Evidence for God from Science

jerzy wrote:PeteSinCA

You said: “Your refusal to back your claims and dodging questions arising from your posts demonstrates to me quite clearly that you are not here for serious discussion”

1. How I can back up quotes from God’s word?
2. How I can back up what you can easily find out that those studying theology do not study the Bible but what people said about it supported by proof texting?
3. I discussed the issue of the second commandment with a priest with almost 30 years of pulpit employment. He said that Moses changed it in the book of Deutoromy. His name is Stanislaw Lipski. Do you need to speak to him?
4. I discussed Catholic syllabus in Krakow. Do you need contact to their authority?
5. I spoke to a Canadian missionary (doc of theology) in Johannesburg about 10 years ago. He said: people think that studying theology we study the Bible.
6. I have spoken to many more people of different denominations including profs some years ago when I was studying God’s word. Do you expect me to be able to remember names and addresses?
7. Why you are looking t fault in me instead considering what I keep pointing to?
8. Is it not a common knowledge how many (millions upon millions) the Trinitarians have butchered over the 2 centuries.
9. Is it too difficult to find out what they have been doing behind the doors long before or during the WW 2 and up to today?
10. Would I quote from God’s word asking to do likewise ( as commanded) if I had sinister motives?
11. Is my imperfection of English command proving that I am here to turn people away from the only true God so they should forfeit the promised eternal life? BTW, English is neither my mother tongue no I learned it at school. So please point to my mistakes, thanks.

Dodging again, I see. The claims to which my post referred are your claims that Bible translations have been manipulated and pastors knowingly teach deceptions. Provide the proof, please, rather than evading clear questions.

PaulSacramento

You said: “In Job 1:6 we learn that Satan was in heaven with other angels.”

Actually not. To appear before God meant to appear before a priest or a Judge. I suppose you are aware of this. Thus a Jew or few of them had an issue with Job’s blessings. The rest is a mirror acts of Moses and 10 plags in Egypt.

But let me be honest with you. There is a second possibility. We know that certain angels are assigned to certain functions. It is possible that one of them was doing something similar to the angel (Satan) and the speaking donkey?

You said: “That Satan is (was) in heaven is also seen in Zechariah 3:1-2, Luke 10:18 and Revelation 12:9. Revelation 12:9 gives a further clue to Satan's identity:”

I am so disappointed that you pointed to Re 12:9 as a text proving that Satan was in heaven but didn’t even attempt to explain whom is this symbolic text referring to. You certainly don’t seem to have any idea or avoiding the fact that the great red dragon of Re 12:3 (see Da 7 and Re 17 what horns and heads represent) has nothing to do with your supposed fallen Satan. You shouldn't have problem with crowns on his heads. He is the one who was cast out in Re 12:9. You also didn’t bother to find out where exactly was that great red dragon cast from.

It applies to the rest of your texts. You simply assume things based on what you hear from man instead of finding out what God really says.

You said: “The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan”

Well, it was called so and so. It is clear that it wasn’t so and so. Certainly not what you are assuming based on the man-made story simply because you don’t know who it refers to beginning in Re 12:3.

You said: “(And incidentally, Isaiah 14:12-15 is often used to show why Satan fell, because he wanted to ascend to God's throne).”

You must be joking by stating that Isa 14:12 has anything to do with Satan not with the king of Babylon.

You said: “Note also 2 Corinthians 11:14, which says that Satan can "masquerade as an angel of light."

You didn’t show a test stating that Satan is a fallen angel. You keep “forgetting” that Peter was also Satan on one occasion. You keep forgetting that the Jewish leaders were adversaries (Satan) to God, Jesus and the apostles. You keep forgetting that the word is translated in the OT every time it points to people or an angel.

You said: “From this we infer that he is a "fallen angel".

You infer from the assumption that God left such an important matter to man to figure out. Further, you base your assumption on false preaching that Isa 14:12 or Re 12: 9 is referring to the supposed fallen angel while those texts in their entirety are clearly stating something completely different. Isa 14 is foretelling fall of king of Babylon while Re 12 is foretelling fall of the great red dragon of Re 12:3 who has 7 heads, 10 horns and 7 crowns on his heads. While you shouldn’t have problem with finding out who wears crowns you could easily find out what horns and heads symbolise from Da 7 and Re 17. But that would blow your man-made story far away.

I do admire your very selective interpretation of texts.
You may not be a JW but you would certainly fit right in in that regard.

You interpretation of Job shows me that you have decided to interpret things based on what you WANT them to say to fit into your own theological views, which I find funny because that is what you are accusing Us and the all of Christianity of doing.

Quite funny.

PaulSacramento

You said: “"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
"He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18).
"God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him" (I John 4:9).”

God doesn’t breed like humans. He fulfilled His promise to King David of 2Sam 7:12. Perhaps you would consider reading it in conjunction with Ac 2:30 and 13:23.

Jesus is the only way to the Father the only true/one/our God.

You said: “"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him" (John 1:18).”

He manifested Jn 17:6 or declared the Father, died, resurrected, granted eternal life, sited at the right hand of the Majesty.

You said: “5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. (John 17:5)”

Jesus’ followers were saved before the world began. God doesn’t do anything unless He foretells it. He foretold Jesus through all prophets.

You said: “And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”

Thanks for bringing this text up. If Jesus is the Father then who really is the Father and who is the Son? Can you see how Trinitarians manipulated this text? It actually back fired in their faces.

You said: “"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.”

Do you know who this Immanuel is?

Isa 8:8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.


You said: “He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature”

Remember Isa 11:1-3? Remember Jn 17:6? Remember Ac 2:22?

You asked: “Does Christ speak to you personally and if so, how?”

I had night visions for about a year whereby many things were made clear to me and few I had never seen before were, say, given.

Besides, I follow his word given once for all.

Sometimes I write things I can’t recognise.

Once a dying women on an oncology ward got up just as I prayed to God to manifest His glory and have mercy on her.

However, I don’t boast about these things to avoid unnecessary discussions.

To be honest many people find such testimony unbelievable. I would also have reservations because there is so much trickery taking place in Christian denominations that one finds it hard to determine which is the act of God and which a mere trick.

PeteSinCA

You said: “Dodging again, I see. The claims to which my post referred are your claims that Bible translations have been manipulated and pastors knowingly teach deceptions. Provide the proof, please, rather than evading clear questions.”

It is a fair knowledge (even in the Catholic Church) that the three heavenly witness are not found in any ancient scripts besides Jerome’s Vulgata of 405.

Do you know how many denominations (including many Catholics) use this addition as proof of a Trinity God?

PaulSacramento

You said: “"You interpretation of Job shows me that you have decided to interpret things based on what you WANT them to say to fit into your own theological views, which I find funny because that is what you are accusing Us and the all of Christianity of doing.”

Look my friend.

I have no business on either side. All I am seeking is the truth. The Satan of Job doesn’t proof your theology at all. Job neither states that Satan is a fallen angel nor where the meeting took place,

To conclude your theology you need the text but it is nowhere found.

However, it is a fact that all Jewish activities were considered taking place before God. Thus Jewish problem with Job’s blessings would have to be resolved before God. The destruction which followed is a mirror picture of that of Moses in Egypt.

I also provided a second possible scenario.

Unfortunately we find nothing in Job to support the theology of a fallen angel Satan.

It is 23.25 here.

Good night.

jerzy wrote:Silvertusk

You said: “I think you need to answer the following questions before this discussion continues.

1) Who is Satan? (The question Paul asked you)
2) What is he?
3) Who is Jesus?
4) Do you think Jesus is God?"

I answered those questions but thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak from God’s word.

1. Satan is a person, people, man’s way of thinking. It is anything who/which is in opposition to mainly right think before God in the first place. Thus Peter was Satan although he wanted to prevent Jesus’ death. However his way of thinking was not in line with God’s plan but merely a result of human reasoning.
2. Answered in point 1 above.
3. Jesus is the only person begotten from dead man’s seed 2Sam 7:12 = Ac 2:30 + Ac13:23.
4. Jesus is the only person so far begotten from the dead to eternal life 1Cor 15:23.
5. It doesn’t matter what I or anybody thinks. What matters is what God says. Nowhere in the Bible God says that Jesus is also God. To the contrary, the entire Bible is clear that the Father is the only true/one/our God. The eternal life is subject to such knowledge.

You said: “You talk about Trinitarians as if if they are a cult and not the true Christians”

A Christian is a follower of Christ. He accepts every of his words like Jn 12:47-50, Jn 17:3, Jn 20:17 and try to live the life Jesus displayed. A Christian has to know God and His servant, repent for all sins and be submerged into the power and authority (symbolicly die to the old man controlled by flesh to be born to the new man controlled by the will of God) granted to Jesus. Only then a Christian stand to qualify for the eternal life but he has to think the same way as Christ did.

You asked: “ - Do you believe in the Trinity?”

The Trinity God is a man-made pagan fashioned story. It was created in a non Christian manner, not Bile based and implemented by the most barbaric means.

You asked: “Are you a JW?”

No, I never had anything to do with JW although have a fair knowledge of their teachings. You should have noticed that I don’t subscribe to their teaching on Satan, origin of Jesus and many more.

Please ask if this doesn’t satisfy you.

1) Well as Paul said - who is the guy in Job then? Which Satan is this?
3) That doesn't make sense so I will ask you again - Who do you think Jesus is?
4) Do you think Jesus is God? Yes No answer please.

If the Trinitarian view of God is not Bible based then where did it come from?

How do you explain John 1:1 ?

jerzy wrote:It is 23.25 here.

Good night.

Ah. Maybe you've posted this elsewhere, but if I counted time zones correctly, that would put you in Eastern Europe, the Middle East or East Africa. So English is probably not your native language (I had guessed that already), and your usage of and/or direct experience with the King James Version Bible is probably not extensive. The church I was raised in used KJV in services (readings and sermons) and Sunday School the first 10 or 15 years of my life, as did a church I attended 1973-1975. The KJV is also one of the translations in which I've read the entire Bible (also Revised Standard version, New American Standard, New International Version and New English Translation, for what it's worth). I'll try to use more straightforward English - using fewer metaphors, avoiding American slang, using fewer literary allusions - out of basic courtesy.

PeteSinCA wrote:

jerzy wrote:It is 23.25 here.

Good night.

Ah. Maybe you've posted this elsewhere, but if I counted time zones correctly, that would put you in Eastern Europe, the Middle East or East Africa. So English is probably not your native language (I had guessed that already), and your usage of and/or direct experience with the King James Version Bible is probably not extensive. The church I was raised in used KJV in services (readings and sermons) and Sunday School the first 10 or 15 years of my life, as did a church I attended 1973-1975. The KJV is also one of the translations in which I've read the entire Bible (also Revised Standard version, New American Standard, New International Version and New English Translation, for what it's worth). I'll try to use more straightforward English - using fewer metaphors, avoiding American slang, using fewer literary allusions - out of basic courtesy.

Nice guesses Sherlock. He said he's in SA:

One think, please allow me some time because I am behind with responses to other two topics, have my responsibility (I am not paid to do this) and will go to bed soon. I am in Johannesburg South Africa right now.

And, English is not his native language:

11. Is my imperfection of English command proving that I am here to turn people away from the only true God so they should forfeit the promised eternal life? BTW, English is neither my mother tongue no I learned it at school. So please point to my mistakes, thanks.

Silvertusk

You said: “who is the guy in Job then? Which Satan is this?”

I explained it already but let me begin this way.
1. Job is not a proof text for your theology. You need a text stating that Satan is a fallen angel to plant it in Job.
2. I said that a Jew or few of them had an issue with Job’s blessings.
3. They appeared before God (Judge or a priest) as commanded to argue their case.
4. The Moses in Egypt mirror destruction case followed.
5. I provided a second possible scenario that an angel assigned certain duty (like the one in talking donkey - also Satan) is the Satan.
6. It is not a fallen angel because God is silent about this.
7. Your theology attributes acts of God to this idol.
8. The OT records why and how God kills and destroys.
9. By the way, how many people your idol destroyed?
10. Your theology maintains that the supposed fallen angel tempt us to sin.
11. James states that we are tempted by our lust.
12. Paul fights with his flesh (not a fallen angel Satan).
13. Your theology is false.

You said: “That doesn't make sense so I will ask you again - Who do you think Jesus is??”

1. I am sorry that the texts I pointed to from God’s word don’t make sense to you.
2. I don’t think up stories. I quote from God’s word.
3. The Bible is very clear on Jesus’ origin. It says that he was foretold by all of the prophets.
4. While the earlier prophecies like the one of Ge 3 were very vague they became more specific with time.
5. The clearest and shortest are: 2Sam 7:12 declared fulfilled by Peter in Ac 2:30 and by Paul in Ac 13:23.
6. Isa 11:1-3 foretelling how God will groom His servant. It is confirmed in Jn 3:34, Mt 11:27 and many more.
7. Isa 53 foretells how God will place world’s sins upon him. It is confirmed in Jn 3:16, 2Cor 5:15-21 and many more.

So which of those texts doesn’t make sense to you and why? Is it because they don’t fit into your man-made story called interpretation or theology?

You said: “Do you think Jesus is God? Yes No answer please.”

See points 2-7 just above. The Bible doesn't state that Jesus was, is or will ever be God. Instead it states that he was begat by God from the dead man's seed and groomed by Him to become the lamb. I cannot think to the contrary.

You said: “If the Trinitarian view of God is not Bible based then where did it come from?”

Thanks for stating correctly that the Trinity God is just a view (man-made story). We all know that it isn’t a Biblical teaching.
This theology was growing very slowly by some people beginning to apply some of the pagan beliefs. The results varied widely.

It wasn’t until a pagan ruler took control of the fragmented Christian society and “directed” them. In 325 he presided over a meeting (the Pope got “sick” and wasn’t present. I am not surprised.) which resulted in creation of a dual God ( Nicene Creed). It was declared that the Son was of the same matter as the Father thus was equal to God.

This was declared unbiblical in 357. Bible states that God created matter thus He is not matter. Besides God doesn’t breed like humans. 2Sam 7:12 is clear on Jesus’ origin.

The Christian religion was declared a Roman state religion in 381. What was declared unbiblical had to become “politically correct”. The third God was added in 382 to conform to the pagan religions of three gods (remember Egyptian god Set, god Horus and god the Pharaoh?) and the Nicene Creed was expanded accordingly.

In 382 Jerome was ordered to make new Latina translation “accounting” for the new theology. On completion in 405 the prior Latina translations were outlawed.

Jerome made few “mistakes” which crept into our Bibles.

You said: “How do you explain John 1:1 ?”

1. All know prior to the 1611 KJV translations rendered low “word” and “it”.
2. Jn 1:1 is not a Trinitarian proof text.
3. A legitimate translation pointing to the supreme God is possible from the multiple meaning words.
4. There is no indication of the Hebrew “dabar” or Greek “logos” denoting Jesus.
5. There are texts like Ac 10:36 or Re 20:4 which preclude the common rendition.
6. John couldn’t have sucked it from his thumb. He referred to (as Jesus and the NT writers did almost all the time) to prophets.
7. He referred to the word of God (not God the word) of Isa 55:11, Ps 33:6+9, 22Sam 7:12 = Ac 2:30+13:23 and many more.
8. The NT clarifies it in Heb 11:3 whereby the Greek word “rhema” means utterance. This is what John was referring to, to God’s utterance.
9. We know God from His utterance. There is no other source of our knowledge about God.
10. God’s word is thus God.
11. The word God is derived from God’s attributes like power/authority because no man has seen God.
12. Jesus didn’t manifest God’s name but His attributes.
13. Thus God fulfilled the word He uttered through the prophets. He made it happen. He raised His servant from the dead man’s seed.
14. Jn 1:1 has nothing to do with the man-made story. The current rendition doesn’t conform to the overall Biblical context.
15. Jn 1:1 has been manipulated to give supposed credibility to the man-made unbiblical story.

PeteSinCA

You said: “that would put you in Eastern Europe, the Middle East or East Africa.”

I was born in Poland in 1948, lived in South Africa and Botswana since 1981 & going to Poland this May. God knows for how long. I began self teaching English at 33.

You said: “your usage of and/or direct experience with the King James Version Bible is probably not extensive”.

I used Polish translations for a long time. Then came NIV and few like the Chronological one.
However, for the PC aided study I was using “On Line Bible” and currently e-Sward to avoid unnecessary discussions with the KJV onlies.

You said: “I'll try to use more straightforward English - using fewer metaphors, avoiding American slang, using fewer literary allusions - out of basic courtesy.”

Thanks and God bless!!!

jerzy wrote:
Thanks for stating correctly that the Trinity God is just a view (man-made story). We all know that it isn’t a Biblical teaching.
This theology was growing very slowly by some people beginning to apply some of the pagan beliefs. The results varied widely.

Come on man! Nobody here is agreeing with you that the "Trinity God" is a man-made view. And "we all" don't "know" that it isn't a biblical teaching.

You are now banned because you are continuing to debate and argue against the essential Christian doctrine of Christ's deity. When you joined the board, whether you read it or not, you agreed to the board guidelines, and forum purpose. Take this week to review the guidelines and board purpose, and decide if you want to continue posting here while conforming to the board rules.

jerzy wrote:PaulSacramento

You said: “"You interpretation of Job shows me that you have decided to interpret things based on what you WANT them to say to fit into your own theological views, which I find funny because that is what you are accusing Us and the all of Christianity of doing.”

Look my friend.

I have no business on either side. All I am seeking is the truth. The Satan of Job doesn’t proof your theology at all. Job neither states that Satan is a fallen angel nor where the meeting took place,

To conclude your theology you need the text but it is nowhere found.

However, it is a fact that all Jewish activities were considered taking place before God. Thus Jewish problem with Job’s blessings would have to be resolved before God. The destruction which followed is a mirror picture of that of Moses in Egypt.

I also provided a second possible scenario.

Unfortunately we find nothing in Job to support the theology of a fallen angel Satan.

That you refuse to see and understand is fine, that is your choice.
Since you clearly made up your mind about YOUR theology and we have most certainly made up our mind about ours then we are at an impasse.
I do not think this is the place for you and since you have been banned I suggest that, unless you are open to different view, coming back doesn't make a lot of sense.

God's grace be with you.

RickD

You said: “Nobody here is agreeing with you that the "Trinity God" is a man-made view.”

You neither seem to know much of what God says in His word nor that people “here” know that the “Trinity God” is a man-made view. Please note what somebody “here” said:

by Silvertusk » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:12 pm

If the Trinitarian view of God is not Bible based then where did it come from?

You said: “You are now banned because you are continuing to debate and argue against the essential Christian doctrine of Christ's deity.”

Thanks God the Trinitarians don’t butcher as they did not long ago. They butchered (even their own professors of theology) heretics who dared pointing to God’s word like me.

The only think you can do is to ban me because you cannot defend your blasphemous and idolatrous theology.

You said: “When you joined the board, whether you read it or not, you agreed to the board guidelines, and forum purpose.”

I didn’t suppose that the purpose of this board was to reject hundreds of proof texts stating that the Father is the only true/one/our God and propagating the man-made pagan flavoured “view/ story/theology” that there are three Gods who are making up a one God (just to fool people around) instead.

You said: “Take this week to review the guidelines and board purpose, and decide if you want to continue posting here while conforming to the board rules.”

Whether you ban or kill me I am not going to reject God’s word.

Curry on your judgement.

See you at the judgement seat.