mortal empowered man to save people in a manner that shares this unique glory of God with another; as well as rely heavily on the works of human translations and grammars to bolster your doctrine. Also from your own abundant posts this reliance is based solely on human logical deductions.

This is completely false. I place dependence on God to save through Christ, as the Bible says.

I don't 'rely heavily on the works of human translations and grammars', I rely heavily on what the Bible actually says.

If you object to me arguing logically, I can't help that. It's the way we are meant to think.

Jonathan, from the scripture, it states that such reliance on mere mortal men places a person directly under a curse from God. The Bible boldly declares those that depend on mere men are under a curse.

I totally agree. I have great pity for those who place such reliance on mortal men. I'm very sorry for them.

Byblos wrote:What I'm showing you is that 'living soul' doesn't mean that the soul became living. It means the soul is now in a physical body that is living. It is the joining of the two mediums, the physical and the spiritual.

Could you show me where it says that? Could you show me where it says 'the soul was breathed into a living physical being and now became a 'living' soul'? How does something which is already 'living', become 'living'?

This idea is repeated throughout the Bible from the OT to the NT (particularly in Psalms): believe with all your heart and soul. Heart and soul (body and spirit), heart and soul (body and spirit). This concept is literally all over the place.

Firstly, you are ignoring the fact that I believe fully that man has a body and a spirit. Secondly, you are ignoring the meaning of the Hebrew idiom 'heart and soul'.

Allow me to show you what it means:

Deuteronomy 6:
5 You must love the Lord your God with your whole mind, your whole being [soul], and all your strength.

Now the footnote:

9tn Heb “soul”; “being.”

Contrary to Hellenistic ideas of a soul that is discrete and separate from the body and spirit, OT anthropology equated the “soul” (vp#n\) with the person himself.

It is therefore best in most cases to translate vp#n\ as “being” or the like. See H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 10-25; D. Fredericks, NIDOTTE 3:133-34.

Please understand that you are not actually reading the Bible in the context in which it was written. You are imposing modern theological ideas onto the text.

Please let's not start with the 'you are not reading my posts' again.

I'll say it every time it happens.

I may have missed it and if I did I apologize but I've never read anything from you remotely suggesting that we receive something from God and it goes back to him after death. Can you re-quote that for me, please? This is a rather major admission on your part (now or before). So you now appear to be saying after we die, that which God gave us is returned to him.

You did indeed miss it, because I posted it directly to you. Here it is again:

The breath of life which is in us is exactly the same breath of life which is in all living creatures:

Genesis 2:
7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis 7:
21 And all living things that moved on the earth died, including the birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.
22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.

Job 34:
14 If God were to set his heart on it, and gather in His spirit and His breath,
15 all flesh would perish together and human beings would return to dust.

Ecclesiastes 3:
19 For the fate of humans and the fate of animals are the same; as one dies, so dies the other. Both have the same breath; there is no advantage for humans over animals, for both are fleeting.
20 Both go to the same place, both come from the dust, and both return to dust.

I have placed it in italics. You can see it's the very same passage from Job to which you are referring.

This is not an 'admission', it has been part of the foundation of my argument right from the start. Yes, after we die that which God gave us (which is not 'us', it's something He gave us), returns to Him - whether we are good or evil.

Note that this thing which returns to Him is in both men and animals. It returns to Him whenever men or animals die. It is not an 'immortal soul', it is His power.

Now that thing we receive from God, since God is eternal, it should follow that whatever we did receive from him is also eternal. Would that be a fair statement? Would you agree with that (albeit insentient)?

Yes I agree totally, and it is certainly insentient.

He also revealed to us that there's evil in the world. Are you saying that's also a part of God's image?

No. I have no idea why you would say this.

Exactly. Angels are not in the form of humans. They appear in the form of humans so we can relate to them.

Scripture please.

The same way God sent his eternal Word in the form of a human so we can relate to him.

Scripture please.

God's image is not a human image it is a spiritual image.

I have no idea what you mean by this. God does not have a literal 'image', He has an image by which He chooses to make Himself understood to us. What He also has is a character, which He also makes known to us.

In any case, I'm interested in hearing your own description of God. What do you think He looks like? What is his essence?

In real terms, it is impossible to describe what God looks like, as Exodus 33-34 make entirely clear. Likewise it is meaningless to speak of His 'essence', since all Scripture says is that He is 'spirit'.

I have no idea what that is other than that it is like nothing in our experience.

I will have you know that I brought up the passage in 1 John because it indicates that we havea witness within ourselves, but it appears that Fortigurn had a problem with it because it also indicates that the trinity exists. You became defensive and started talking about how it is all wrong because you wan't to reject that JEsus is God and make sure that you can convince everyone else of this also.

So I was perfectly happy talking about how the Spirit bears witness within ourselves of the things of God, but I wonder howcome he hasn't witnessed to you about Jesus, that concerns me.

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:What I'm showing you is that 'living soul' doesn't mean that the soul became living. It means the soul is now in a physical body that is living. It is the joining of the two mediums, the physical and the spiritual.

Could you show me where it says that? Could you show me where it says 'the soul was breathed into a living physical being and now became a 'living' soul'? How does something which is already 'living', become 'living'?

That's how I read a 'living soul'. It is a soul in a living body.

Fortigurn wrote:

This idea is repeated throughout the Bible from the OT to the NT (particularly in Psalms): believe with all your heart and soul. Heart and soul (body and spirit), heart and soul (body and spirit). This concept is literally all over the place.

Firstly, you are ignoring the fact that I believe fully that man has a body and a spirit. Secondly, you are ignoring the meaning of the Hebrew idiom 'heart and soul'.

Allow me to show you what it means:

Deuteronomy 6:
5 You must love the Lord your God with your whole mind, your whole being [soul], and all your strength.

Now the footnote:

9tn Heb “soul”; “being.”

Contrary to Hellenistic ideas of a soul that is discrete and separate from the body and spirit, OT anthropology equated the “soul” (vp#n\) with the person himself.

It is therefore best in most cases to translate vp#n\ as “being” or the like. See H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 10-25; D. Fredericks, NIDOTTE 3:133-34.

Please understand that you are not actually reading the Bible in the context in which it was written. You are imposing modern theological ideas onto the text.

The point I was making is that there was a distinction made between the heart/mind and something else (that being the soul, the essence, the whateveryouwanttocallit). If there was no distinction there would not be a need to show it. It would have sufficed to say believe will all your heart.

Fortigurn wrote:

Please let's not start with the 'you are not reading my posts' again.

I'll say it every time it happens.

Be my guest.

Fortigurn wrote:

I may have missed it and if I did I apologize but I've never read anything from you remotely suggesting that we receive something from God and it goes back to him after death. Can you re-quote that for me, please? This is a rather major admission on your part (now or before). So you now appear to be saying after we die, that which God gave us is returned to him.

You did indeed miss it, because I posted it directly to you. Here it is again:

You made it sound like you've said this before. I commented on what you posted here.

Fortigurn wrote:

The breath of life which is in us is exactly the same breath of life which is in all living creatures:

Genesis 2:
7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis 7:
21 And all living things that moved on the earth died, including the birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.
22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.

Job 34:
14 If God were to set his heart on it, and gather in His spirit and His breath,
15 all flesh would perish together and human beings would return to dust.

Ecclesiastes 3:
19 For the fate of humans and the fate of animals are the same; as one dies, so dies the other. Both have the same breath; there is no advantage for humans over animals, for both are fleeting.
20 Both go to the same place, both come from the dust, and both return to dust.

I have placed it in italics. You can see it's the very same passage from Job to which you are referring.

This is not an 'admission', it has been part of the foundation of my argument right from the start. Yes, after we die that which God gave us (which is not 'us', it's something He gave us), returns to Him - whether we are good or evil.

Note that this thing which returns to Him is in both men and animals. It returns to Him whenever men or animals die. It is not an 'immortal soul', it is His power.

Now that thing we receive from God, since God is eternal, it should follow that whatever we did receive from him is also eternal. Would that be a fair statement? Would you agree with that (albeit insentient)?

Yes I agree totally, and it is certainly insentient.

Fine, now I understand your position. We'll come back to it but let's just leave it at that for the moment.

Fortigurn wrote:

He also revealed to us that there's evil in the world. Are you saying that's also a part of God's image?

No. I have no idea why you would say this.

I'm trying to narrow down what image you think God made us in. It's not very clear to me yet.

Fortigurn wrote:

Exactly. Angels are not in the form of humans. They appear in the form of humans so we can relate to them.

Scripture please.

Are you saying angels have a distinct physical appearance?

Fortigurn wrote:

The same way God sent his eternal Word in the form of a human so we can relate to him.

Scripture please.

(back to the trinity thread).

Fortigurn wrote:

God's image is not a human image it is a spiritual image.

I have no idea what you mean by this. God does not have a literal 'image', He has an image by which He chooses to make Himself understood to us. What He also has is a character, which He also makes known to us.

In any case, I'm interested in hearing your own description of God. What do you think He looks like? What is his essence?

In real terms, it is impossible to describe what God looks like, as Exodus 33-34 make entirely clear. Likewise it is meaningless to speak of His 'essence', since all Scripture says is that He is 'spirit'.

I have no idea what that is other than that it is like nothing in our experience.

Thank you for finally saying it, yes scripture describes God as a 'spirit'. What I don't get is why you don't understand what 'spiritual image' is since you're conceding that God is described as a 'spirit'. And if God is described as a 'spirit' why is it so inconceivable that he created us in his image, you know, the 'spirit'ual one?

Byblos wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:What I'm showing you is that 'living soul' doesn't mean that the soul became living. It means the soul is now in a physical body that is living. It is the joining of the two mediums, the physical and the spiritual.

Could you show me where it says that? Could you show me where it says 'the soul was breathed into a living physical being and now became a 'living' soul'? How does something which is already 'living', become 'living'?

That's how I read a 'living soul'. It is a soul in a living body.

But you're not showing me from the Bible. You are showing me what you think the Bible means. That's very different.

The point I was making is that there was a distinction made between the heart/mind and something else (that being the soul, the essence, the whateveryouwanttocallit). If there was no distinction there would not be a need to show it. It would have sufficed to say believe will all your heart.

The point I am making is that this is saying nothing of the 'soul' in which you believe. It means 'serve with all your heart and all your being'. It's a typical Hebraism which means 'with all your sincerity and energy'.

You made it sound like you've said this before.

Because I have said it before.

I commented on what you posted here.

Yes I know. Later you went on to allege that I hadn't posted this. I found that incredible.

I'm trying to narrow down what image you think God made us in. It's not very clear to me yet.

Exactly what I said, and exactly what the word means. The Driver, Brown and Briggs Hebrew lexicon defines it thus:

tselem

1) Image.

1a) Images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods.)
1b) Image, likeness (of resemblance.)
1c) Mere, empty, image, semblance (figuratively.)

I invite you to see how this word is used in Scripture. You can see for yourself that it never means 'spirit', or anything like that. It always refers to something visible.

Fortigurn wrote:

Exactly. Angels are not in the form of humans. They appear in the form of humans so we can relate to them.

Scripture please.

Are you saying angels have a distinct physical appearance?

I asking you to show me the passages of Scripture from which you derive the idea that the angels 'are not in the form of humans' and 'appear in the form of humans so we can relate to them'.

Thank you for finally saying it, yes scripture describes God as a 'spirit'.

What do you mean 'finally saying it'? You make it sound as if I was avoiding it. Didn't you read my description of God in the trinity thread?

What I don't get is why you don't understand what 'spiritual image' is since you're conceding that God is described as a 'spirit'. And if God is described as a 'spirit' why is it so inconceivable that he created us in his image, you know, the 'spirit'ual one?

Because that is simply not what the word tselem means. It's not complicated.[/i]