Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:Jesus identifies Himself as good.

yes, in a different context, and i do not mean to imply that He was not. what i do mean to imply is, that in this context, Christ's answer to you is "Nee!"

Kurieuo wrote:You'll have your explanation of how it can be so that the Lord God and Jesus are the One.

Good day sir.

i didn't ask for an explanation, though, i have all the explanation i need from the Book, @ "God is the Head of Christ," as well as many, many other statements by Christ Himself, including "Why do you call Me good? No one is good, except the Father," so 'good day' to you too.

bbyrd009 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Jesus identifies Himself as good.

yes, in a different context, and i do not mean to imply that He was not. what i do mean to imply is, that in this context, Christ's answer to you is "Nee!"

Kurieuo wrote:You'll have your explanation of how it can be so that the Lord God and Jesus are the One.

Good day sir.

i didn't ask for an explanation, though, i have all the explanation i need from the Book, @ "God is the Head of Christ," as well as many, many other statements by Christ Himself, including "Why do you call Me good? No one is good, except the Father," so 'good day' to you too.

Dear Sir Bbyrd,

I see you're now having to replace the words of Scripture to try make your case, i.e., replacing "God" with "the Father". That, dear Sir, is becoming more and more special pleading. It is always revealing when people start doing that. At least I introduce Scripture with an apples for apples comparison AND followed up with OT Scripture which Jesus would have known as a Rabbi which has God also as the good Shepherd and who is also the Judge, just like Christ.

Nonetheless, even if you substitute in "the Father", I refer you to John 14:7-11:

• 8If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.
  Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10“Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11“Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.

I think given how you read Scripture, you probably also missed that the Angel of the Lord appearing to Moses is in fact God, Exodus 3:2-6:

• The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed. 3So Moses said, “I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up.” 4When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” 5Then He said, “Do not come near here; remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” 6He said also, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

Finally, I must ask, why are you here good Sir? It seems you're not interested in paying others here any respect in discussion. If you wish to only use these forums as your pulpit and to go on the attack, then I request that you move along to somewhere else, as the other sirs and ladies will quickly tire and I'd much rather that they stay and do not leave.

Kurieuo wrote:...

ty for your opinion and time here, i seek to be as unobtrusive as possible, and sorry that my replies to you are not up to your expectations.

bbyrd009 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:...

ty for your opinion and time here, i seek to be as unobtrusive as possible, and sorry that my replies to you are not up to your expectations.

Can you post Acts 20:28 and tell us what you think it is saying?Try John 20:28 also.

The Trinity Doctrine did not come about until hundreds of years after the the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. It is an invention by the Roman Catholic Church.

God and Christ are two separate spiritual Beings!

The Holy Spirit is not a person but the mind and power of God!

Examine all the scriptures carefully and you can prove this.

Examine other versions of the Bible besides the KJV as well because some of the words the KJV includes are not found in the earlier Greek manuscripts such as the words added in I John 5:7-8 know as the "Comma Johanneum". Even later versions of the Vulgate by the Catholics excludes the Comma. Even the Catholics acknowledge it shouldn't be in there.

Now, we are to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel and not some false pagan 3 in 1 or 1 in 3 idol set up by the Roman Catholic Church.

With this truth in mind by the apostle John:
John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
How can the Holy Spirit as a singular Witness be greater than the witnesses of men in verse 9 below?
1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.>Snip>

::Sigh::

Why are you sighing and crying? The Johannine Comma?
If so, I feel ya . . .

see? it is the same, tired, pointless argument, that bears no fruit whatsoever, being had hundreds of times a day, just like the "faith v works" one, lots of people debating an irrelevancy, lots of irrelevancies, and i never denigrated your position, i don't care what beliefs you have in this area, that may be at odds with mine, because neither of our positions adds the least bit of fruit to our service to others, ok?

i will make it a point to let the next person that i am "saving"--from some mess they have gotten themselves into, most likely, not your kind of "saving," wadr--know that i believe God is the Head of Christ, and that i currently believe Trinity is a pointless heresy, designed by the RCC to obscure Word, and i will faithfully come back here and let you know their reaction, ok? Perhaps they will tell me that they prefer to be served by a Trinitarian...you think?

ah, 2 clicks to "submit" this time, ok. i'm getting it...

Bbyrd,

Please put a name to whom you're quoting. That way, those who are following along, can actually follow along.

bbyrd009 wrote:

The Trinity Doctrine did not come about until hundreds of years after the the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. It is an invention by the Roman Catholic Church.
...
Now, we are to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel and not some false pagan 3 in 1 or 1 in 3 idol set up by the Roman Catholic Church.

Dear Sir Bbyrd, you seem unacquainted with certain early Jewish thoughts, which are attempts to understand God's nature as revealed to them in their very own Scripture.

Christianity is essentially a Jewish sect, as you know, Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. Many Jews followed this Rabbi aka his disciples who decided to leave their lives to be taught by the teacher they followed. Teaching of God existing as multiple "powers" extends to well before the Catholic Church formed. It seems, Jesus as God, is an extention or completion in understanding to such thinking.

With all due respect, I'd recommend you educate yourself with Dr Michael Brown's research, or Dr Michael Brown. Here is a YouTube video that I expect you'll dislike that destroys what you claim of the RCC:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-aVQ8MELeg

Kurieuo wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

The Trinity Doctrine did not come about until hundreds of years after the the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. It is an invention by the Roman Catholic Church.
...
Now, we are to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel and not some false pagan 3 in 1 or 1 in 3 idol set up by the Roman Catholic Church.

Dear Sir Bbyrd, you seem unacquainted with certain early Jewish thoughts, which are attempts to understand God's nature as revealed to them in their very own Scripture.

Christianity is essentially a Jewish sect, as you know, Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. Many Jews followed this Rabbi aka his disciples who decided to leave their lives to be taught by the teacher they followed. Teaching of God existing as multiple "powers" extends to well before the Catholic Church formed. It seems, Jesus as God, is an extention or completion in understanding to such thinking.

With all due respect, I'd recommend you educate yourself with Dr Michael Brown's research, or Dr Michael Brown. Here is a YouTube video that I expect you'll dislike that destroys what you claim of the RCC:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-aVQ8MELeg

again, wadr to you Kurieou, i have nothing but respect for the pov of Trinity, if that is your belief, and it suits you, ok? I simply find it a pointless distraction, that bears absolutely no fruit that i can see, and so, if i were to be swayed there at all, it would be in evidencing any fruit of the doctrine, as opposed to holding the belief in Oneness.

Are Catholics Trinitarians? Well, Catholics are some of the most humble, serving people i know, at least the Catholic Charities types, so there you go. I have never had occasion to debate doctrine with them, as it never came up as being essential in any of our service to others, wherein i find the central point, imo, that led me to "Love believes all things."

Beliefs are, for most people, just the little file-dividers that most people use to make artificial divisions of an "us" and a "them," imo, and if you can demonstrate the least bite of fruit in any of that, then i will be most impressed.

thank you.

ah, back to the single click for "submit,"

am i just retarded, or what?

bbyrd009 wrote:ah, back to the single click for "submit,"

am i just retarded, or what?

We are here to help you have better understanding if that is what you seek but you shouldn't cause us to just be casting pearls before swine.People take the time to address you and to give you info to consider,but it does no good if you don't even consider it.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:ah, back to the single click for "submit,"

am i just retarded, or what?

We are here to help you have better understanding if that is what you seek but you shouldn't cause us to just be casting pearls before swine.People take the time to address you and to give you info to consider,but it does no good if you don't even consider it.

ok, well, ty, i do appreciate what you're trying to say.

Can you describe your experience of being accused of being "drunk at the third hour," acb?

or an explanation for the single/double click for "submit" would be nice, too...

abelcainsbrother wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:ah, back to the single click for "submit,"

am i just retarded, or what?

We are here to help you have better understanding if that is what you seek but you shouldn't cause us to just be casting pearls before swine.People take the time to address you and to give you info to consider,but it does no good if you don't even consider it.

i would also be interested in your "when i left town, walking and broke" story; the story about your experiences when you walked out of your place, no extra shirt or shoes, no money, and proverbially licked your finger to see which way the wind blew, and headed out. ty

bbyrd009 wrote:ah, back to the single click for "submit,"

am i just retarded, or what?

Is that a rhetorical question?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:...

ty for your opinion and time here, i seek to be as unobtrusive as possible, and sorry that my replies to you are not up to your expectations.

Can you post Acts 20:28 and tell us what you think it is saying?Try John 20:28 also.

ah, sorry, missed this.
sure, i'll give them a shot.

Acts 20
21 urging Jews and Greeks alike to a radical life-change before God and an equally radical trust in our Master Jesus.
22 "But there is another urgency before me now. I feel compelled to go to Jerusalem. I'm completely in the dark about what will happen when I get there.
23 I do know that it won't be any picnic, for the Holy Spirit has let me know repeatedly and clearly that there are hard times and imprisonment ahead.
24 But that matters little. What matters most to me is to finish what God started: the job the Master Jesus gave me of letting everyone I meet know all about this incredibly extravagant generosity of God.
25 "And so this is good-bye. You're not going to see me again, nor I you, you whom I have gone among for so long proclaiming the news of God's inaugurated kingdom.
26 I've done my best for you, given you my all,
27 held back nothing of God's will for you.
28 "Now it's up to you. Be on your toes - both for yourselves and your congregation of sheep. The Holy Spirit has put you in charge of these people - God's people they are - to guard and protect them. God himself thought they were worth dying for.
29 "I know that as soon as I'm gone, vicious wolves are going to show up and rip into this flock, men
30 from your very own ranks twisting words so as to seduce disciples into following them instead of Jesus.

so, Paul is on his way to Jerusalem, against the urging of the Spirit, because he has determined to take the Nazarite vow, like seekers still do today, essentially, whether they call it that or not. So of course he is all apocalyptic, and doomy, because every peer he mentions this to tells him he is nuts, as there is a price on his head at this point, and it is hard to tell if you are really nuts, or just Spirit nuts, once you have set your mind to some thing, and refuse to listen to the Spirit on a matter. Tares are mind-bending, similar but different to wine. So, Paul has decided to Sacrifice Himself for Jesus, which the Spirit has not led him to do, and this is generally understood now, by even (apostate) commentators.

which i don't mean apostate to be a put-down, ok, and i am not putting down Paul, either. these are stages of learning, that most everyone goes through--well, at least after they have rejected the Hippy that came to them, that the Spirit sent, with his "Love Your Neighbor" jazz, that we weren't buying (which hasn't come out here yet, the Hippy, but everyone gets sent one, and most everyone rejects him, of course; because God is "serious," and we see ourselves as "meant for greatness")

so, that is the stage.
and, God being the Master Psychologist that He is, and the Book being alive like It is, a little analogy is now going to be presented, wherein people can read what they need to read, disregarding that we are all our brothers' keepers, right? And also that as soon as Paul left, he knew the wolves (in sheep's clothes) were going to assume control of the congregation, or iow the "established church was going to be established; Christianity was going to be divided," however you want to put it, which any of us might attest to the fact that there is an official Christianity, a political sort of thing, and another definition of Christianity, that being one who seeks to follow Christ. and which we have more of, etc.

and i am still coming out of being a "doomer" myself, but i see now that this is how it is meant to be, and a follower has to learn the wrong ways, all of them, in order to understand fully why the right way is the right choice. Hence why there is, actually, no condemnation in Christ, this is the plan, and "reap what you sow" takes care of every situation; "i hope you get what you deserve" can either elicit growls, or appreciation, iow.

so, at verse 28--which of course whole books have been written about, and you hardly need me to regurgitate them, or the commentators--it might be seen that, even though the wolves are about to take over, Paul didn't mention to separate from them, or stop looking after them, huh, even the wolves, although one can read that into the passage if they like, the intimation is certainly there; but we know that Christ died for us while we were yet sinners, yes? Christ died for those people, too; the ones who have taken over the congregation already, for us, in our time. God himself thought they were worth dying for; those men, from our own congregations, who have not even been mentioned yet, not until v 29.

So, that is my exegesis of Acts 20:28