Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1036

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Why would a God that knows all (all past all future all possible futures, etc) need to “test” Adam and Eve?

[/quote]

Maybe the ‘test’ wasn’t for his sake. [/quote]

With every question, believers get further from logic and reason.

Now you’re suggesting that God did all this shit for mans sake?

Kicked out of paradise, cursed to die, each of us living our whole lives trying to redeem ourselves for a crime we had no part of… and this is for “our sake”?

Is this what you’re trying to tell me?[/quote]

I’m not telling you anything. I’ve already dealt with this topic earlier on in the thread. You can figure it our for yourself. Or, not. I was simply responding to your question about God’s knowing. Heck, God doesn’t even have to be omniscient to know that with free will, comes the ability to choose to do wrong. What this “test” tells man, I’ll allow you to decide. Like I said, been there done that with this topic.

1039

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Since we are taking this back to the Greek as a defense, we must look at how Greek is assembled.

Here is a link:

http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

Just to whet your appetite; the link you posted is correct, in Greek there is no indefinite article; only a definite one.

That being said, look at the following scriptures: (this is used in the article)

John 1:1 NIV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

…and the Word was God. <— No use of an indefinite article.

Acts 28:6 NIV (referring to Paul being bit by a snake on Malta)

The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

…and said he was a god. <— Use of an indefinite article.

The author knew the rule, but chose to ignore it…

Please read the link, I read yours.

[/quote]
I read the link. I cannot see for the life of me how it helps your position.

[i]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made…

…The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
[/i]

These verses make it crystal clear that Jesus is the Word, the Word is the Creator, and the Creator is Almighty God. There’s no dancing around it. It is a loaded Mack truck and it will run you over.

The addition of the article “a” was specifically made to accommodate the cult of Jehovah’s Witness - to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. By the way, let’s cut out the screwing around here, Senor C.T. Russell and followers, deity and divine mean God.

The doctrine of the Trinity goes clear back to Genesis 1:26, Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness… and threads its way throughout Scripture all the way through Revelation. It is THE central tenet of Christianity. Without it your belief system is nothing more than what I called it before - a cult.[/quote]
The Bible translation we use is not the only translation that states that the Word was a God. Some translations state that the word was divine or what God was the word was.

How could the Word be with God and in the beginning with God if they are the same being? Jesus could be with God in the beginning because he clearly states at John 17:5 that he was at “God’s side before the world was.” So yes God at Genesis said let us make man in our image because Jesus was at God’s side before he created the earth and humans and God was talking to the pre-human Jesus.

God used Jesus to create all things as it is clearly stated at Hebrews 1:1-3 (NIV):
“In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.”

These verses clearly distinguish between God and Jesus and states that God used Jesus to create the universe and that he is at God’s right hand.

1 Corinthians 8:5,6 (NIV)states:
“For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.”

Again, it is clear that all things come from God and all things come through Jesus meaning God used Jesus and his master worker to create all things.

Look up the definition of divine and you will see that it has several definitions and heavenly;celestial is one of them.

All you can use is John chapter 1 which is weak evidence. It is nowhere near as clear as
1 Corinthians 15:24-28(NIV):
“24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”

Those verses explain God’s and Jesus’ relationship clearer than any verse in John chapter 1.

How about another? 1 Corinthians 11:3(NIV):
“3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”

Push I knew you couldn’t bury me in scripture to prove the Trinity. All you can do is use John 1:1-3 and I explained what each of those verses means by using other Bible verses. I can show you at least 10 more scriptures that specifically address God and Jesus’ relationship.

Like I asked you weeks ago - explain 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 and 1 Corinthians 11:3 and show me by using other scriptures that they mean something other than what each passage clearly states. I bet that you cannot and won’t do it.

It’s a shame that a false teaching is the central doctrine for most Christians.

1040

Just out of curiosity, I’ve always wondered why all angels weren’t doomed to sin after Satan sinned like humans were after Adam and Eve’s sin. Aren’t angels sentient creations formed after God’s image capable of free will at least somewhat like man, or did I miss something in bible school?

1049

I do feel all the books were written before the 1st century was up along with what’s suggested with some of the other above links by Push, but the compilation of the bible (which books go where, and which books are supposed to be included), wasn’t done until a couple or so centuries after Christ’s death.

Before there was a basic consensus of bible canon, there were several branches of ‘Christianity’ some of which had beliefs that are wildly opposed to the bible as we know it today. Often times in history, might makes right and political powers drive processes that impact large populations, so why would bible canon be any different? What is there to suggests that the process of bible canon was divinely inspired.

1051

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

…Aren’t angels…formed after God’s image…[/quote]

Where do you get this idea?[/quote]

To be honest, it’s not an area of the bible (the stuff about angel’s and Satan’s revolt) that I paid much attention to so I’ll be the first to admit that there’s a good chance of me being wrong on this one.

1052

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I do feel all the books were written before the 1st century was up along with what’s suggested with some of the other above links by Push, but the compilation of the bible (which books go where, and which books are supposed to be included), wasn’t done until a couple or so centuries after Christ’s death.

Before there was a basic consensus of bible canon, there were several branches of ‘Christianity’ some of which had beliefs that are wildly opposed to the bible as we know it today. Often times in history, might makes right and political powers drive processes that impact large populations, so why would bible canon be any different? What is there to suggests that the process of bible canon was divinely inspired. [/quote]

It was no different. Not at all. And to watch them use corrupted text as proof of their position is quite astounding.

1053

A perspective from Islam.

1054

From the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Discuss.

The NT is now known, whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek MSS alone. Every one of these handwritten copics differ from every other one. In addition to these Greek MSS, the NT has been preserved in more than ten thousand MSS of the early versions and in thousands of quotations of the Church Fathers. These MSS of the versions and quotations of the Church Fathers differ from one another just as widely as do the Greek MSS. Only a fraction of this great mass of material has been fully collated and carefully studied. Until this task is completed, the uncertainty regarding the text of the NT will remain.

It has been estimated that these MSS and quotations differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher. A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings. It is true, of course, that the addition of the readings from another 150 MSS of Luke would not add another 30,000 readings to the list. But each MS studied does add substantially to the list of variants. It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform.

Many thousands of these different readings are variants in orthography or grammar or style and however effect upon the meaning of the text. But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text. It is true that not one of these variant readings affects the substance of Christian dogma. It is equally true that many of them do have theological significance and were introduced into the text intentionally. It may not, e.g., affect the substance of Christian dogma to accept the reading "Jacob the father of Joseph, and Joseph (to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed) the father of Jesus who is called 'Christ'" (Matt. 1:16), as does the Sinaitic Syriac; but it gives rise to a theological problem.

It has been said that the great majority of the variant readings in the text of the NT arose before the books of the NT were canonized and that after those books were canonized, they were very carefully copied because they were scripture. This, however, is far from being the case.

It is true, of course, that many variants arose in the very earliest period. There is no reason to suppose, e.g., that the first person who ever made a copy of the autograph of thc Gospel of Luke did not change his copy to conform to the particular tradition with which he was familiar. But he was under no compulsion to do so. Once the Gospel of Luke had become scripture, however, the picture was changed completely. Then the copyist was under compulsion to change his copy, to correct it. Because it was scripture, it had to be right.[34] 

Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or of careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons (even though they may not affect the substance of Christian dogma). It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading.

His interest was not in the "original reading but in the “true reading.” This is precisely the attitude toward the NT which prevailed from the earliest times to the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the invention of printing. The thousands of Greek MSS, MSS of the versions, and quotations of the Church Fathers provide the source for our knowledge of the earliest or original text of the NT and of the history of the transmission of that text before the invention of printing.[34]

In fact no book of the NT gives evidence of so much verbal variation as does the Acts of Apostles. Besides the text represented in the oldest uncial Greek MSS, begin with the Codex Vaticanus, often called the Neutral Text and dating back to the second century AD, there is evidence either of a consistent alternative text equally old, or of a series of early miscellaneous variants, to which the name Western text is traditionally applied.

The ancient authorities of the Western Text of Acts include only one Greek (or rather bilingual Greek and Latin) uncial MS, Codex Bezae of the fifth or sixth century. But the variants often have striking content and strong early support from Latin writers and Latin NT MSS. It now appears that while both the Neutral and Western texts were in circulation, the former is the more likely of the two to represent the original.[35]

The original copies of the NT books have, of course, long since disappeared. This fact should not cause surprise. In the first place, they were written on papyrus, a very fragile and persihable material. In the second place, and probably of even more importance, the original copies of the NT books were not looked upon as scripture by those of the early Christian communities.
1055

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

Please cite references for why we should accept Spartiates “paraphrased” translation over any other widely used translation.[/quote]

Widely used by whom!? The Church? C’mon, if you want to explore, do your homework. Or, you can just keep spouting dogma. Makes no difference to me at all.[/quote]

Ok. Still playing dumb, huh? You agreed with Spartiates “paraphrased” translation as the more accurate. If you feel this way, please show me WHY I should accept it over ANY other translation.

Again you are asking people left and right to cite references when you yourself are not willing to do so.

I’ll quote you again:

“Or is it you’re the type of person to request rigorous debate and argument from someone else, but not provide it yourself?”