- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,16:45) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 03 2010,02:04)
not accepting any “evidence” of God.
More alien parsing.Stuart
Hi Stuart,BD is spot on, on this point! (Click here) <– Second Post
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Sep. 13 2010,15:15) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,16:45) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 03 2010,02:04)
not accepting any “evidence” of God.
More alien parsing.Stuart
Hi Stuart,BD is spot on, on this point! (Click here) <– Second Post
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
You have never presented any evidence for me to even consider. You have just done numerology, and then said that proves the existence of your god. All it proves is that you can find patterns in numbers, and actually that is the whole point of mathematics anyway.Let me know when you actually have an hypothesis for why your maths proves the existence of your god. There must be a god WHY exactly?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 13 2010,17:49) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 13 2010,15:15) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,16:45) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 03 2010,02:04)
not accepting any “evidence” of God.
More alien parsing.Stuart
Hi Stuart,BD is spot on, on this point! (Click here) <– Second Post
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
You have never presented any evidence for me to even consider. You have just done numerology, and then said that proves the existence of your god. All it proves is that you can find patterns in numbers, and actually that is the whole point of mathematics anyway.Let me know when you actually have an hypothesis for why your maths proves the existence of your god. There must be a god WHY exactly?
Stuart
BE-CAUSEQuote (Stu @ Sep. 13 2010,17:49) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 13 2010,15:15) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,16:45) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 03 2010,02:04)
not accepting any “evidence” of God.
More alien parsing.Stuart
Hi Stuart,BD is spot on, on this point! (Click here) <– Second Post
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
You have never presented any evidence for me to even consider. You have just done numerology, and then said that proves the existence of your god. All it proves is that you can find patterns in numbers, and actually that is the whole point of mathematics anyway.Let me know when you actually have an hypothesis for why your maths proves the existence of your god. There must be a god WHY exactly?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,You are implying only “evidence” you believe you will consider?
I presented plenty of “evidence”!
Why are you putting Stuart ‘spin’ on this?
Your dispute is: What does “the evidence” represent.
It is (in essence) a lie to say it's not (according to Stuart) “evidence”!The hypothesis is: These non-random signatures,
point directly to an intelligence not bound by time!“There is an intelligence originating outside of time that can now
be mathematically linked to the Christian Bible and even labeled… “GOD”!“Witnessing to a worldwide audience in behalf of YHVH!
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)Hi Stuart,
The hypothesis is: These non-random signatures,
point directly to “an intelligence” not bound by time!
The signature evidences suggesting GOD's existence!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgYou have already been shown exactly how the numbers are completely random.
So, that means it shows there are no gods.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 14 2010,18:36) You have already been shown exactly how the numbers are completely random. So, that means it shows there are no gods.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Just how exactly do you believe you did this?
Just by declaring it to be so?
You are naive.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Sep. 14 2010,19:34) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 14 2010,18:36) You have already been shown exactly how the numbers are completely random. So, that means it shows there are no gods.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Just how exactly do you believe you did this?
Just by declaring it to be so?
You are naive.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi Stuart,You either did not read the entirety my last 7 Posts (Here)
or didn't understand the DEEP THEOLOGICAL interconnecting
meanings that are associated with this illustrated pattern of 5……………………God's signature
יהוה=26 (God's Name: YHVH pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's Name in English is: “Joshua”)
YHVH=63 (God's Name: יהוה transliterated into English)
HolySpirit=151 (“The word”: of “GOD” indwelling in us believers!)
God The Father=117 (Representing God's Name and title GOD: יהוה האלהים)You clearly don't understand Spirituality, which YHVH mentions in 1Cor:2:11.
1Cor:2:11: For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man
which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.So I tried to explained to you the trouble you may have in the following quoted Post…
…To which you scoffed at and accused me of patronizing you.I then accelerated the information presented to you, to which you were clearly not able to absorb.
So now you exhibit a naive aspect by declaring these Facts to be merely random. But I assure you
they are neither random, nor insignificant as (I told you) they illustrate an inter-connective Theology
to which I knew you would have a VERY hard time absorbing, basing on your secular religion: Satan!Please Stuart, take the time to reread the following Post; explaining your shortcomings.
I “will be” presenting MUCH more PROOF to you in “the Signature Thread”! God Bless Ed J.Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 11 2010,13:31) Hi Stuart, I do in fact have more evidence, but you cannot understand it's significance
unless you begin to grasp “The Big Picture”, and you can't grasp “The Big Picture”
without first understanding many of the individual pieces; a sort of ‘catch 22’ situation.Most people understand The Bible with the understanding of a man. (Isaiah 55:7-11)
“The Bible” is best understood in much the same way “Optics” are understood.
What I mean is: “The Bible” must be understood as “a whole”, Gen. to Rev.But how is this done? Let us use “Optics” as a comparative example; OK?
The closer you look at something, the less that can be seen in the field of view.
And likewise, the focus of detail is lost with the greater field of view. I hope you are
getting all this? This is quite a conundrum, as you can only read one Bible verse at a time.Consider what it would take to make a map without the advent of aerial photography?
First you must understand each and every section of terrain. And then fit all sections
of terrain by scale into their respective positions. Scale is imperative to the whole.
But in order to fit all the sections by scale into the whole, “The Big Picture” has
to be clearly understood in the mapmakers mind; then all the pieces will fit!When beginners start to read The Scriptures they don’t understand what
“God” wants them to, because of what the ‘systems of religion’ taught them.
If they have been baptized with The “HolySpirit” and are open to His teachings,
then they will be like a skilled mapmaker understanding the terrain of God’s Word!Sincerely,
Ed JWitnessing to a worldwide audience in behalf of YHVH!
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)Hi Bod,
This is from a post to Keith in the procreation thread. I think you could take my line of reasoning here and expand on it…..if you want to. I've already got too many irons in the fire right now, but I think you make an excellent point about the substance of God becoming tainted and I hope you research it more. I will when I find the time.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,04:14) Mike When Jesus touched the lepers (leprousy was a type of sin) he did not get infected by it, instead the essence or substance of God left him and healed them just as it left him and healed the woman with the issue of blood when Jesus said “who touched me” though he was being thronged by a crowd.
Hi Keith,Do you remember the Priest Aaron laying his hands on the sacrificial lamb or calf before sacrificing it? Could that have been a figurative way that Aaron, to whom the sin of the whole nation was directed, passed that sin onto the lamb? Could it have been that God, knowing none of us could be completely free of sin, could consider us righteous again by letting us off the hook with this figurative gesture? As if all the sin for that day or week or month was atoned for and went up in flames along with the lamb that carried that sin? Could God's own substance, which you say Jesus had even as a man, come into contact with that sin……even if it was just figurative?
How about the strenuous regiment Aaron and his sons had to go through to be made holy before God? Even the priestly garments and tools could not leave the temple for fear they could become contaminated. Everything God made holy had to be kept in the place He made holy, so nothing unholy could ever enter the most holy place, where God was said to reside during the sacrifices.
Moses was told to remove his sandals because even the ground around the bush was made holy by God's “presence”.
Everything about the rules of worship in the OT say that God could not or would not come into contact with anything unholy……let alone unclean.
So how could this same exact substance of God that Jesus consisted of come into direct contact with so much sin and unholiness and uncleaness?
By the way, it wasn't as if Jesus' blood itself had an “anti-sin” agent in it and the sin was cleansed as fast as it gathered on him. That's not how it worked with the real lambs, and Jesus is the “once and for all time” sacrificial Lamb. When it is said our sins were “washed away BY his blood”, it is a figure of speech. Just like they could have said their sins had been “washed away by the blood” of the real lambs they sacrificed.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 21 2010,14:50) Hi Bod, This is from a post to Keith in the procreation thread. I think you could take my line of reasoning here and expand on it…..if you want to. I've already got too many irons in the fire right now, but I think you make an excellent point about the substance of God becoming tainted and I hope you research it more. I will when I find the time.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,04:14) Mike When Jesus touched the lepers (leprousy was a type of sin) he did not get infected by it, instead the essence or substance of God left him and healed them just as it left him and healed the woman with the issue of blood when Jesus said “who touched me” though he was being thronged by a crowd.
Hi Keith,Do you remember the Priest Aaron laying his hands on the sacrificial lamb or calf before sacrificing it? Could that have been a figurative way that Aaron, to whom the sin of the whole nation was directed, passed that sin onto the lamb? Could it have been that God, knowing none of us could be completely free of sin, could consider us righteous again by letting us off the hook with this figurative gesture? As if all the sin for that day or week or month was atoned for and went up in flames along with the lamb that carried that sin? Could God's own substance, which you say Jesus had even as a man, come into contact with that sin……even if it was just figurative?
How about the strenuous regiment Aaron and his sons had to go through to be made holy before God? Even the priestly garments and tools could not leave the temple for fear they could become contaminated. Everything God made holy had to be kept in the place He made holy, so nothing unholy could ever enter the most holy place, where God was said to reside during the sacrifices.
Moses was told to remove his sandals because even the ground around the bush was made holy by God's “presence”.
Everything about the rules of worship in the OT say that God could not or would not come into contact with anything unholy……let alone unclean.
So how could this same exact substance of God that Jesus consisted of come into direct contact with so much sin and unholiness and uncleaness?
By the way, it wasn't as if Jesus' blood itself had an “anti-sin” agent in it and the sin was cleansed as fast as it gathered on him. That's not how it worked with the real lambs, and Jesus is the “once and for all time” sacrificial Lamb. When it is said our sins were “washed away BY his blood”, it is a figure of speech. Just like they could have said their sins had been “washed away by the blood” of the real lambs they sacrificed.
peace and love,
mike
It's worse than that WJ believes that God was “tempted” by Satan and God cannot be tempted to sin because God cannot sin. Also saying that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man wouldn't make sense because God knows everything and Jesus does not know the Hour of his return.Now it is perfectly understandable that a man would not know what God knows but God not knowing what God knows?
I keep saying CHRIST is what Jesus is but these people that want to call Jesus God are being Anti-Christ and that is why Jesus said:
“Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 7:20-22Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,08:38) the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as “the one God exists in three Persons and one substance. Debunking the trinity has been difficult for the one main reason:
A trinitarian once explained it to me and I finally understood this is what he said:
Quote
This is why I keep saying that the law of Identity is iron clad in logic. Unless we understand what words or phrases or terms or title MEANS to the people USING THEM… we can't communicate rationally. It's that simple.In other words unless we agree on what we mean by trinity or triune it cannot be debunked but now that I understand what is meant by triune not being polytheistic I have been able to immediately to debunk it based on the very familiar “One for all and all for one” cliche. The trinity can therefore debunked on the basis that if any “person” of the trinity became cursed or took on sin the entire “substance” or “being” would have been altered as such. A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.
So the very Ideas of both trinity and atonement through the sacrifice of God the son would violate one another as all of God would be cursed by way of “substance” taking on sin.
You see all attempts of debunking the trinity rely on focusing on the “persons” of God instead of the substance of God. It would not natter if there were 10,000 persons to the Godhead if the substance were ONE even 1 person would taint the entire batch. This is really quite easy to understand from a Christian viewpoint because Christianity focuses on Original Sin which states that ONE man by Nature can taint all men and therefore this same standard is applied to the Nature of God whereas a trinitarian is virtually concluding that by Jesus becoming sin and a curse for man that God is made as sinful as man instead of God maintaining HIS HOLY NATURE which man should aspire to.
If The trinitarian triune God position is valid it is a proclamation that God is not Holy and incapable of Sin
If it is false then yes Jesus as a Man can be made unholy for a short time without affecting the nature of God as it would simply mean that the innocent has more value then all the guilty and as Jesus would like Job be rewarded after the suffering it would show that God's mercy would still prevail.
Hello Bod;I want to use your reasoning on another board. Consider this a courtesy request fo use your work in a modified post. I think your premise is correct, but does not go far enough. I want to expand it, but do not want to be accused by some who surf the boards (no one here that I know of) and try to entrap others who work several boards.
Permission?
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 06 2011,19:23) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,08:38) the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as “the one God exists in three Persons and one substance. Debunking the trinity has been difficult for the one main reason:
A trinitarian once explained it to me and I finally understood this is what he said:
Quote
This is why I keep saying that the law of Identity is iron clad in logic. Unless we understand what words or phrases or terms or title MEANS to the people USING THEM… we can't communicate rationally. It's that simple.In other words unless we agree on what we mean by trinity or triune it cannot be debunked but now that I understand what is meant by triune not being polytheistic I have been able to immediately to debunk it based on the very familiar “One for all and all for one” cliche. The trinity can therefore debunked on the basis that if any “person” of the trinity became cursed or took on sin the entire “substance” or “being” would have been altered as such. A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.
So the very Ideas of both trinity and atonement through the sacrifice of God the son would violate one another as all of God would be cursed by way of “substance” taking on sin.
You see all attempts of debunking the trinity rely on focusing on the “persons” of God instead of the substance of God. It would not natter if there were 10,000 persons to the Godhead if the substance were ONE even 1 person would taint the entire batch. This is really quite easy to understand from a Christian viewpoint because Christianity focuses on Original Sin which states that ONE man by Nature can taint all men and therefore this same standard is applied to the Nature of God whereas a trinitarian is virtually concluding that by Jesus becoming sin and a curse for man that God is made as sinful as man instead of God maintaining HIS HOLY NATURE which man should aspire to.
If The trinitarian triune God position is valid it is a proclamation that God is not Holy and incapable of Sin
If it is false then yes Jesus as a Man can be made unholy for a short time without affecting the nature of God as it would simply mean that the innocent has more value then all the guilty and as Jesus would like Job be rewarded after the suffering it would show that God's mercy would still prevail.
Hello Bod;I want to use your reasoning on another board. Consider this a courtesy request fo use your work in a modified post. I think your premise is correct, but does not go far enough. I want to expand it, but do not want to be accused by some who surf the boards (no one here that I know of) and try to entrap others who work several boards.
Permission?
Grantedplease also post what you are going to post elsewhere here if you would, I would appreciate that.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 07 2011,10:48) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 06 2011,19:23) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,08:38) the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as “the one God exists in three Persons and one substance. Debunking the trinity has been difficult for the one main reason:
A trinitarian once explained it to me and I finally understood this is what he said:
Quote
This is why I keep saying that the law of Identity is iron clad in logic. Unless we understand what words or phrases or terms or title MEANS to the people USING THEM… we can't communicate rationally. It's that simple.In other words unless we agree on what we mean by trinity or triune it cannot be debunked but now that I understand what is meant by triune not being polytheistic I have been able to immediately to debunk it based on the very familiar “One for all and all for one” cliche. The trinity can therefore debunked on the basis that if any “person” of the trinity became cursed or took on sin the entire “substance” or “being” would have been altered as such. A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.
So the very Ideas of both trinity and atonement through the sacrifice of God the son would violate one another as all of God would be cursed by way of “substance” taking on sin.
You see all attempts of debunking the trinity rely on focusing on the “persons” of God instead of the substance of God. It would not natter if there were 10,000 persons to the Godhead if the substance were ONE even 1 person would taint the entire batch. This is really quite easy to understand from a Christian viewpoint because Christianity focuses on Original Sin which states that ONE man by Nature can taint all men and therefore this same standard is applied to the Nature of God whereas a trinitarian is virtually concluding that by Jesus becoming sin and a curse for man that God is made as sinful as man instead of God maintaining HIS HOLY NATURE which man should aspire to.
If The trinitarian triune God position is valid it is a proclamation that God is not Holy and incapable of Sin
If it is false then yes Jesus as a Man can be made unholy for a short time without affecting the nature of God as it would simply mean that the innocent has more value then all the guilty and as Jesus would like Job be rewarded after the suffering it would show that God's mercy would still prevail.
Hello Bod;I want to use your reasoning on another board. Consider this a courtesy request fo use your work in a modified post. I think your premise is correct, but does not go far enough. I want to expand it, but do not want to be accused by some who surf the boards (no one here that I know of) and try to entrap others who work several boards.
Permission?
Grantedplease also post what you are going to post elsewhere here if you would, I would appreciate that.
o.k.And Thanks!
Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 01 2010,16:38) A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.
Hey BDHope you and yours are well.
First of all Jesus said they can kill our bodys but not our souls so that contradicts your statement because the Soul and flesh is a part of the whole. Jesus is both Spirit and flesh.
So his spirit never was tainted by sin.
Second Jesus blood washed away any sin that came in contact with it. It is through his flesh and Blood that we now have access into the very throne of God.
So this is just more of the straw man arguments that have been debunked for centuries. And still the vast majority of Christondom believe in the triune God.
WJ
WJ, and a great percentage of Christendom also have a form or religion but not much power.
It is by our traditions that we nullify the power of God.Maybe there is a pattern emerging here?
Why quote post all the time. It makes it hard to follow the conversation.
If you are replying to an above post, then you don't need to quote.Quote (t8 @ Mar. 07 2011,16:52) WJ, and a great percentage of Christendom also have a form or religion but not much power.
It is by our traditions that we nullify the power of God.Maybe there is a pattern emerging here?
t8Actually it depends on how you look at it.
Jesus had 70 regular followers and then after Penticost there were 1000s that turned the then known world upside down.
Percentage wise compared to the then known world the Majority of Christianity today would at least be about the same as Jesus followers in that day or less.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 08 2011,02:08) Quote Hey BD Hope you and yours are well.
First of all Jesus said they can kill our bodys but not our souls so that contradicts your statement because the Soul and flesh is a part of the whole. Jesus is both Spirit and flesh.
God is a Spirit
Quote So his spirit never was tainted by sin. Jesus said the Flesh profiteth nothing so if your claim is his soul did not take on sin then his body taking it on was of no profit. Just to not have you looking for the quote here it is:
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
Quote Second Jesus blood washed away any sin that came in contact with it. It is through his flesh and Blood that we now have access into the very throne of God. Once again: God is a Spirit Jesus said:
“See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” International Standard
I am not saying that Jesus cannot or does not intercee as a High Priest for those who believe what I am saying is he cannot be God and take on sin
Quote So this is just more of the straw man arguments that have been debunked for centuries. And still the vast majority of Christondom believe in the triune God. They have moved me to jealousy with [that which is] not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with [those which are] not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.
Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for] thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession. American King James Version
God Bless you!
Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 08 2011,09:15) American King James Version
Hi BD,It's the “Authorized King James Version”!
God's Signature
The Bible(63) → AKJV Bible(74)יהוה=26 (God's Name: YHVH pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)
YHVH=63 (God's Name יהוה translated into English)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's name in English is: “Joshua”)
HolySpirit=151 (“FATHER: The Word”: in all believers)
God The Father=117 (Representing “GOD”: יהוה האלהים)YHVH bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
