The mercy of god

Participant

Quote (francis @ Aug. 24 2010,05:49)

Hello Ed J….

Personally, I don't approach these discussions with the expectations that I have the ability to change anyone's mind. As I understand it, it is the Holy Spirit's “job” to try and change hearts, not mine. Part of my responsibility can be found in 1Peter 3:15.

And so that is what I attempt to do. As long as I can do that much, I personally believe that the rest is up to God. Ultimately, all souls lay in God's hands, not mine.

But there is another good reason for engaging non-believers other than the reason found in 1Peter 3:15… and that is the fact that “iron sharpens iron”. I have found that it is thru my interaction with non-believers… because they ask really tough questions about my beliefs… I become stronger and stronger… because I'm being forced to really understand my faith and what it is based on.

Indeed, this is not just my viewpoint either. In another forum, I saw some atheists remarking to other atheists that they shouldn't debate Christians because they were fearful that it was making Christians stronger in their faith. And these atheists were using the “iron sharpens iron” analogy in support of their reasons for not wanting to debate Christians.

My soul… and your soul… and Asana's soul is in God's hands. I am just trying to be obedient and do what I feel Christ is asking me to do. And in the process, I can see that my faith gets stronger and stronger the more I interact with individuals who ask tough questions about what I believe.

I also want to treat other people the way I want to be treated… and so I will always try and give another individual the benefit of doubt because I want to be treated in a like manner. So whether or not Asana is concerned with facts… I want to believe that it does concern him… because I want him to believe that I am concerned with facts.

Anyway… I don't know if I make any sense… but I appreciate your input and helpful suggestions and I look forward to reading your posts.

Respectfully
Francis

I thank you for being reasonable and approaching a dialogue from a God submitted viewpoint. I will refrain from calling you a “non-believer” though as you have called me although many who believe in my position might be tempted to do so.

One of the main issues I see is what the Jews call a Polytheistic Consciousness this has always been a problem in mankind but those who have strived have managed to obtain a Monotheistic Consciousness and this is where I am coming from.

Remember how God kept guiding the Israelites away from a Polytheistic Consciousness but most kept sliding back into it when it wasn't the golden calf they even started worshiping the brass serpant on the pole that saved them from the snakebites.

So in concluding that Jesus saves some have taken him as “God” Although they clearly read that God sent Jesus, just like God sent the raised up brass snake and anyone who looked upon it and believed was saved just like any who look upon Jesus and believes is saved but just like the bronze serpent isn't God neither is Jesus.

When you say Asana's soul is in God's hands you are saying in a polytheistic sense Asana's soul is in the hands of 3 persons(trinity) so God to you is not a SINGLE BEING so really you believe my soul is in the hands of “Gods”

You do not believe in the individuality of God because you believe in the PERSONS of God. To you Jesus is God but God is not Jesus because that would leave out the other persons, right.

August 24, 2010 at 4:30 pm#213635

Participant

Hello Asana…

Quote

I have no problem being called a “non-believer” if by that term you mean that I am not a believer in the Quran as being inspired of God… or in Muhammad as being a Prophet from God… or in your understanding of who the God of Abraham is. In such cases, I would rightly be called a “non-believer”.

And it is in that sense that I called you a “non-believer”. Not because you are an atheist… but because you are a “non-believer” in what Christians believe about Christ. Hindus believe in many gods, but I would still veiw them as “non-believers” in respect to what Christianity teaches.

Anyway… the term “non-believer” was not meant to be an offensive term, but instead, it was a statement of fact that underscores the differences between what you believe and what I believe.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

Quote

I agree with you. But the difference between you and I is that we have a different view about who this Monothiestic God is and what He is. Other religions also have a “Monotheistic Consciousness”… it just so happens that their Monotheistic God is completely different than what Islam teaches and what Christianity teaches.

So to go back to your opening statement, these other religions would call you and I “non-believer” because we don't believe in their Monotheistic God.

Quote

We happen to look at the same verses and the same writings and the same person (Jesus) and yet will interpret these differently. As far as I know, Christians do not believe, nor do they teach that the raised up brass snake was God. They may teach that the raised up brass snake is a type of symbol that foreshadows the coming Christ… but that is VERY, VERY different than saying that Christians believe the brass snake is God.

And since your premise (that is, your understanding of what Christians believe about the brass snake) is faulty, this makes your conclusion faulty. I do not believe that Jesus is God simply because Moses raised up a brass snake on a pole which might have foreshadowed Christ. My belief that Christ is God Incarnate while He was on earth, is for entirely different reasons.

So… your conclusion that Jesus is not God does not logically follow from your premise that the bronze serpent isn't God. It is logically possible that the bronze serpent is not God, and yet that Jesus is God. The premise has nothing to do with the conclusion. That is why your conclusion is a non sequitur.

Quote

All I see you doing is showing me that you do not understand the Christian concept of what the Trinity means. That's all you have done here. I believe that the Triune God… the Trinity… is ONE SINGLE GOD. Now… you can disagree that the ONE SINGLE GOD is a Triune God… and that is your privilege… but that doesn't change the fact that I believe that the ONE SINGLE GOD is a Triune God.

As I said before… we may both believe that there is ONLY ONE SINGLE GOD… it just so happens that we understand this ONE SINGLE GOD differently.

You do not believe that the ONE SINGLE GOD is a Triune God. I believe that the ONE SINGLE GOD is a Triune God.

I do not believe that it can logically be demonstrated that a belief in a Triune God is a belief in Polytheism. I see instead that it is the word “Trinity” which is misunderstood… or not completely understood. It is not logically valid to claim that the Trinity and Polytheism are the same if the terms themselves are not understood to begin with.

If we go with YOUR understanding of what the Trinity means, then of course I would be correct… and you would be correct… to say that a belief in the Trinity is an example of Polytheism. BUT…. BUT… BUT if I go with the Christian understanding (and my understanding) of what the Trinity means, then I would be correct to say that a belief in the Trinity is NOT an example of Polytheism. Can you see why our conclusions hinges on how we understand what the word “Trinity” means to each other?

In logic, you can't communicate any ideas to each other, if we violate the Law of Identity. We have to understand what words mean to each other before we can understand each other.

Quote

You do not believe in the individuality of God because you believe in the PERSONS of God. To you Jesus is God but God is not Jesus because that would leave out the other persons, right.

I don't understand this statement. It is very dangerous and difficult to try and understand aspects of God or God Himself.. a God that is infinite in nature… by using human understanding and human terminology because humans themselves are finite and limited. How is it logically possible that a finite and limited mind can completely understand an infinite and unlimited mind? It doesn't make sense to pretend we can understand everything about God… because the moment you think you can… you are raising yourself up as God… because only God can understand God.

In our present limited and finite abilities, it stands to reason that our understanding of God will always be limited and finite. This is a perfectly rational expectation.

But be that as it may, God did give us a rational mind and the principles of logic.. as well as a thirst for answers and knowledge and understanding and curiousity. I think it is perfectly consistent with the nature that God gave us, that we want to try and understand… to the best of our ability… the things of God. We may not have a perfect understanding… but with God's help, our finite minds certainly can get enough of an understanding of God Himself so that we can understand the important things of God… though still limited in scope.

With this in mind, I like to view the Triune God in a mathematical construct that goes like this: 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. While human constructs will always be bound by and limited by our finite a
bilities to understand God… I think this mathematical construct is far more helpful in understanding the Trinity than the mathematical construct of using simple addition like 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.

Whether this is helpful or not for you, it makes sense to me… it makes sense to my limited and finite mind.

Respectfully
Francis

August 24, 2010 at 11:30 pm#213659

Participant

Francis,

On one hand you say that trying to understand the complexity of God is:

Quote

raising yourself up as God… because only God can understand God

Then you say

Quote

With this in mind, I like to view the Triune God in a mathematical construct that goes like this: 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. While human constructs will always be bound by and limited by our finite abilities to understand God… I think this mathematical construct is far more helpful in understanding the Trinity than the mathematical construct of using simple addition like 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.

Whether this is helpful or not for you, it makes sense to me… it makes sense to my limited and finite mind.

Now what is for 100% certain is the Judaic Shema is

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Deuteronomy 6:3-5

And in Islam it is

There is no god but GOD

Therefore if you were to be obedient to God then of course you would not INVENT ways to envision HIM when clearly he said that HE was one LORD.

Now Jesus made a statement that said “Not my will, but yours” Are you also ready to state that God has 2 or 3 wills?

Also your mathematic module only holds up until it is understood to mean 1x is defined as 1 “counted”

So saying, 1 (X)counted once (X)counted once has nothing at all to do with three not even to a “limited and finite mine”

You actually do believe in 3 distinct personalities with their own wills. They can be independently affected in substance, one can die while the other 2 remain alive and it is this fact alone that should make you see the truth because this would mean that only 1/3 of God died for you but at the same time The Father and The Holy Spirit did not die for you, did they?

Now, please do not do the favorite it's a huge mystery because it is not and God said it plainly

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isaiah 43:9-11

I am he is a singular statement that does not allow a Triune nature especially when Jesus says:

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 17:2-4

Now God says I am he and Jesus says “THEE is THE ONLY TRUE GOD” now he did not say “we” or that “there is”only one true God but he made sure to say THEE.

Now back to the Non-believer statement your reasoning for using the term with me is faulty to the extreme and the reason is the term is vague “Non-believer” but you were intentionally using it as a loaded word implying disbelief in general which in the context of a religious forum amounts to calling me an atheist. This was the same thing I told t8 when he against the wishes of the voters in this forum placed me in this section of the board.

So to use the term Non-believer is insulting to say the least it would be appropriate to be clear in a debate. If you in-fact believe that Muslims are atheists then you should make that position clear.

Next topic, what would be your point in making blanket assertions about the Quran or Muhammad. Have you ever even read or studied the Quran as I have done The Bible? On one hand you seem to love reason and logic and the next you seem to toss it into the wind.

Now back to the trinity(triune) now let's assume God actually had this triune composition if this actually were the case where is the permission to even utter it? My point is you could be even right and still be wrong just like ED continuously throwing around the tetragramanon as if it is a toy when Jesus Christ himself did not teach us to say it preferring instead for us to utter in prayer “Hallowed be thy name” but he banters it about and uses it so commonly he has even subjugated the name of God to common numbers.

and that's exactly what you and all trinitarians have done multipled the persons of THE ONE who sent THE ONE to save THE ONE

Truly, I desire you to be enlightened and in alignment with the WILL(no 's) of GOD and we can open up a debate thread to argue any one of these points that I mentioned herein for I will nothing back to correct some of the misgivings in you because God loves you.

August 25, 2010 at 11:05 am#213734

Participant

Quote (francis @ Aug. 25 2010,03:30)

Hello Asana…

Respectfully
Francis

Hi Francis,

Any person that believes anything differently than a muslim is called by them “an infidel”.

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

August 25, 2010 at 11:09 am#213736

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 25 2010,22:05)

Quote (francis @ Aug. 25 2010,03:30)

Hello Asana…

Respectfully
Francis

Hi Francis,

Any person that believes anything differently than a muslim is called by them “an infidel”.

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

And any muslim who disagrees with another muslim calls him infidel too.

Stuart

August 25, 2010 at 11:19 am#213737

Participant

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 25 2010,10:30)

Like you, I have many beliefs, so I am not a non-believer, however in the context of this christian website we are both non-believers in the christian concept of the divinity of Jesus, whatever that really means.

Where you and I differ is on the question of whether believing in the validity of the position that a illiterate ancient desert dweller having messages passed on to him by an invisible angel from an invisible god is a credible basis for calling another a fool.

You are not really a skeptic: you respect superstition above evidence.

Stuart

August 25, 2010 at 11:56 am#213741

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 25 2010,22:09)

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 25 2010,22:05)

Quote (francis @ Aug. 25 2010,03:30)

Hello Asana…

Respectfully
Francis

Hi Francis,

Any person that believes anything differently than a muslim is called by them “an infidel”.

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

And any muslim who disagrees with another muslim calls him infidel too.

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Perhaps my Post was not clear enough?
Thanks for the clarification!

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

August 25, 2010 at 9:33 pm#213805

Participant

Hello Asana….

Quote

Francis, On one hand you say that trying to understand the complexity of God is: “… raising yourself up as God… because only God can understand God “

You've done this to me before where you will take and use a portion of my sentence without quoting the entire sentence… and then try to say I said something when I never said what you claim I said. Christians are always complaining about those who will take verses in the Bible out of context… and here you are doing the same kind of thing right before our eyes.

What I actually said was this:

How is it logically possible that a finite and limited mind can completely understand an infinite and unlimited mind? It doesn't make sense to pretend we can understand everything about God… because the moment you think you can… you are raising yourself up as God… because only God can understand God.

Now Asana… did you notice the words “COMPLETELY” and “EVERYTHING” in my complete sentence? The same sentence in which you took a portion of what I wrote out of context?

I NEVER… NEVER… NEVER… NEVER… NEVER once said that trying to understand the complexity of God is raising yourself up as God because only God can understand God!

As my entire sentence shows, I was saying that we humans can NEVER COMPLETELY understand EVERYTHING about God because only God can understand God. Can you see this?

Right off the bat… in your very first sentence… you've already taken out of context what I was saying.

And to top it off, further on in my post, I said this:

I think it is perfectly consistent with the nature that God gave us, that we want to try and understand… to the best of our ability… the things of God.

This once again shows that I NEVER… NEVER… NEVER… NEVER said that trying to understand the complexity of God is raising yourself up as God because only God can understand God. Instead, I said trying to understand the complexity of God is NORMAL AND NATURAL!

Quote

Asana
Then you say

Quote from Francis
With this in mind, I like to view the Triune God in a mathematical construct that goes like this: 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. While human constructs will always be bound by and limited by our finite abilities to understand God… I think this mathematical construct is far more helpful in understanding the Trinity than the mathematical construct of using simple addition like 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.

Whether this is helpful or not for you, it makes sense to me… it makes sense to my limited and finite mind.

Asana
Now what is for 100% certain is the Judaic Shema is: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deuteronomy 6:3-5)

And in Islam it is… There is no god but GOD.

Therefore if you were to be obedient to God then of course you would not INVENT ways to envision HIM when clearly he said that HE was one LORD.

As I clearly stated before, I don't think you can rationally or logically demonstrate that a belief in the The Trinity is a belief in Polytheism. I don't find those terms to be contradictory at all. And you've done nothing to show me how the Trinity and Polytheism are the same thing.

I agree with the Judaic Shema that there is one Lord… one God. I also agree with Islam when it says that there is no god but GOD… and when it says that there is one God.

However, your statement above doesn't demonstrate how the Trinity is an example of Polytheism. All you did was show us where you and I agree… which is that there is only one God. On that we agree. It's the word “Trinity”… the understanding of the word “Trinity”… in which we disagree. And I believe that this disagreement exists solely because we have a different understanding of what the word “Trinity” means.

Quote

Now Jesus made a statement that said “Not my will, but yours” Are you also ready to state that God has 2 or 3 wills?

It comes down to how we view man… doesn't it? What is man made up of… correct?

As a Christian, I happen to believe God has only one Spirit (He is complete and undivisable in nature). But it is man who has two wills inside of him (not God). To me… man has a soulish will (the flesh so to speak)… and a spiritual will (his spirit). Very often we see these two wills… these two natures… fighting each other as Paul so eloquently describes in his own internal battles between his flesh and his spirit.

Christ… like other men… also had two wills… which is why He was able to be fully God and be fully human at the same time. Like other men, Jesus had His soulish will, which is part of his human flesh… and also his spiritual will, His Spirit. In the case of Christ, His spiritual will… His Spirit… was God. So when Jesus is saying “not my will”…. He is speaking from his soulish will… from His humanity… and when Jesus is saying “…but your will”… He is speaking to his Spirit's will… His spirit… which is God.

All through His life here on earth… and on the cross… Jesus is purposely (and successfully) submitting his human will (desires and thoughts) to that of God's will (desires)… even during those times when His soul… his human spirit… was weak… as all human nature is weak… and which is why we needed Christ to begin with.

And so this is how I understand things.

Quote

Also your mathematic module only holds up until it is understood to mean 1x is defined as 1 “counted”

So saying, 1 (X)counted once (X)counted once has nothing at all to do with three not even to a “limited and finite mine”

First of all, I specifically said to you that: “Whether this is helpful or not for you, it makes sense to me.”

So that is all I need to point to in response here. If you do not find this mathematical construct to be helpful, then you're only stating what I said to You.. which is that this may not be helpful for you. The point was… and I was clear about it… it was helpful for ME. I never made the claim that it would be helpful to you.

Anyway… I will go ahead and try explain why I find it helpful for me… even if you don't find it helpful to you.

When I am using the mathematical construct of 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, I am underscoring and pointing to the fact that “1” in each case in the equation is the same as the other “1's” in the same equation. 1=1. Or God = God. So for me, the equation would look like this if we substitute the “1's” with parts of the Trinity:

1 x 1 x 1 = 1. Father (1) x Jesus the Son (1) x the Holy Spirit (1) = God (1) The Father is not different from the ONE GOD (Yahweh). Jesus is not different from the ONE GOD (Yahweh). The Holy Spirit is not different from the ONE GOD (Yahweh).

Now before we go any further… I want to make it clear that I have already said that it is my opinion that it is futile to assu
me that we can COMPLETELY understand EVERYTHING about God. Surely you wouldn't make the claim that you can COMPLETELY understand EVERYTHING about Allah… would you? Of course you wouldn't. And so why try so hard to prove something that is not there in my mind to begin with?

If I do not believe that the Trinity is an example of Polytheism… then I'm being perfectly consistent and rational in my argument. The only way you can even begin to show that I'm in error is to show me how my understanding of the Trinity is faulty. Until you can do that… you have no basis to pursue your desire to show that Christianity is really Polytheism in disguise.

As I've kept repeating… the law of identity is iron clad in logic. It is impossible to communicate or have a rational discussion until we understand what words mean to each other. Obviously, your understanding of the Trinity is different than my understanding of the same word.

Quote

Asana… I have no idea where you come up with this stuff. Where in Christianity or in the Bible does it say that God can die? Or that Jesus the Son of God (His spirit.. not his human flesh) can die? Or that God the Father can die? Or that the Holy Spirit can die? You won't find it anywhere… so I don't understand why you are bringing up that “one can die” and yet the “other 2 remain alive”. Where on earth does this come from?

To me… this only underscores the fact that our understanding of the Trinity is completely different from each other. If you believe that this is what the Trinity is and what it means… then as I see it, this is a strawman argument on your part because this is not what the Trinity is according to Christianity.

Jesus' earthly body was not God. Jesus' human soul and human thoughts was not God. It was Jesus' Spirit INSIDE the body which was God.

Quote

Now, please do not do the favorite it's a huge mystery because it is not and God said it plainly:

I am he is a singular statement that does not allow a Triune nature especially when Jesus says:

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (John 17:2-4)

Now God says I am he and Jesus says “THEE is THE ONLY TRUE GOD” now he did not say “we” or that “there is”only one true God but he made sure to say THEE.

Yes… and so? Very often Jesus was modeling for us.. and for His disciples… was He not? Maybe He was in this case. But whether He was modeling for us or not in the above verse from John… I find it perfectly rational and logically consistent to suggest that Jesus is speaking from his flesh/soul nature… He is speaking as a human being… when He said “Thee”.

If humans are made up of 3 parts… as I believe… then your concern doesn't cause any logical problems at all. If Jesus was fully human and fully Divine as Christians believe… then I don't see the logical difficulty in suggesting that the fully human aspect of Jesus can and will converse with the fully Divine aspect of Jesus.

Quote

Asana… first of all, there is no way you can imply from anything I've written to you that I believe you are an atheist. Where does this assumption comes from? Why would you think such a thing? The following are all kinds of things I've written which plainly shows that I never believed you or Muslims were atheists:

—> In my last post I wrote the following to you:
1)… “…or in your understanding of who the God of Abraham is.” (Here I acknowledge that you believe in the God of Abraham.)

2)… “But the difference between you and I is that we have a different view about who this Monothiestic God is and what He is”
(Here I acknowledged that you do believe in a Monotheisitc God… it's just that we have a different view of Him)

3)… “As I said before… we may both believe that there is ONLY ONE SINGLE GOD… it just so happens that we understand this ONE SINGLE GOD differently.” (Here I acknowledge that you do believe in ONE SINGLE GOD.)

4)… “You do not believe that the ONE SINGLE GOD is a Triune God.” (Once again I acknowledged that you do believe in ONE SINGLE GOD… it's just that you don't view Him as a Triune God)

—> In the Forum » SKEPTICS PLACE » Doctrinal Disagreements » The mercy of god Posted on Aug. 18 2010 at 10:04 I wrote the following:

5)… “Islam insists that only God is eternal” (You are a Muslim correct?)

6)… “Islam believes that God is essentially and uniquely one” (You are a Muslim correct?)

7),,, “Islam considers the Qur'an to be God's final message to humankind.” (You are a Muslim?)

8)… “… it is clear to everyone in here that you truly love Allah and that you highly respect Muhammad and the Quran” (Need I say more?)

—> In the Forum » SKEPTICS PLACE » Doctrinal Disagreements » Are you happy that “jesus died for you”? Posted on Aug. 07 2010 at 08:03 I wrote the following:

9)… “What is more difficult to believe? That Jesus never died? Or that you simply misunderstand the purpose of God?”
(Here I acknowledge your belief in God… it's just that I was suggesting that you might have misunderstood His purpose)

—> In the same thread, Posted on Aug. 09 2010 at 10:00 I wrote this:
10)… “If your God actually saved Jesus from the cross… then why would your God not make it plain that He did in fact spare Jesus from crucifixion? ” (Here we can see that I am acknowledging your belief in God. I'm asking a question about YOUR God.)

—> In the same thread Posted on Aug. 11 2010 at 10:15 I wrote this:
11)… “It just so happens that we differ on some very fundamental issues which separates and divides Islam versus Christianity”
(Here I acknowledge your belief in Islam which believes in one God)

—> In the same thread Posted on Aug. 14 2010 at 19:57 I wrote this:12)… “Now… I understand that you and I believe in one God”
(How more plain can I be?)

If I have caused any confusion, then I apologize… but when I said you were a “non-believer”… I was talking about your being a “non-believer” in what Christians believe. I never implied that you were an atheist.

Secondly… I clearly told you that the term “non-believer” was not meant to be an offensive term. I spoke truthfully. If you don't believe me, then you are in effect calling me a liar. Unless you are able to read minds, there is no way you can presume that I was being offensive by anything I have said to you in any of my posts. I have always strived to be a gentleman with you at all times… and to be respectful to what you believe. Sure we disagree on what we believe… so what? I have repeatedly said that I thought you were a good person and I never deliberately said anything to you which was offensive. If you consider our differences of opinon about God to be offensive, well then, there is nothing I can do about that. But I have never made any deliberately offensive remarks to you.

I am hoping that we can always be friends, even though we may never agree on what we believe. But if you are going to suggest that I was lying to you when I said that the term “non-believer” was not meant to be an offensive term… and if you are going to presume all kinds of things about what I'm actually thinking instead of taking what I say at face value… then I am sincerely grieved.

I did not come in here to make enemies. There is enough hate in this world. If you are going to continue to suggest that I was lying when I told you that the term “non-believer” was not meant to be an offensive term… then let's quit our discussion right now because I'm not interested in becoming your enemy.

Quote

I'm not sure what you are referring to. I never claimed that the Quran was totally wrong… or that Muhammad was totaly wrong. So therefore I never made any blanket statements at all as you are suggesting. Let's look carefully at what I actually wrote:

“I am not a believer in the Quran as being inspired of God… “

A book doesn't have to be inspired of God to have many truths in it… so what blanket statement did I make? Even atheists will find many worthwhile principles in the Bible even though they do not believe the Bible is inspired fo God. I earlier gave you the example of “Christian Atheists” who are like this.

One of the reasons why I do not believe that the Quran is inspired of God is because of the other topic we had been discussing in another thread about the Quran claiming that Jesus never died by crucifixion. I have given you many, many opportunities to show that this claim from the Quran is true… and yet you have done nothing to support your claim that the death of Jesus is not an historical fact.

Until you do… why do I need to believe that the Quran is inspired of God? Sure… the Quran may have some great things in it… but until you can make a positive case for your claim about Jesus… I am being completely rational and perfectly consistent in believing that the Quran is not inspired of God.

For my side… I dont even need to demonstrate that the Bible is inpired of God to argue that Jesus was resurrected. I even said my case for the resurrection of Jesus does not depend on an innerrant Bible.

…or in Muhammad as being a Prophet from God…

Muhammad could be a great guy who had many good and worthwhile things to teach us… but that doesn't mean he is necessarily a Prophet from God. So what blanket statement am I making? And indeed, if Muhammad claimed he was told by God (thru an angel) that Jesus did not die by crucifixion… and yet there is no proof or historical reason to support that claim… then once again, I'm being perfectly rational and fair and consistent to in believing that Muhammad was not a Prophet from God.

You make the claim that Jesus was not God Incarnate. Does that offend me? No. I don't take it personally. Instead, I ask you reasons for your belief… and then try and go through them with you. So why are you offended because I don't happen to believe that Muhammad is a Prophet from God?

… or in your understanding of who the God of Abraham is.

How is this an offensive statement or a blanket statement? Doesn't the fact that we do not agree about the Trinity underscore the truth of this statement? Of course it does.

Quote

Now back to the trinity(triune) now let's assume God actually had this triune composition if this actually were the case where is the permission to even utter it?

“Permission to even utter it?” I don't understand that question. What does that question mean?

Quote

My point is you could be even right and still be wrong just like ED continuously throwing around the tetragramanon as if it is a toy when Jesus Christ himself did not teach us to say it preferring instead for us to utter in prayer “Hallowed be thy name” but he banters it about and uses it so commonly he has even subjugated the name of God to common numbers.

I just don't understand what your point is here.

…and that's exactly what you and all trinitarians have done multipled the persons of THE ONE who sent THE ONE to save THE ONE

? God did not send Himself to save Himself. THE ONE did not send THE ONE to save THE ONE as you just wrote above. God did not need saving. Instead… God offered Himself up as a self -sacrifice (like a heroe does) through His Son to save us because of true love. God did not gain anything by the act of self-sacrifice on the cross. If God stood to gain something by offering Himself (thru Christ) as a sacrifice on the cross, then it would not have been an example of true love… but a selfish act… because true love is completely unselfish.

But anyway…. you're entire argument rests on how YOU personally understand what the Trinity means. I don't share your understanding of what the Trinity is… and so it does not make sense to continually go back and forth lilke this because all you're doing is stating what you believe… which happens to be different than what I believe.

If you can logically demonstrate to me how a belief in the Trinity is in fact Polytheism… I am more than willing to listen to your positive case. But in all honesty… I would prefer that you give a positive case for your claim that Jesus never died by crucifixion.

I could be entirely wrong about the Trinity… but that won't change the historical fact that Jesus died by crucifixion. And if you can't give a positive case for your counter claim… then there is no reason to believe that Muhammad heard Allah (or the Angel) correctly about other issues. If Muhammad can get it so wrong about such a major Prophet in Islam like Jesus… then maybe Muhammad can be wrong about many other things as well.
The last thing I want to do is to lose focus or get off track about the most important claim in Christianity. The Trinity is NOT the most important claim in Christianity. It is the Resurection of Jesus. And my belief that Jesus was Resurrected does not rest on whether the Trinity is correct or not. It also does not rest on the infallibility or inerrancy of the Bible. Therefore… those issues are not important in any discussion that involves the question of whether Jesus was resurrected or not.

And that is where our focus should be and has been between the two of us for some time now.

Quote

Well thank you Asana. I believe that God loves you also and I appreciate that you desire for me to be enlightened and in alignment with the Will of God… just as I desire the same for you.

As for a debate… we have been having one about whether Jesus died by crucifixion in another thread. I allowed myself to get sidetracked a bit in here, and also because I was working on your other question about blood sacrifice… but I will continue our debate about whether Jesus died as soon as possible.

Respectfully
Francis

August 26, 2010 at 1:04 am#213842

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 25 2010,22:19)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 25 2010,10:30)

You are not really a skeptic: you respect superstition above evidence.

Stuart

You are an Atheist you do not believe in God so in the context of this site you are a non-believer.

I believe in God period, it is a fact that I believe that believers have different understandings of God but I do understand that they believe in a CREATOR and therefor would not call them NON-Believers

The Quran does not call Christians or Jews “infidels” Infidels are those who fight against the cause of God no matter what their proclaimed belief.

literally “one without faith” is what an infidel is, it may be used in an improper context at times but now you know what one is.

by any definition you are not a skeptic as you do not “doubt” whether there is a God you claim to know there isn't that is clear by your assertion that God is imaginary which is not a skeptical statement at all.

I told you set up a debate and get some more education I believe it will help you become a proper sceptic and then perhaps(God-willing) a believer

August 26, 2010 at 1:33 am#213849

Participant

Francis,

Polytheism is the act of independent worship of more than One God so if you worship Jesus as God and worship Y— as God that is polytheism.

Now if you believe that Jesus died only in the flesh in what way did he take the place of sinners? All sinners and saints will still die in the flesh. So you are essentially saying The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit sent the Son in the flesh to die in the flesh, is that right?

Now if you say GOD sent HIS son as soon as you say “GOD sent” isn't that Identifying who is doing the sending? If you say GOD sent HIS son aren't you saying that A. Identified as God is sending B. Identified as the son of God if you then make B become A you have violated the number of A and that is polytheism.

Now you say I have to prove trinity is polytheism and that is really quite silly and simple because 3 is not 1

Jesus clearly said that God knows things that he does not know so logically it follows if God knows all things then Jesus cannot be God.

So is Jesus independent of God?

The scriptures say that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable
The same scriptures also say that a man who curses God must bear his own sin
the same scriptures say that blasphemy of the son will be forgiven

so I ask you this how can you blaspheme GOD without blaspeming ALL of GOD?

August 27, 2010 at 12:56 pm#214092

Participant

Hello Asana…

Quote

Polytheism is the act of independent worship of more than One God so if you worship Jesus as God and worship Y— as God that is polytheism.

If Jesus and Yahweh and the Holy Spirit are all the same One God… then I'm only worshiping One God.

Quote

I do not believe that God sent Jesus to only die in the flesh.

Just because a human being dies here on earth… that doesn't mean it is the end of their existence. Obviously… at least according to Christianity… our spirits keep living even if our fleshly bodies do not. So when Jesus died for us, Christians are not talking about a physical death so much as a spiritual death. And yet our spirits really don't die in the sense that they cease to exist.. .because our spirits do continue to exist in the afterlife. So when Christians are speaking of death on the cross suffered by Jesus… and when Christians speak of the wages of sin being death… and when Christians speak about spiritual death… they are speaking about being separated from God… of being separated from the source of life and love and joy and mercy and beauty, etc. That is the death being suffered by Jesus on the cross. A separation from God.

When Adam and Eve sinned, they died. But they obviously didn't die a physical death because they kept living. And their spirits didn't cease to exist because our spirits will never stop existing. Instead, the death they experienced was a separation from God. They were banished from God… from the Garden of Eden… and they never again (on this earth) enjoyed the same kind of intimate communion they once had with God in the Garden of Eden in the beginning before they sinned. It is that separation which is death… and which Christians speak of. When Adam and Eve was forced to leave the very presence of God (because of their sin), their lives forever changed. Hardship and pain and destruction became a daily part of their lives.

Indeed… everyone is spiritually dead before they become born again of the spirit as Jesus described to Nicodemus. Why do you have to be born again if you are already born and alive? Well… Jesus rightly pointed it out that he wasn't talking about our physical bodies… He wasn't talking about a physical birth. He was talking about spiritual bodies/nature and a spiritual birth. And we had to become born again because until we are, we are all walking around on earth spiritually dead… that means… we are spiritually separated from God until we become born again in the spirit.

Now when Jesus experienced spiritual death… what does this mean? We mean he experienced a separation from God his father. How might this have looked like? I believe this separation is most eloquently underscored when Jesus, on the cross, emotionally cried out the question: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Without a doubt this is one of the most emotionally wrenching passages in all of scripture. And yet it offers us a vital clue about the separation that was Jesus was experiencing and how the Trinity looks like. Is Jesus talking to himself? Is he schizophrenic: disowning himself? The answer is an emphatic no!!! The scene at the cross is the culmination of the entire gospel.

Jesus was tasting spiritual death… being separated from God His Father. Just as we have been separated spiritually from God because of our sins… Jesus was experiencing a separation from God because of our sin that was placed on him on our behalf. God the Father chose to put onto Jesus the Son, the penalty for our own sins so that we might be made right with God–be renewed to a relationship with God despite the sins which would otherwise condemn us. Jesus took on his shoulders of all the sin of the world while crucified for our sins on the cross.

Now… how might this separation from God look like to Jesus? At this point when Jesus cried out on the cross… Jesus, the Son… beloved of the Father, was rejected and took on the anger and the justice of God. For the first time, the Father looked away from the Son, and Jesus cried out in the deepest, most unimaginable anguish, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Is this because Jesus did not understand why? No. It is a cry, not for information but of anguish. This, in essence, is the gospel message.

For the first time in Jesus' earthly life, His Father looked away from him. Before that, Jesus had a deep, intimate, daily communion with God His Father everyday of his life here on earth. Kind of like what Adam and Eve experienced before they sinned and were then banished from the presence of God. Can you imagine the horrible anguish Adam and Eve must of have felt to be separated from God after years of daily and intimate communion with God in the Garden of Eden? It would have been an extremely sad and heart wrenching separation.

Now remember… in the Trinity God the Father are still One God. So it wasn't a “physical” separation in which Jesus is somehow “torn” from God and morphed into a separate God at the moment of separation. That is an impossibility. God can never be divided. God is one spirit and that spirit is indivisible.

I hope this helps to explain where I am coming from. I am not a theologian. I'm just an average person like you are and like everyone else in here. What I present to you is my understanding of the scriptures from years of study. I can still be mistaken and if you… or anyone else can show and demonstrate… through scripture and reason and logic… how I might be mistaken… then I am more than willing to listen and take seriously what you say.

But the bottom line is that the Trinity is not illogical. I've repeatedly suggested that if you feel that the Trinity is illogical, you need to explain how it is illogical and unscriptural. Until you do, your objection against the Trinity is moot… it is vacuous.

Quote

This question and statement of yours shows that we don't understand the concept of the Trinity in the same way. That is the gulf between us. You keep thinking the Trinity is one thing… while I keep saying it is something else. That is where the confusion lies.

As I've repeatedly said in here, the law of identity is iron-clad in logic. We cannot communicate with each other if we don't understand how each other is using certain words. And so, let me give you the definition of the Trinity as I understand… and from whence I argue.

The Trinity is the doctrine that there is one God who exists in three persons: Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are not three go
ds as you keep asserting. Now… this may be difficult to understand, and you may not like it, but it isn't illogical. For it to be illogical, there must be some rule of logic that is violated that makes it impossible for God to exist as a Trinity. For example, to say that one god is really three gods is illogical because the quantity of one is not the same quantity as three and since they (one and three) are mutually exclusive as to quantity in this situation, to say one god is three gods is illogical. But that isn't what the Trinity is. The Trinity is three divine persons who comprise the one God.

So Asana… what rule of logic is the Trinity violating? Unless you can name the rule which is being violated, you cannot keep claiming that the Trinity is not logical or that it is Polytheism… because Trinitariansim is a monotheistic theological position. What I see you doing in here is creating a false characture of the Trinity, and then you attack this false representation of yours, which you made up about the Trinity.

The bottom line is that if you truly and honestly believe that the Trinity isn't logical, then it is up to you to demonstrate how. You need to produce logical statements in sequential form that demonstrates the impossibility of the Trinity. If you are not able to do it, then you should stop making the claim.

However difficult the concept of the Trinity might be to understand, it shouldn't come as a surprise… should it? Now… I understand and appreciate that it is a good and valid question to ask how can God be three persons in one God. It's a good question because the concept is a bit difficult to grasp. But like I just said, this is what we should expect isn't it, when we encounter God? Would we not expect to find some things about God's infinite nature a bit beyond our comprehension? This is not unreasonable is it? Of course not. Think about it Asana… not even Muhammad would make the claim that he could understand EVERYTHING about Allah. And neither would you. And so why be surprised when you can't completely understand the Trinity? Can't you see this?

Anyway… as I said before, God did give us a brain… and logic… and a very healthy curiousity… and we love to try and figure things out as best as we can. It's part of our nature which God Himself designed for us. So I will try and explain the Trinity as best as I can in a manner that makes enough sense to me so as to convince me that I've got a glimmer of the truth and that I'm on the right track.

Now right away I want to stress that these following human constructs are not perfect because I'm using finite examples to try and explain an infinite concept. So we should not expect a completely perfect answer. But I think the following examples serve as a reasonable model which can give us SOME clues as to how the Trinity works and its nature.

One model which might be helpful is something I gleaned from William Lane Craig's material which suggested that the Trinity may be explained as three personalities in one being, kind of like a multiple personality disorder, but in this case, it would be very ordered. I found that very helpful and you might also.

And while you may have encountered the following models and examples, I still feel they are helpful.

Take for example the concept of time. Time exists in three parts: past, present, and future. Each is not the other. But each shares the same nature: time. The past is not the same as the present, which is not the same as the future. Yet, they are not three “times”, but one.

So too with matter which is solid, liquid, and gas. Solid is not the same as liquid, which is not the same as gas, which is not the same as solid. Yet, they are not three 'matters,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: matter.

With space… height is distinct from width, which is not the same as depth, which is is not the same as height. Yet, they are not three 'spaces,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: space.

As we can see, we literally live in the trinity of trinities. Basically, the universe consists of three elements: Time, Space, and Matter… and each of these is comprised of three 'components. So why would the concept of the Trinity be so difficult to accept? The Bible says in Romans 1 that God's nature is revealed in creation. So it makes sense then that God's nature (the Trinity) is all around us.

Again… the bottom line is that there is no logical reason why God cannot be three persons. And until you can demonstrate it is illogical… or unscriptural, you're entire objection is rendered moot and empty. You're basically arguing with yourself because you keep attacking a false idea of what the Trinity is.

Quote

Now you say I have to prove trinity is polytheism and that is really quite silly and simple because 3 is not 1

I agree that 3 is not 1… and sense the Trinity is not an example of 3 being 1… your statement does not prove that the Trinity is polytheism in disguise.

Quote

Jesus clearly said that God knows things that he does not know so logically it follows if God knows all things then Jesus cannot be God.

NO… this is a non-sequitr… or a false dilemma in some respects. It could very well be that when Jesus said that God knows things that he does not know… Jesus was simply demonstrating that He was speaking from his human knowledge. I have no difficulty in imagining that because Jesus wanted to experience the fullness of being a human… he might have voluntarily put certain limitations and restrictions upon himself.

Whether or not this did happen… the fact that this is a possibility shows that there are more possibilities than what you claim exist… and so it doesn't logically follow that your conclusion is the only one available. And therefore, logically I don't need to accept your conclusion.

In this context, Jesus, even though being God, voluntarily submitted to the other person of God, his Father while Jesus was here on earth indwelling a fleshly human body.

Quote

So is Jesus independent of God?

No… Jesus' spirit… which is one with God… which is part of the one Godhead… is not independent of that one Godhead… that one God.

As for Jesus' body… well, since God is immaterial… then in terms of the flesh that Jesus inhabitated… in that sense Jesus was independent of God. His flesh was independent of God. Much like the Tabernacle itself was also independent of God. God resided in the Tabernacle… in the Temple. And when God resided in them, he did not become the temple or the tabernacle. It's the same way with Jesus' body. The fleshly body was only a temple… a dwelling place… a tarbernacle… nothing more.

Quote

The scriptures say that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable

Yes… and do you happen to know what the term “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” mean to the person who wrote that verse? I'm not asking what the verse means
to you… but what it mean to the writer… because it was the writer who wrote it… not you. Don't you think it is important not to try and impose our own understanding onto something that might be different than the intent of the writer? Of course it is.

Anyway… I believe… and I'm not making any imposition here… I'm only trying to understand the meaning that the writer was trying to convey… is that the “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” is the ultimate rejection of the Holy Spirit's message and conviction. Christians believe that part of the Holy Spirit's “job” is to convict and teach and speak and woo and direct and guide and help us here on earth. So during our lives… if we continually reject the message of Christ even onto death… then we have blasphemed the Holy Spirit because there is no turning back or changing our minds once we have physically died. Until we die… we can't blaspheme the Holy Spirit because we still have a chance to accept the Holy Spirit's message… and so there is always FORGIVENESS available while we are alive. But the moment we die, there is no more forgiveness… or chance to change our mind. And so many believe that the writer of this verse is talking about our rejection of the Holy Spirit at the time of death is the Blasphemy he was writing about.

Now… we don't have an opportunity to cross-examine and question the writer who wrote this verse. But what i've outlined above is very reasonable and it is perfectly consistent with God's nature as revealed throughout scripture. Which is that God is always willing to forgive someone if they will only turn to him.

Quote

The same scriptures also say that a man who curses God must bear his own sin

Yes… and so? Man must bear all of his own sin if he does not repent. All sin is a curse to God. All sin separates us from God. All sin condemns us to hell.

the same scriptures say that blasphemy of the son will be forgiven

And so? All sin will be forgiven if a person is truly repentant.

Quote

so I ask you this how can you blaspheme GOD without blaspeming ALL of GOD?

I have not blasphemed God… at least on not aware that I have. why don't you tell me where and how I blasphemed God?
———–
Asana… you ask a lot of questions… and that is good and healthy. But asking questions becomes unhealthy when the questions are being asked as a type of smokescreen and not because there is a genuine interest in the answers.

I don't you know you well enough to know the reasons why you ask these questions… but I do want to say that I also have asked you questions… and yet I do not seem to get any answers from you even though I have spent a lot of time trying to answer your questions.

And so with that in mind… I would like to tell me why you think the Trinity is illogical as I have asked repeatedly of you. Of course the Trinity is illogical if we accept your idea of the Trinity. But I don't accept your idea of the Trinity.

Therefore… if you want to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical, you need to point out the rule of logic that the Trinity is violating. And to support that… you need to produce logical statements in sequential form that demonstrates the impossibility of the Trinity.

Until you do this… then there is absolutely no reason for me to think your objection to the Trinity is to be taken seriously in any intellectual fashion.

I would also like to know why you think it is impossible for God to be expressed as a Trinity… especially in light of the examples I have given which shows that we are surrounded by all types of “trinities” in our universe.

Respectfully
Francis

August 27, 2010 at 3:00 pm#214100

Participant

Francis,

I wasn't saying that you blasphemed, I asked how can someone blaspheme only part of God without blaspheming him entirely?

Now this should explain what I am saying about the trinity:

If we define God as THE SUPREME BEING even inside your idea of the trinity the Father is the Highest Personality. This would in-fact be The Supreme Personality of Godhead(Your terms) Look:

And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
Mark 5:6-8

Now notice that this is a demon he would know whether Jesus was God or not but instead of saying that Jesus is not divine he appeals to THE MOST HIGH.

And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.
Daniel 5:20-22

Now notice Satan:

Matthew 4:8-10 (King James Version)

8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Do you see what is going on here Satan is recognizing Jesus but not as The Most High God, is he?

So what I am showing you here beyond a shadow of doubt is without discussing the trinity directly or accepting the trinity as you explain it there would still be rank and in that rank THE MOST HIGH would be THE ONLY SUPREME being or as Jesus would say THE ONLY TRUE GOD.

God is more then his substance, God is a Spirit so even angels would have his substance. God is also a rank and the one whom you call The Father has the rank of THE MOST HIGH it is HE that is called ALLAH i.e. “THE GOD” The Guardian Lord.

Jesus could be sent down but pertaining to the Supreme Personality of Godhead the scriptures say:

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?
1 Kings 8:26-28

But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!
2 Chronicles 6:17-19

So if God is beyond earthly and heavenly containment this particular persona is THE MOST HIGH

now we know that Jesus is called a high priest in the order of Melchezidek:

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
Hebrews 7:1-3

This would also make Jesus a priest of THE MOST HIGH GOD and therefore not disqualifying his own godly nature but certainly subordinating it to that of the one Jesus himself even calls GOD.

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:34-36

So if Jesus is not the Highest he cannot be THE MOST HIGH GOD which is THE ONLY TRUE GOD according to Jesus.

what is more is in your argument of substance God has also called many who received the word of GOD “gods”

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Psalm 82:5-7

and Jesus does not dispute this he reinforces this:

John 10:33-37 (King James Version)

33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

So now you see that this substance of God is not limited to 3 persons but what is limited in persons is THE RANK of MOST HIGH which is who we call ALLAH i.e. THE GOD as JESUS stated:

John 17
1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

4I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

Jesus is saying here that THE FATHER is THEE ONLY TRUE GOD he is not saying there are no other god personalities he is simply confirming none is like unto him in rank or quality.

I hope this helps you it really helped me and I praise God for it.

August 30, 2010 at 10:18 am#214491

Participant

Hello Asana…

Quote

Francis, I wasn't saying that you blasphemed, I asked how can someone blaspheme only part of God without blaspheming him entirely?

I'm glad we agree that I have not blasphemed God. I also agree that there is no difference between blaspheming part of God and all of God. But i'm not sure who you are referring to here so I can't comment further until I understand more of what your point is.

Quote

Now this should explain what I am saying about the trinity:

If we define God as THE SUPREME BEING even inside your idea of the trinity the Father is the Highest Personality. This would in-fact be The Supreme Personality of Godhead(Your terms)

Well I don't… and neither do Christians… believe that The Father is “higher” or “supreme” over the other persons of the Trinity. All 3 persons in the Godhead are equal.

I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Look: “And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. (Mark 5:6-8)”

Now notice that this is a demon… he would know whether Jesus was God or not but instead of saying that Jesus is not divine he appeals to THE MOST HIGH.

I'm not clear what you are trying to say here. Look again at what you wrote. You admit that this demon would know whether Jesus was or was not God… and then you also admit that this demon “instead of saying that Jesus is not divine, he appeals to the Most High”. Does this not show that the demon does not rebut or disagree that Jesus is divine? Maybe you meant to say something else… but as I read what you wrote, that's how i understood your sentence. So you seem to be agreeing with me that Jesus is divine.

Secondly… you also fail to take into consideration what I had written to you in the post you are replying to. And that was this:

I have no difficulty in imagining that because Jesus wanted to experience the fullness of being a human… he might have voluntarily put certain limitations and restrictions upon himself.

And this:

In this context, Jesus, even though being God, voluntarily submitted to the other person of God, his Father while Jesus was here on earth indwelling a fleshly human body.

So why is it not possible that this demon understood that this is what Jesus was doing when he came to earth? That is limiting Himself and submitting Himself voluntarily?

Thirdly… the term “THE MOST HIGH” refers to God in general… not to any one specific persons of the Trinity. “THE MOST HIGH” is a translation from the Hebrew word Elyon which means “God”.

Therefore I simply do not see any logical problems. I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

First of all, Daniel 5:20-22 is talking about King Darius coming to the Den of lions to see if Daniel was okay. It has nothing to do with the verse above which is about King Belshazzar.

Secondly… what does the story of King Belshazzar have anything to do with the Trinity? I don't get the connection.

Quote

Now notice Satan:

“Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. ” (Matthew 4:8-10 [KJV])

Do you see what is going on here, Satan is recognizing Jesus but not as The Most High God, is he?

I don't understand your point. What about Jesus is satan recognizing? The words you are using: “The Most High God”, are not even in the verse you chose. When you worship Jesus… you are worshiping God.

Not only that… this could very will be another incident (like the one with the demon in Mark 5:6-8) which shows that satan is recognizing that Jesus has voluntarily limited himself as a man and voluntarily submitted himself to God as a man. So I don't understand how any of this is illogical.

And once again… the term “THE MOST HIGH” is a translation from the word Elyon in Hebrew which means “God”.

I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

? Jesus… as part of the Trinity… is THE MOST HIGH and THE ONLY TRUE GOD and THE ONLY SUPREME BEING. So is God the FATHER and so is THE HOLY SPIRIT. All 3 are equal in rank and all 3 are the same ONE GOD.

As I've tried to explain… I have no difficulty imagining that when Jesus voluntarily came down here to earth as a sacrifice for our sins… He could very well have also voluntarily limited himself and voluntarily submitted himself to God… as a man… to more fully experience the fullness of being a human for our sake.

And as I have stated before… the term “THE MOST HIGH” refers to God… not to one of the persons of the Trinity… but to Elyon… which is “God” in Hebrew.

So again… I don't see any logical problems. I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

God is more then his substance, God is a Spirit so even angels would have his substance.

Isn't this Panentheism? If so, then this is not Christianity…. because Christianity is theistic. Christianity believes that there is Only one God and He is distinct from His Creation. Christianity is not panentheistic.

Quote

God is also a rank and the one whom you call The Father has the rank of THE MOST HIGH it is HE that is called ALLAH i.e. “THE GOD” The Guardian Lord.

Sez who? Not Christianity. Where do you get the idea that “God” is a rank? Where did that come from? In point of fact, there is no rank or levels in the Trinity. All 3 persons are equal in Rank and level. They may have different names and different functions… but they are all equal and are always in complete harmony and agreement with each other. The only time there might have been some kind of different level of rank is when Jesus voluntarily submitted himself to God and limited himself to more fully experience being a man for our sake.

Anyway… The Father in the Trinity does NOT have the rank of “THE MOST HIGH” because that term refers to “God” and God is Trinitarian in nature according to classical Christianity. So you are mistaken. “THE MOST HIGH” is a translation from the word Elyon in Hebrew which means “God”.

Again… I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

Jesus could be sent down but pertaining to the Supreme Personality of Godhead the scriptures say:

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? (1 Kings 8:26-28)

But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built! (2 Chronicles 6:17-19)

So if God is beyond earthly and heavenly containment this particular persona is THE MOST HIGH

I don't understand what this has to do with the Trinity. Anyway, you seem to have a habit of reading and quoting scriptures out of context… or at the very least, not reading the ENTIRE passage which the verse is found in. You've done this with me when I write to you… and you seem to be doing this with the Bible.

For example… let's take 1 Kings 8:27… if you had simply read 2 verses further on down the line to 1 Kings 8:29, you would have seen this:

“That Your eyes may be open toward this house night and day, toward the place of You have said, My Name (and the token of My presence) shall be there, that You may hearken to the prayer which Your servant shall make in (or facing toward) this place.” (Amplified)

Obviously… Solomon understood it is ridiculous to think that God could fully be contained within a small little structure built by puny man. And so he is not expecting this will happen with the Temple. As verse 29 plainly shows… God Himself said that His Name and a TOKEN of His presence would be in the Temple!

Can't you see how important it is to read things in context? Can't you see that we need to read a verse within the entire chapter the verse is found in, to better understand what is being said in the verse? If you don't do that, you will getting a incomplete and false understanding. You keep making the same mistakes that atheists do when they try and take verses out of context in an attempt to attack Christianity.

As for 2 Chronicles 6:18 and 19, both are simply repeating what 1 Kings 8: 27 and 29 said.

Also… the term “THE MOST HIGH” means God. And Jesus is God… one of the 3 persons of God. The term “THE MOST HIGH” is a translation from the Hebrew word Elyon.

Bottom line is that I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

now we know that Jesus is called a high priest in the order of Melchezidek:

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; (Hebrews 7:1-3)

This would also make Jesus a priest of THE MOST HIGH GOD and therefore not disqualifying his own Godly nature but certainly subordinating it to that of the one Jesus himself even calls GOD.

How does one logically follow the other? I've already stated that the 3 persons of the Trinity appear to have different functions… much like the examples of the “trinities” found in the universe which I listed in my prior post. Different functions does not have to mean different levels of importance or primacy. I also said that Jesus… while here on earth, could certainly have voluntarily, and temporarily submitted Himself to The Father (one of the persons in the Trinity) for the sake of man's salvation. Does that make him naturally and intrinsically less important or significant or unequal with The Father or with God? Of course it doesn't.

But even more importantly, terms like “THE MOST HIGH GOD” and “THE MOST HIGH” and “THE HIGHEST” all refer to God. Those terms are translations from the Hebrew word “Elyon” into English and Greek. Elyon in Hebrew is referring to the God of Israel. And Christians believe that God is Trinitarian in nature. So when you say Jesus is a priest of “THE MOST HIGH GOD”, all you've done is point out one of the functions of Jesus in the Trinity. Jesus is “THE MOST HIGH GOD” because Jesus is God… one of the persons of God.

So it appears to me that when you try and make issue out of the words “THE MOST HIGH GOD”, etc… YOU are making an imposition upon the text… and not the other way around… as it should be.

Anyway… I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:34-36)

So if Jesus is not the Highest he cannot be THE MOST HIGH GOD which is THE ONLY TRUE GOD according to Jesus.

First of all… as I have continually pointed out… the term “THE MOST HIGH GOD” means God. It is a translation of the word Elyon from Hebrew into Greek and English. And according to Christianity, God is Trinitarian and because Jesus is one of the 3 persons of the Trinity… Jesus is God. So despite your belief otherwise, Jesus is the “HIGHEST”.

But even so… even if you weren't aware of this translation (which you obviously were not aware of)… why do you assume that the word or person named the “Highest” is somehow denoting that this person is intrinsically or naturally different than the Trinity or Jesus… or even the Holy Spirit? As I noted above, different functions… or even titles… does not have to mean different levels of importance or primacy or even a fundamental difference in the intrinsic nature of the 3 persons of the Trinity.

Indeed, if Jesus came forth as a direct result of this power coming from the “Highest”… why can't Jesus then be the “Highest” or be intrinsically the same as the “Highest”? Why do you assume that the fundamental and intrinsic nature of Jesus is somehow different than the “Highest” when it is the power of the “Highest” which overshadowed Mary? As I see it… it appears that you are assuming that because Jesus was born, then that must mean that his spirit… his intrinsic spiritual nature… was also born along with his earthly body… and therefore his spirit was something brand brand new when it was created… having never existed before.
.. in the same manner that when his physical body was born, it was a brand new thing that never existed before.

But as I have consistently maintained, that while it is true that Jesus' physical body was something brand new (God does not have a physical body for example)… Jesus' spirit was NOT a brand new creation but was God Himself. Jesus' spirit has always existed… prior to the physical body of Jesus being born from Mary. But Jesus' spirit has always been the Son of God… the 2nd person of the trinity.

And your verse does nothing to dispute this idea at all.

And therefore… I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical. Instead, what I see is that YOU are making an imposition upon the text… and not the other way around… as it should be.

Quote

what is more is in your argument of substance God has also called many who received the word of GOD “gods”

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” (Psalm 82:5-7)

and Jesus does not dispute this he reinforces this:

John 10:33-37 (King James Version) “The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.”

It appears to me that you are simply reading verses with no attempt at comprehension. If I am incorrect, then I apologize, but that is how it looks to me from where I sit.

The connection between Psalms 82 and John 10 has been discussed and debated and analyzed and critiqued for many, many, many years now with both Jews and Christians trying to understand what Psalm 82 means and what Jesus meant in John 10. This debate and discussion can not only be found in Christian circles, but also in the Jewish Midrash… going back many years.

There are at least 4 different ways in which Psalm 82 has been understood in Jewish traditions… they refer to Angels… Melchizedek… Judges… and Israel at Sinai when it received the Torah. All four of these interpretations are attested to in midrashic literature.

For example… Psalm 82 has been interpreted in Jewish tradition to refer to the judges of Israel. The judges of Israel were supposed to make life and death decisions on BEHALF of God and it was in that sense that Psalm is talking about. The judges' decisions… deciding who was going to die and who was going to live… making all kinds of decisions which could severely impact a person's life… they were in effect like “gods”.

We also have another interpretation which was also popular among scholars. In response to the charge of blasphemy, Jesus advances an argument from scripture using Psalm 82. When he cites Ps 82:6 in 10:34, he establishes the mode of argument by comparing two things: if scripture was not in error calling mortals “gods” (Ps 82:6), then neither is there error in calling the one whom God consecrated and sent into the world “the Son of God” (10:35-36).

We also have scholars which suggest that Psalm 82 is a rebuke and it reveals the fact that when we ignore God's wishes, we are acting like little gods… but as we do, we walk in darkness… being partial in our treatment of others and partiality to the wicked and not helping the weak, fatherless, afflicted and teh poor. Psalm 82 is rebuking the abusive self-serving leaders/judges of Israel at that time.

The bottom line is that your interpretation of what Psalm 82 and John 10 is saying and what those verses mean is only one of many other interpretations. And as long as there are very good reasons for these other interpretations which contradict your own interpretation, I am not logically obligated to intellectually accept your interpretation as being the correct one. And I don't.

Anyway… I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

So now you see that this substance of God is not limited to 3 persons but what is limited in persons is THE RANK of MOST HIGH which is who we call ALLAH i.e. THE GOD as JESUS stated:

(John 17:1-4) These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.”

Jesus is saying here that THE FATHER is THEE ONLY TRUE GOD he is not saying there are no other god personalities he is simply confirming none is like unto him in rank or quality.

I don't see the point you are trying to make. Of course THE FATHER is the ONLY TRUE GOD… so is Jesus and so is the Holy Spirit. The only true God is TRINITARIAN in nature according to classical Christianity. Also… Jesus is ON EARTH in his body of flesh… praying to God… and as I have suggested before, it is not difficult to imagine that while Jesus is on earth, He has voluntarily submitted Himself to The Father and limited his own divine powers and is praying as a man.

What I see happening is that you are hung up on semantics for the sole purpose of supporting your viewpoint instead of trying to understand what these words and verses and phrases meant to the writers who wrote them. I apologize if I am incorrect about what you are doing… but the fact is you did not write them. I did not write them. Neither did Americans or Europeans or Africans, etc… write or spoke these words and terms you and I are discussing and analyzing. It was Jews… Hebrews… who uttered these words… and so it is from their vantage point which we need to understand… not yours or mine… but theirs.

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.

Anyway… I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.
——————–

Anyway… I want to stress the fact that I'm not a theologian. I could very well be wrong about the Trinity. I don't think I am… but I'm not arrogant enough to assume that it is impossible for me to be incorrect about the Trinity or about anything else that I believe in.

But I'm not sure why you are investing so much time in the Trinity because this is NOT important to the issue of salvation or important to the issue of whether Jesus was the Messiah.. and whether he died on the cross by crucifixion which you and Muhammad and the Quran and Muslims deny. Even though it is an historical fact that He did die by crucifixion.

This alone… this denial on your part calls into question your entire faith and Muhammad's trustworthiness. And to me… it would seem that you should be trying to present evidence that the Muhammad was correct about Jesus instead of trying to “major on
the minor” in respect to the Trinity which does nothing change the central message of Christianity that it is only through Christ that we are saved.

Respectfully
Francis

August 30, 2010 at 10:39 am#214494

Participant

Trinity arguments are always amusing in their banal way. Are you each arguing about what you think reality is, or what Judeo-christian scripture says? It would make sense to argue the latter, but occasionally there is a lapsing into “consistency with the nature of god”, which is the laughable bit. You can both assert whatever qualities you want for your god can't you: there is no actual evidence that arbitrates either way on such assertions.

Stuart

August 30, 2010 at 12:25 pm#214505

Participant

Quote (francis @ Aug. 27 2010,23:56)

Hello Asana…

Respectfully
Francis

Hi Francis,

With matter there is solid, liquid, gas and PLASMA; four separate states!

Respectfully
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

August 30, 2010 at 12:29 pm#214506

Participant

Quote (francis @ Aug. 27 2010,23:56)

Hello Asana…

Respectfully
Francis

Hi Francis,

With space there is height, width, depth and time; these four comprise space!

Respectfully
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

August 30, 2010 at 12:36 pm#214507

Participant

Quote (francis @ Aug. 27 2010,23:56)

Asana… you ask a lot of questions… and that is good and healthy. But asking questions becomes unhealthy when the questions are being asked as a type of smokescreen and not because there is a genuine interest in the answers.

Respectfully
Francis

Hi Francis,

I see you're finally on to the thrust of BD's questions!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

August 30, 2010 at 8:41 pm#214533

Participant

Hello Stu… pleased to meet you.

Quote

Are you each arguing about what you think reality is, or what Judeo-christian scripture says?

I can't speak for Asana… but as for me, I'm arguing what I think Classical Christianity teaches about the nature of God. As I have consistently stated in here… I could be wrong about everything. I could be wrong about the Trinity… about God… about Jesus, etc.

But Asana (a Muslim) and I (a Christian) both believe that only ONE GOD exists. We are not debating the existence of God… but what God's nature is vis-a-vis the Judeo-Christian scripture.

Quote

You can both assert whatever qualities you want for your god can't you: there is no actual evidence that arbitrates either way on such assertions.

It's true that Asana and I can both assert whatever qualities we want for God. And what we assert may in fact be completely wrong. I agree with you on that point. Where you and I seem to differ is on the question of whether there is any ACTUAL evidence which can be brought to bear to help arbitrate either way, on those assertions being made about the nature of God.

In point of fact… you and I are more than likely looking for different kinds of evidence than the ones Asana and I are using. You and I will probably even disagree on what would qualify as evidence. But with Asana… he and I are both using scriptures as evidence to make our case about the nature of God. With you (I am assuming you are an atheist)… the use of scriptures would hardly be convincing evidence.

So I would disagree that there is NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE which can be used. What is probably closer to the truth is that you and I would disagree on what constitutes evidence and/or what we would accept as evidence.

But anyway… Asana and I are using scripture as evidence… and so we are at a different starting point than you and I would be.

Respectfully
Francis

August 30, 2010 at 10:00 pm#214534

Participant

Quote (francis @ Aug. 30 2010,21:18)

Hello Francis, (peace be with you)

Quote

Well I don't… and neither do Christians… believe that The Father is “higher” or “supreme” over the other persons of the Trinity. All 3 persons in the Godhead are equal.

Jesus says that the Father is greater so that cannot be debated as a direct statement buy Christ himself.

Quote

I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Greater than is not equal to

Quote

So you seem to be agreeing with me that Jesus is divine.

Yes, I would say he was divine and the scripture says:

1 Corinthians 8:6 (King James Version)

6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Now you do take note that “lord” does not mean God, right? But the scripture clearly says here that God is only the Father.

and in the Quran it is repeated this way:

They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah. there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).
( سورة التوبة , At-Taubah, Chapter #9, Verse #31)

Now the scripture demonstrates how Jesus turned over his lordship of his disciples to God as he was supposed to

Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
John 15:14-16

Quote

I have no difficulty in imagining that because Jesus wanted to experience the fullness of being a human… he might have voluntarily put certain limitations and restrictions upon himself.

That is illogical in itself because Jesus was not living life in the fulness of being simply human because humans do not normally turn water into wine or raise others from the dead so any claim that Jesus was living an ordinary life is dwarfed by his miracles and inherent knowledge of God. Also any attempt at saying Jesus could hide the fact he was God from himself would also be illogical and since he could not hide that fact from himself if it was true if it were true he would know that he was hiding it from himself.

Quote

And this:

In this context, Jesus, even though being God, voluntarily submitted to the other person of God, his Father while Jesus was here on earth indwelling a fleshly human body.

Flawed because Jesus in revelations is still referring to God as his God and our God and this is after he is in heaven with God. If you were right he would have returned to equal status as God and not still be calling God something outside of his own being or nature

Quote

So why is it not possible that this demon understood that this is what Jesus was doing when he came to earth? That is limiting Himself and submitting Himself voluntarily?

So now you are willing to believe that the demons want to humour Jesus and not call him on being God in disguise as it were? Please Francis, really?

Quote

Elyon is an epithet of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible. ʾĒl ʿElyōn is usually rendered as English “God Most High”. The Septuagint translation is ὕψιστος “highest”. It derives from the Hebrew root ʿly “go up, ascend”.

So no it does not simply mean “God” it is never understood as a common form of God

Quote

Therefore I simply do not see any logical problems. I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Greater cannot be equal in any sense. Also Jesus says he can do nothing of himself while the Father can. Also a Father doesn't need a son but a son needs a Father to exist.

Quote

Jesus says that eternal life is to know THEE The ONLY TRUE GOD(referring to the Father) and then he says and “ALSO” Jesus Christ.

Now logically Jesus is saying:

He is not the Only True God otherwise he would not say “Also”

Quote

Makes no sense, You are claiming esentially that God submitted himself to himself knowingly, which would automatically disqualify his experience of being human because humans do not have a choice or knowledge of capabilities that can render the experiment as harmless i.e. no possibility of failure or permanent damage.

Quote

And as I have stated before… the term “THE MOST HIGH” refers to God… not to one of the persons of the Trinity… but to Elyon… which is “God” in Hebrew.

That is incorrect it is always translated in term of being the Highest

Quote

So again… I don't see any logical problems. I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Any substance that can assume different forms can never be equal in substance in other words Ice is not equal to steam and therefore the trinity is illogical on the basis that God is eternal and yet it is the claim of trinitarians that the PERSON of JESUS(God the Son) DIED if his substance did not die than your faith is in vain, however the substance of God cannot die. What's more is Jesus plainly says that the flesh profiteth nothing. This means that Jesus as God could not have died and Jesus as man the death of his flesh would profit nothing.

Quote

Sez who? Not Christianity. Where do you get the idea that “God” is a rank?

God is a rank if it were not one could not COMMAND, Commands do not come from those without rank they come from COMMANDERS

Quote

Where did that come from? In point of fact, there is no rank or levels in the Trinity. All 3 persons are equal in Rank and level.

Not true Jesus said that the Father was greater and also subjugated his will to the Father “Not my will but yours” Jesus expressed he had no desire to die”

Quote

They may have different names and different functions… but they are all equal and are always in complete harmony and agreement with each other.

False! Jesus said “NOT MY WILL” That means “I DISAGREE”

Quote

Again… I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Yes you do because One Person of a Three person being of the same substance can not die without changing the nature of the substance in Quantity and or Quality. If One Person of the Triune has an alteration in substance becoming cursed or sin then the entire substance has changed.

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Romans 1:22-24

Here is your proof: By binding 3 personas to 1 being the effect on one persona effects the entire being and therefore if Christ became a Curse and took on sin the entire being would have took on sin and God would have been corrupted, is this true?

if it is I say:

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
1 Corinthians 15:49-51

Quote

Yes but all persons would effect the substance of the being. All for one and one for all if one persona is corrupted the entire being and substance is corrupted is context of the whole.

Quote

I also said that Jesus… while here on earth, could certainly have voluntarily, and temporarily submitted Himself to The Father (one of the persons in the Trinity) for the sake of man's salvation. Does that make him naturally and intrinsically less important or significant or unequal with The Father or with God? Of course it doesn't.

Therefore, you are saying that God became tainted and that goes against scriptue as God cannot be tempted by Sin nor can God sin or take on sin. Francis, GOD is HOLY

August 31, 2010 at 4:49 am#214581