-Removed-THIS is what I am talking about!!
You put forth all this diatribe against sonship by claiming that you have zero belief in the Trinity and then you argue with checkbaiter when he says that Jesus is not God!
WHICH is it for you?
THAT is what I've been asking you in this thread, numerous times, without answer.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeBut all CAN be "accounted for".
It's at that point I would opt out of the whole theist shebang. But I guess that's where faith comes in.
For me, if I can't account for something, I don't believe it.
If you rely on those who lean unto their OWN understanding, then yes, it will appear that some things in the Bible cannot be accounted for. This is also where the JWs fail. All that the JWs believe that is different from what mainstream Christianity believes all started with the misunderstanding of one man. He then passed on his misunderstanding to others and the misunderstanding multiplied until we have what we have today.
Today there are those who insist on railing against "evil Christianity" and through their vanity, try to stand alone in their belief. This might be fine, if they would keep their unbelief to themselves. But they then multiply their error by converting others to their misunderstanding.
If you have searched for understanding (an accounting) and found none, then perhaps you should widen your search. But beware, those who would mislead you are legion. Discernment (true discernment, not bias) is key.
Originally posted by SuzianneWhen you talk about "mainstream Christianity", are you using the word "mainstream" to refer to what the largest number of Christians purport to believe? Do you see yourself as a "mainstream Christian"? Which other Christian posters here do you see as being part of this "mainstream"?
All that the JWs believe that is different from what mainstream Christianity believes all started with the misunderstanding of one man.
-Removed-I appreciate that you have laid this out for me. Please allow me some time to absorb it.
I do have one thing now, though. And this is the source of my confusion regarding your reaction to people who speak of the Trinity.
"Because the name Jesus (God saves) IS the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit. They KNEW who he was. One person, one God revealing himself in the flesh."
So you DO believe in a Trinity. It's just that His name is Jesus. "One person, one God". AND this "One person, one God" is the father, the son and the Holy Spirit.
WHY do you argue against a Trinity again? This is the exact same belief of those who speak of the Trinity.
YES He is ONE. We speak of a "triune" God, because this tells us that He is "three in one". The "three offices of God" in ONE God. NO Christian you ever meet will say that "God is THREE", and no one here speaking of the Trinity is saying that, either.
I wouldn't mind you laying out exactly what you think it is that we are saying with regards to the Trinity. Because what we're saying is exactly what you are saying. You just seem loathe to "call it" a "trinity". Is the source of your confusion the word "persons"?
I can also tell that I have further questions about other points in what you've posted here, but it is late here (3:25am) and it can wait.
Originally posted by FMFSince you are not "part of the mainstream Christian community" (and certainly not Christian at all), it doesn't surprise me that you don't get it. Not that "getting it" would even stop you from putting on your "Interrogator" persona. Stop stalking me.
When you talk about "mainstream Christianity", are you using the word "mainstream" to refer to what the largest number of Christians purport to believe? Do you see yourself as a "mainstream Christian"? Which other Christian posters here do you see as being part of this "mainstream"?
Originally posted by SuzianneWhen discussing differing beliefs in an arena like this, I cannot see how you seeking to depict one thing (your view) as "mainstream" and another belief (one you don't agree with) as not "mainstream" is anything other than an argumentum ad populum and therefore not really genuine discourse at all. The same goes for calling another Christian's beliefs "truly bizarro ideas"; it doesn't constitute an argument, as such. It comes across more like an unwillingness to test your belief (and rationale for it) against someone else's belief.
Since you are not "part of the mainstream Christian community" (and certainly not Christian at all), it doesn't surprise me that you don't get it. Not that "getting it" would even stop you from putting on your "Interrogator" persona. Stop stalking me.
2 edits
Coming back to the anointing oil of Exodus 30:22-33 anyone ..
Coming back to "For the Spirit was not yet" (John 7:39) .
In the making of the holy anointing oil, why didn't God simply tell Moses to make it from Olive Oil, and that's it ? If the Holy Spirit is so widely agreed to be typified by oil why didn't God just tell Moses to make the holy anointing oil of Olive Oil and nothing else ?
Why the care that the four finest spices be compounded into that basic olive oil ?
" You shall take the finest spices of flowing myrrh five hundred shekels,
and of fragrant cinnamon half as much, two hundred fifty shekels , and of fragrant calamus two hundred fifty shekels,
And of cassia five hundred shekels according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and a hin of olive oil.
And you shall make it a holy anointing oil, a perfume COMPOUNDED according to the perfumer's art; it shall be a holy anointing oil." (Exo. 30:23-25)
Is there no significance to this? Could not have God simply told Moses to use Olive Oil to anoint the priests, the furniture, and the tabernacle ?
Originally posted by SuzianneMy head is bursting with examples! 🙂
Precisely against whom does He act "without mercy"?
I think the answer to that holds the answer to your question.
As we were recently discussing the great flood, let us start there. - God effectively wiped out the whole of humanity, save for a few righteous souls on the ark. - Is that really a morally acceptable example of mercy?!
Even If humanity at that time had indeed become irredeemably corrupt and God was initially going to wipe out humanity completely, was allowing a select handful to escape the flood a validation of his divine mercy?
I ask this specifically with reverence to all the children who were allowed to perish in the flood, children too young to have been corrupt and unrighteous. Would a truly merciful God have allowed them to be destroyed alongside the unrighteous?
Originally posted by checkbaiterYou quoted this:
Do you think I don't know that?
The basic reason why God did not reveal the Devil to people in Old Testament times is that they were unprepared to deal with such a powerful spiritual being.
And the Bible says this:
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
The Dragon = The old Serpent = The Devil = Satan.
But in the Old Testament there is mention of the serpent and Satan which = The Devil.
So OT people did know of the Devil .. contrary to your quote.
2 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeExamples by the hundreds actually. My way of getting around that is the the Bible is not meant to be a book that can explain everything to our satisfaction. God probably had good reason to destroy everyone, and the full facts at that time are not known to us.
My head is bursting with examples! 🙂
As we were recently discussing the great flood, let us start there. - God effectively wiped out the whole of humanity, save for a few righteous souls on the ark. - Is that really a morally acceptable example of mercy?!
Even If humanity at that time had indeed become irredeemably corrupt and God was initial ...[text shortened]... ghteous. Would a truly merciful God have allowed them to be destroyed alongside the unrighteous?
I have come across explanations [Checkbaiter I think] which says that everyone were descended from the nephilims or giants and were corrupted. These explanations make no sense to my mind but Christians swallow that nonsense because they are in search of a God that they want to claim is love and is merciful etc etc .. [ love and mercy is by their definition] the Bible does not support that and the sooner Christians accept that truth the more contented they will be in their doctrine.
As for that nephillim explanation all one has to ask is where did Noah get his daughters in law, did those women not have any good family?
Originally posted by Rajk999Is Rev 20:2 already past? I think this is future, it hasn't happened yet.
You quoted this:
The basic reason why God did not reveal the Devil to people in Old Testament times is that they were unprepared to deal with such a powerful spiritual being.
And the Bible says this:
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
The Drago ...[text shortened]... t and Satan which = The Devil.
So OT people did know of the Devil .. contrary to your quote.
Where is the devil, Satan exposed in the OT?