Free

Originally posted by SharpeMother
[b]"This is illogical. It implies that you know what God thinks and decides and that is impossible."

We can all know what God thinks simply by reading our Bibles. I don't think it is too far out there to say that God decides what is wrong and right - did He not write the Ten Commandments? Or do you believe that Moses was the one who wrote them? ds me to assume that certain people will receive God's vengeance.[/b]

God is male. The entire Bible is riddled with references of God as "He". You go ahead and call Him "it" if you want, but I will continue to call Him what He is - a male who was able to impregnate a woman and have a Son who called Him Father.

Actually, Hebrew does not have a non-gendered pronoun, so everything—rocks, trees, clouds—ends up being referenced as either “male” or “female”. That linguistic idiosyncrasy has no theological bearing. [Not sure, offhand, about Greek.]

There are plenty of feminine expressions of God in the Bible (e.g., mother hen and chicks). Even God’s Hebrew name—YHVH—is a construct that includes both the feminine and masculine. In the phrase hallelu Yah [“hallelujah”], Yah is feminine!

_________________________________________________

Hope the delivery goes well, and all are healthy and well!

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I believe in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said to continue in HIS word, not the Bible. Jesus said to follow HIM, not others.

The problem with that is that you do not actually know the teachings of Jesus, you only know what were reported to be his teachings by others. Interestingly you don't follow those who reported those teachings first (Paul) but rather go for later reports (the gospels) which are less likely to be an accurate representation of Jesus' teachings.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem with that is that you do not actually know the teachings of Jesus, you only know what were reported to be his teachings by others. Interestingly you don't follow those who reported those teachings first (Paul) but rather go for later reports (the gospels) which are less likely to be an accurate representation of Jesus' teachings.

"The problem with that is that you do not actually know the teachings of Jesus, you only know what were reported to be his teachings by others."

lol. Do you seriously think that anyone is completely unaware of this fact? C'mon, how many teachings in ancient history that's attributed to someone can anyone definitively say were "actual"? Does everyone really have to qualify it with "reported" or can that just be understood? The point is that it is Jesus who Christians purport to be "Lord", but the words attributed to Him are often abandoned for the words attributed to Paul. For example, Jesus taught that one can be set free from committing sin, while Paul seems to indicate otherwise. Paul's view seems to be informed by an admission on his part that he found it to be impossible. So you have a self-declared "disciple" who doesn't fit the definition of disciple set forth by Jesus that so many seem to put stock in rather than their nominal leader.

"Interestingly you don't follow those who reported those teachings first (Paul) but rather go for later reports (the gospels) which are less likely to be an accurate representation of Jesus' teachings."

This is an illogical conclusion. For one, insofar as I know, Paul rarely if ever quotes Jesus, but rather provides his own extrapolations of the OT and the teachings of Jesus. For another, it seems you seem to equate "earlier" reports with "more accurate" which if you think about it, isn't even necessarily true with recent history.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"The problem with that is that you do not actually know the teachings of Jesus, you only know what were reported to be his teachings by others."

lol. Do you seriously think that anyone is completely unaware of this fact? C'mon, how many teachings in ancient history that's attributed to someone can anyone definitively say were "actual"? Does ever ...[text shortened]... h if you think about it, isn't even necessarily true with recent history.[/b]

Do you seriously think that anyone is completely unaware of this fact?

Perhaps not. But lots of people seem to ignore it. Otherwise, they would not unquestioningly take the words of Jesus (or anyone else), as reported by the writers of the biblical texts, as the inerrant “word of God”. Let alone those who take their own readings/interpretations of what is in the texts as the inerrant “word of God”—and deny (to themselves) that they are really interpreting.

That is why some “fundamentalists” dismiss, not just the results, but the very questions that those, for example, in the (in)famous Jesus Seminar pose (e.g., is this particular textual rendering of Jesus likely accurate? How accurate, compared with other versions? Etc., etc.).

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Do you seriously think that anyone is completely unaware of this fact?

Perhaps not. But lots of people seem to ignore it. Otherwise, they would not unquestioningly take the words of Jesus (or anyone else), as reported by the writers of the biblical texts, as the inerrant “word of God”. Let alone those who take their own readings/interpret ...[text shortened]... l rendering of Jesus likely accurate? How accurate, compared with other versions? Etc., etc.).[/b]

The point was that his leading his assertion with "The problem with that is..." was quite presumptuous on his part, don't you think?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I believe in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said to continue in HIS word, not the Bible. Jesus said to follow HIM, not others.

Do you believe in the teachings of Jesus or the teachings of others? Your position has logical implications that indicate it is not the former. If you can be honest with yourself, you'll know this to be true.

the Christ quite clearly states that 'Gods word is truth', thus it is clearly self evident that he considered the Hebrew scriptures to be Gods Word and true, for he makes many references to it and quotes directly from it when explaining a principle or teaching others! this is irrefutable!

Originally posted by Badwater
Wow. You could totally use some seminary training. If the opportunity ever arises, take advantage of it.

Nothing further to say? I won that easier than I thought!

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]Josephw is my dad. I am his 21 year old daughter. I've given him 2 grandsons, with a 3rd due any day. I think that qualifies me to insert my thoughts on his behalf.

How about inserting thoughts on God's behalf? Are you, dad, and the apostle Paul really qualified to do that?

As for the rest, I see we are in agreement that hate is not always wrong. Glad we cleared that up.[/b]

"How about inserting thoughts on God's behalf? Are you, dad, and the apostle Paul really qualified to do that?"

The apostle Paul was chosen by God Himself to be the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul only wrote what God told him to write.

When I said that I think I'm qualified to speak MY thoughts on my dad's behalf, I meant that I can and will say whatever I can to support and prove what my dad is saying - as far as I agree with him, which isn't always. I didn't mean to imply that my thoughts were my dad's thoughts, nor would I ever try to insert thoughts on God's behalf. This is a ridiculous accusation on your part.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]God is male. The entire Bible is riddled with references of God as "He". You go ahead and call Him "it" if you want, but I will continue to call Him what He is - a male who was able to impregnate a woman and have a Son who called Him Father.

Actually, Hebrew does not have a non-gendered pronoun, so everything—rocks, trees, clouds—ends up bei ...[text shortened]... ______________________________

Hope the delivery goes well, and all are healthy and well![/b]

Hmm, that is very interesting.

I suppose I would have to learn a lot more about the Hebrew and Greek languages before I could debate you on this subject. But I appreciate your logical explanation of why some of the other's on this forum believe that God isn't male.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the Christ quite clearly states that 'Gods word is truth', thus it is clearly self evident that he considered the Hebrew scriptures to be Gods Word and true, for he makes many references to it and quotes directly from it when explaining a principle or teaching others! this is irrefutable!

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. Besides, it doesn't seem quite so evident that Jesus did not take exception to at least some of the Hebrew scriptures if you take into account Matthew 5. Also keep in mind the role of the Scribes and Pharisees and what Jesus thought of them.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
Hmm, that is very interesting.

I suppose I would have to learn a lot more about the Hebrew and Greek languages before I could debate you on this subject. But I appreciate your logical explanation of why some of the other's on this forum believe that God isn't male.

no you don't have to read reams of Hebrew and Greek interlinears, i think our friend vistesd is having some fun with us, for while God may have the designation of a male, Christ himself states that he is a spirit, and thus without gender.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no you don't have to read reams of Hebrew and Greek interlinears, i think our friend vistesd is having some fun with us, for while God may have the designation of a male, Christ himself states that he is a spirit, and thus without gender.

You’re right, Robbie, one doesn’t have to read reams of stuff. (But I have noticed that you seem to enjoy getting into some of the linguistic stuff just as I do. 🙂 )

Originally posted by SharpeMother
Hmm, that is very interesting.

I suppose I would have to learn a lot more about the Hebrew and Greek languages before I could debate you on this subject. But I appreciate your logical explanation of why some of the other's on this forum believe that God isn't male.

But I appreciate your logical explanation of why some of the other's on this forum believe that God isn't male.

Fair enough. Robbie’s point is well-made, too.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I believe in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said to continue in HIS word, not the Bible. Jesus said to follow HIM, not others.

Do you believe in the teachings of Jesus or the teachings of others? Your position has logical implications that indicate it is not the former. If you can be honest with yourself, you'll know this to be true.

Jesus quoted from the law and the prophets.

Do you read and hold as valid any of those books of the Old Testament? How about Genesis? What about God's Words in the OT as He spoke to the prophets?

Originally posted by SharpeMother
Nothing further to say? I won that easier than I thought!

LOL

The ignorant always think they win. They are always the experts. If that suits you, fine by me.