Bible Starting Points ?

Deuteronomy 6:4

' Hear, O Israel, Jehovah is our God; Jehovah is one. "

Divegeester maintains that this is a starting point in any discussion on the nature of God -

Divegeester, why is this a "starting point." ?
What makes a certain passage a "starting point" ?

Why is Deut.. 6:4 qualified to be the one and only "starting point" on God but, let us say, Genesis 1:1 where Elohim (implying more than one) creates the heavens and the earth, is less qualified to be a starting point?

The former verse pertains to Israel, true.
But the latter verse Gen. 1:1 pertains to all creation and actually refers to being and existence of all things and everyone.

I do not necessarily contend Deut. 6:4 cannot or should not be a "starting point". I question why it seems arbitrary when we could start in other places in our most fundamental understanding of God's nature.

Why is Genesis 1:26 much less qualified to be a starting point then Deut. 6:4 ?

"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, ... etc. "

Can you take out some of the arbitrariness of your so-called "starting point" of Deut. 6:4? Why not Genesis 1:26 concerning the creation of mankind in general, be a starting point? And it is followed by verse 26 saying -

"And God created man in HIS own image; in the image of God He created him ..."

Why cannot the Us and "Our" with the He and the Him of Gen. 1:26,27 form our underlying "starting point" in the revelation of God ?

For Christians why would we not ascribe a "starting point" in John 1:1. IE. " ... and the Word was with God and the Word was God " ?

Please define how no other place is suitable to start our understanding of God except from an arguably arbitrary one you prefer in Deut. 4:6.

Personally, I think things only really get going with Genesis 15:9

'The Lord answered, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a she-goat, three years old, a ram three years old, a turtle dove and a young pigeon.'

If I was to re-write the bible (and I might) the above would be my starting point.

Originally posted by sonship
[b]Deuteronomy 6:4

' Hear, O Israel, Jehovah is our God; Jehovah is one. "

Divegeester maintains that this is a starting point in any discussion on the nature of God -

Divegeester, why is this a "starting point." ?
What makes a certain passage a "starting point" ?

Why is Deut.. 6:4 qualified to be th ...[text shortened]... t our understanding of God except from an arguably arbitrary one you prefer in Deut. 4:6.[/b]

The starting point to understanding God and his Son Jesus Christ is here:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Matthew 5:3-9 KJV)

Those who live by the teachings of Jesus Christ in Matt 5, 6 and 7 , Jesus will reward these devout and righteous people with eternal life in the Kingdom of God.

Those whose hearts have been hardened by the false teachings of modern Christianity [or any other false teaching] and have grown greedy, worldly and selfish will not enter the Kingdom of God.

Another sonship trinity propaganda thread.

What's that 5 now...🙄

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Personally, I think things only really get going with Genesis 15:9

'The Lord answered, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a she-goat, three years old, a ram three years old, a turtle dove and a young pigeon.'

If I was to re-write the bible (and I might) the above would be my starting point.

On the nature of God you would consider that a good starting point ?
Maybe you could explain more about that.

Can I assume you are being serious ?
Or am I in for a lampoon of some type?

When did you notice and become impressed with Genesi 15:9 ?
Why does it seem a foundational matter ?

Those are honest questions, not preparations for debating another view.

Originally posted by divegeester
Another sonship trinity propaganda thread.

What's that 5 now...🙄

you should be use to monotonous repetitions. You make enough of them yourself.

This thread is for YOU to explain what your rationalizing is for considering Deut. 6:4 the only valid starting point on any consideration of the nature of God.

Others can speak to their considerations.

I am not begging you to answer though.
We can go on without you.

Originally posted by Rajk999

For the sake of discussion, Rajk999 has a point.

Matthew the introduction to the New Testament as its first book, at least in the arrangement of the books.

The message on the mount would be practically the first teaching Jesus gives.

It too bad some terribly questionable things he follows on to say.
But that the "sermon" on the mountain starting in Matthew 5 could be a starting point on the nature of God has some merit.

In the Old Testament, the law was also called "the testimony". The instructions TESTIFIED something of the nature of God and man's relationship with God.

In a similar way the sermon on the mount is a testimony of someone's nature.

Actually, Jesus lived a quiet life for 30 years. Then He stepped out and began to talk about Himself as to HOW He lived. This teaching to His disciples is actually also a description about how He Himself lived.

Those are my comments so far about this Matthew 5 being a starting point on the nature of God. My opinion here is not infallible.

Originally posted by sonship
Bible Starting Points ?

Why not read Revelation first and ask: Who wrote this? Where did this information supposedly come from? Why should anyone believe it?

Originally posted by sonship
This thread is for YOU to explain what your rationalizing is for considering [b]Deut. 6:4 the only valid starting point on any consideration of the nature of God.

I've explained my position on this to you several times across several of your other "trinity" threads; you didn't take any notice then and have refused to answer a specific trinity related on topic question.

You seem to be using your "hairdryer" tactic of overloading the topic with pages of text in the hope that dissenters will just give up. 🙂

Originally posted by sonship
For the sake of discussion, Rajk999 has a point.

[b]Matthew the introduction to the New Testament as its first book, at least in the arrangement of the books.

The message on the mount would be practically the first teaching Jesus gives.

It too bad some terribly questionable things he follows on to say.
But that the "sermon" on the mountain ...[text shortened]... b]Matthew 5[/b] being a starting point on the nature of God. My opinion here is not infallible.[/b]

First, those things you call terribly questionable, were said by Jesus himself. But you are no stranger to questioning the teachings of Jesus, denying that they are essential for eternal life, and you are even brassfaced enough to claim that Jesus's teachings are not in this Dispensation and therefore void.

Next, Jesus did not live a quiet life for 30 years. That is simply a refusal to see what the Bible says.

The Bible says:
- Jesus at age 12, that he must be about his Fathers business .. ie Gods business which is preaching and teaching.
- Jesus at age 12 was preaching to the elders of the synagogue and impressing them with his knowledge and wisdom.
- If all the things that Jesus did in his lifetime were written down, then the world would not have enough space to contain all those books.

The prevailing idea among Christians is that Jesus was 'subject to his parents', from age 12 to age 30, and that he stayed at home rather than go out into the world to preach and to teach to all people. Typical of Christianity in trying to lay hold of claim to Christ.

No doubt Jesus was subject to his parents, but not for 18 years.

Originally posted by divegeester
I've explained my position on this to you several times across several of your other "trinity" threads; you didn't take any notice then and have refused to answer a specific trinity related on topic question.

You seem to be using your "hairdryer" tactic of overloading the topic with pages of text in the hope that dissenters will just give up. 🙂

Me being verbose or even overly verbose is not a tactic to do anything such as discourage posters so that they to go away.

Me cramming in more points then some wish to read is just me having a few things I would like to write in one post. We use to call that "being on a roll".

Because I realize that I have this tendency of late I break up my comments into three posts so any one is not too long.

Could I be more concise? Sure I could.
With some people conciseness only leads to some assuming that something has been overlooked and not considered by me. ie. "Aha! But you fail to realize that ... thus and such."

Some of this I try to preemptively deal with, therefore the long posts.

Posters who write things which are really of interest to me, I read through even more than once regardless of their length.

I have no deliberate "tactic" to drive differing opinions away.

Originally posted by sonship
On the nature of God you would consider that a good starting point ?
Maybe you could explain more about that.

Can I assume you are being serious ?
Or am I in for a lampoon of some type?

When did you notice and become impressed with [b]Genesi 15:9 ?
Why does it seem a foundational matter ?

Those are honest questions, not preparations for debating another view.[/b]

Semi-serious.

As an atheist (and writer of fiction) I come to the bible as a collection of stories with tenuous foundations in fact. I mean no disrespect in saying that. (Nor do I say that as a result of being poorly informed, having as you know studied the bible at university).

So, as an atheist fiction writer, I might indeed consider starting the bible (or discussion about the nature of God, which was your question) with ' “Bring me a heifer three years old, a she-goat, three years old, a ram three years old, a turtle dove and a young pigeon.'

The first sentence of a novel needs to hook the reader and the ambiguity and strangeness of the above would serve this purpose well. (God's nature/character would perhaps read better if slowly revealed; tantalize the reader). The current starting point may indeed carry more gravitas, but perhaps gives too much away too soon:

'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.'

Originally posted by Rajk999

First, those things you call terribly questionable, were said by Jesus himself. But you are no stranger to questioning the teachings of Jesus,

I don't know why I spend time and effort on you.
You've hurled some false accusations and real insults my way for months.

I am willing to forgive you.
But its of not much profit to talk to you.

My post was in response to yours.
It was not done with a thought we can peacefully converse.

denying that they are essential for eternal life, and you are even brassfaced enough to claim that Jesus's teachings are not in this Dispensation and therefore void.

I never wrote Jesus words were in ANY conceivable way "void".
For lack of a more polite expression, this is simply a lying accusation from you.

Next, Jesus did not live a quiet life for 30 years. That is simply a refusal to see what the Bible says.

This I would disagree with in this way - It is considered a great miracle that someone as powerful as the Son of God lived in a town of Nazareth making no particular stir for 30 years.

Says me only? No, says the Gospel of Luke pretty much.
The people recognized Him as the neighberhood carpenter's son.
All those years He moved in and out among them and apparently made no particular stir.

He did, at 12 years old, amaze the priests in the temple. But aside from this incident He made no particlar commotion.

"And all bore witness to Him and marveled at the words of grace proceeding our of His mouth, and they said, Is not this Joseph's son? ' (Luke 4:22)

This seems to be the first public speaking of Jesus in the synogogue apart from just reading the Scriptures. They were enraged and sought to cast Him over a cliff (v.29) [/b]

But this appears the FIRST time they had so strong a reaction to the neighborhood carpenter. Isaiah 53 also seems that He just blended into the surrounding environment with no particular striking feature which drew attention to Himself.

The Bible says:
- Jesus at age 12, that he must be about his Fathers business .. ie Gods business which is preaching and teaching.

I mentioned that sole instance. Other than this, His first public speaking shocked them. And their reaction was so strong as to want to execute Him right there at the beginning of His ministry.

"And all the synagogue were filled with anger when they heard these things. and they rose up and cast Him out of the city and led Him to the brow of the hill on which thir ity was built so that they might throw Him down the clift.

But He, passing through their midst, went away." (Luke 4:28-30)

This appears to be the FIRST time Jesus caused such a stir. And He is 30 years old. So I say in comparison, He lived a strikingly calm life. After His becoming of age of a typical priest (30 years old) and after His baptism and the Holy Spirit came upon Him, did He begin to have cataclysmic impact with His words and miracles.

- Jesus at age 12 was preaching to the elders of the synagogue and impressing them with his knowledge and wisdom.
- If all the things that Jesus did in his lifetime were written down, then the world would not have enough space to contain all those books.

Possibly John meant things during the whole life of Jesus.
Possibly John speaks of His MINISTRY could fill up many books.

Either way, incredible things which could have been written about His childhood were not widespread. He made no stir.

now Mary and Joseph and His brothers and sisters may have had many many stories they could have told and probably did.

When the Gospel writer says that Mary kept all these things in her heart, I take that to mean she had many many rememberances of what it was like to raise this God-man little child.

Still Rajk999, I believe Jesus pretty quietly just blended in with society for many years before His commencing His public ministry.

And now that I have written all this Divegeester will assume I write so much to chase away someone. No, I just am on a role.

The prevailing idea among Christians is that Jesus was 'subject to his parents', from age 12 to age 30,

That's what the Bible tells us. We didn't pull it out of thin air.

and that he stayed at home rather than go out into the world to preach and to teach to all people. Typical of Christianity in trying to lay hold of claim to Christ.

You have no evidence of a ministry before His coming John the Baptist to be baptized and commence His priestly ministry.

Where is your scripture indicating otherwise ?

Being a-traditional just for the sake of being a-traditional doesn't always work.

No doubt Jesus was subject to his parents, but not for 18 years.

Between ages 12 and 29 we are only told that He grew in grace and in wisdom, and such things as indicate a normal developing godly human being.

THIS IS GOD BECOME A MAN !!!

Originally posted by sonship to Rajk999
I don't know why I spend time and effort on you.
You've hurled some false accusations and real insults my way for months.
I am willing to forgive you.
But its of not much profit to talk to you.

Presumably you believe that both you and Rajk999 are "saved" because you both believe in Christ, so doesn't that create a sense of solidarity and shared identity, regardless of your differences over dogma here and there, and your relatively minor interpersonal difficulties?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke

Semi-serious.

As an atheist (and writer of fiction) I come to the bible as a collection of stories with tenuous foundations in fact. I mean no disrespect in saying that. (Nor do I say that as a result of being poorly informed, having as you know studied the bible at university).

I didn't know any of these things about you.
But it makes sense.
I think I recall your Atheism.

So, as an atheist fiction writer, I might indeed consider starting the bible (or discussion about the nature of God, which was your question) with ' “Bring me a heifer three years old, a she-goat, three years old, a ram three years old, a turtle dove and a young pigeon.'

The first sentence of a novel needs to hook the reader and the ambiguity and strangeness of the above would serve this purpose well. (God's nature/character would perhaps read better if slowly revealed; tantalize the reader). The current starting point may indeed carry more gravitas, but perhaps gives too much away too soon:

'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.'

Genesis 15 ?


Let me know if and whenever you want to get into more theological importance of Genesis 15. Its too deep. Its just too deep.

You studied the Bible in a university.
My most fruitful years of studying the Bible were with men of in depth experience with God. These men go over it as with a electron microscope.

To understand the Bible deeper experience and deeper obedience to God leads to much deeper apprehension of the exhaustless treasure trove of wisdom embodied in every chapter.

I could probably spend a week, easily just on Genesis 15.

So you just take God's word as old fiction writing ?
Its a start at least.

So your starting point on a discussion on God's nature would be the covenant God made with Abram in that chapter. There Abram (abraham) fell into a deep sleep as in a horror of great darkness. It is very significant to the rest of the Bible's revelation.

And the three sets of animals that a torch moved in the middle of their divided pieces.
So very deep. So very significant to the whole theme of the Bible.

Thanks for you "semi serious" input.

What kind of fiction do you write ?