Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeGloves off Duke.
You certainly don't sir.
You don't know a damn thing either.
You think you do, in an obvious pompous way, with your degree.
Truth: you don't know anything more or less, regarding God, than anyone else.
Your degree is meaningless. As is your 'happy atheism'.
You don't know for certain that God is not there, stop pretending that you do!!
Originally posted by chaney3Your gloves are off so often sir I don't even know why you own a pair.
Gloves off Duke.
You don't know a damn thing either.
You think you do, in an obvious pompous way, with your degree.
Truth: you don't know anything more or less, regarding God, than anyone else.
Your degree is meaningless. As is your 'happy atheism'.
You don't know for certain that God is not there, stop pretending that you do!!
Repeatedly you have said 'I know too much' and now 'I don't know a damned thing.' Please make up you mind, for all our sake.
But yes, I am happy in my atheism, while you are clearly unhappy in your theism. Does that not speak volumes?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeGod is there Ghost.
Your gloves are off so often sir I don't even know why you own a pair.
Repeatedly you have said 'I know too much' and now 'I don't know a damned thing.' Please make up you mind, for all our sake.
But yes, I am happy in my atheism, while you are clearly unhappy in your theism. Does that not speak volumes?
Maybe the Bible is wrong.
But God is there.
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3Ok getting back to essentials.
FMF.
In the future, keep your arrogance to yourself. Don't assume, like an as$hole would, that I am drinking.
You cannot stop me from posting valid thoughts, so leave me alone.
Ignore my posts.
Hebrews 1:5 was cited as a premise that Christ could not be a created spiritual son of God. What do we know already? Christ was created. Colossians 1:15, says with reference to Jesus that he was the first-born of all creation. That Christ is a messenger of God. John 1:1 terms him, The Word'. Paul reiterates the former in Hebrews Chapter 1 where he draws a distinction between Christ an other spiritual sons of God.
But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.” Again another reference to the progeny of Christ.
also we read of Gods exalting Christ above the angelic horde.
he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.
Its rather difficult to sit down at the right hand of the Majesty himself while being the majesty but this little point of logic seems to all intents and purposes lost on our trinitarian friends whose grasp of simple logic seems scant at best.
The idea has been proffered that because God did not elevate others to the same position of the Christ that this proves that Christ is not a created messenger son of God, a rather preposterous proposition given what we know already. Here is the verse in question.
For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? - Heb 1:5
The idea seams to be that because God has not elevated any other spiritual entity to the position of Christ that this proves that Christ himself is not a created messenger of the most high? How they manage to derive this from the text is not entirely clear and I suspect that once again they have been caught imposing an exegesis onto scripture where none exists in the text.
The verse itself is a direct quotation from the second Psalm and initially applied to Solomon.
I will become his father, and he will become my son. 2 Samuel 7:14
this inconvenient fact rather undermines the absurd idea that because God has not applied it to any angels this means that Christ himself is not an angel because here we have an instance where its applied to a non angel, a human ruler infact leaving the absurd premise in tatters.
Indeed any attempt to draw any conclusions on the basis that Christ as been exalted above other angelic sons of Gods and given a position and name above them cannot logically or evidentially be used to prove that he himself is not a created entity, a progeny with a beginning and it appears to me to be kind of argument from ignorance from what is not stated rather than what actually is.
God did not say this therefore it proves our premise and we are left wondering not only about their grasp of logic but how is it possible to build a faith on such absurd ideas when the text is absolutely clear - Christ was a created entity. Christ was a messenger of God.
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3Jehovahs Witnesses are Christian.
So after all these posts:
Who is a Christian?
Who has a firm concept of Jesus?
It seems nobody does.
Jesus is a created entity, the first spirit creature created by God, all other things being created through him. This is why he is termed the 'only begotten son'.
This is firm and can be established easily by scripture.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you think Isaiah 9:6 is referring to Jesus?
Jehovahs Witnesses are Christian.
Jesus is a created entity, the first spirit creature created by God, all other things being created through him. This is why he is termed the 'only begotten son'.
This is firm and can be established easily by scripture.
2 edits
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunkyes
Do you think Isaiah 9:6 is referring to Jesus?
For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given to us;
And the rulership will rest on his shoulder.
His name will be called Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
I suspect that you are wanting to attempt to make something of the fact that Christ is referred to as a Mighty God.
First of all there are numerous entities in the Bible referred to as Gods. Satan is described as the God of the system. Pual describes those whose God is ther belly. There are numerous false Gods mentioned, Mollech, Baal etc There is even a human judge that is described as being a god, it simply means a powerful entity and there is no reason to assume that it is always a reference to the Most High. Infact the original Hebrew language rules this out because the term Isaiah uses is El Gib·bohrʹ meaning 'mighty one, not ʼEl Shad·daiʹ as in the Almighty.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunkno why should it?
So if it refers to him as 'everlasting' or 'eternal' doesn't that mean he wasn't created?
Furthermore other verses rule the possibility out as in Colossians Chapter 1:15 which clearly states that he was a created entity, The first-born of all creation. Christ simply becomes an eternal father to those who are preserved for everlasting life. To follow your logic we should assume that those who gain everlasting life are also eternal, a nonsense proposition.
What the scriptures say about Jesus
1. He was a created entity (Col 1:15)
2. He was the only entity directly created by God (only begotten)
3. He is a mighty spiritual being. (Isa 9:6)
4. He is an eternal father to those who gain everlasting life. (Isa 9:6)
5. He is a messenger of the Most High, termed 'The Word of God'. (John 1:1)
What the scriptures do not say.
1.He is above all creation
2. He is an Almighty God.
3. He is beside God and with God at the same time.
4. He is equal to God.
5. He is part of a pagan trinity.