₦airaland Forum

somze:
@K A GI stand corrected
1. Please look up the link again. It is written clearly that the early part of the BB is speculative and different scientist have different speculations about it.

However, the evidence for the Big Bang isn't aren't speculative.

The bible does not go into great details of Creation and NO one will insert speculations into the bible to answer things the bible leaves silent. The bible simple states God did it and not necessarily how it was done. I think this points to something - We don't make things up.

Then you haven't read most of the writings of Creationists, particularly that of the Young Earth Creationists.

Most evidences are observational and based on theories not yet proved. Why are we going over this again?

I don't think that's the way it works. If the different lines of evidence have and can be observed, then the theory would be based on them, not vice versa. Also, theories are not proved in science. And, sometimes it's necessary to go over things again for the purpose of clarification.

Yes there are evidences for it but i pointed out that there are evidences against it too. Some of the issues have been explained but not up to an acceptable level, since they depend on on assumptions, principles and theories that have not been proven. Most however, have not be explained at all.

First, you didn't point out any problems with the Big Bang theory, you just copy/pasted what you thought were problems without reading the lines that prefaced them:

"Throughout the historical development of the subject, problems with the Big Bang theory were posed in the context of a scientific controversy regarding which model could best describe the cosmological observations (see history section above). With the overwhelming consensus in the community today supporting the Big Bang model, many of these problems are remembered as being mainly of historical interest; the solutions to them have been obtained either through modifications to the theory or as the result of better observations."

Second, what is an acceptable level? So far the theory as a whole is unfalsified and the evidences for it keeps mounting.

Finally, theories are based on evidence and science still doesn't prove.

I noted all this.
Lets put it this way - Numerous speculations don't question them because smart scientists say so.

Then you don't know scientists.

Sticking to the theories mentioned,
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - was not accepted by Albert Einstein and some other physicist (such as Alfred Lande). The only reason why most scientist accept it today is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

So if tomorrow this is proved empirically wrong, think of how many of their ideas - subatomic and cosmological - will go down with it. Maybe i can start a conspiracy theory about this

Well, it turns out Einstein was wrong on that front (by the way he refused to accept it not because of evidence against it, but because he didn't like what it implied. True story). And the reason most scientists accept it today is - wait for it - because it works. If it is falsified at some time in the future then aspects of sub-atomic and comoslogical theories will be discarded; however, that's a big if.

Einstein's Relativity Theory - It still has its issues. I'll give you just 2 sites (trust me there are many) to explain -
Theory is true - but not much said about it, so a forum discusses it.
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Einstein_s_relativity_theory_proven_with_the_lead_of_a_pencil

Theory is false - http://www.physics.semantrium.com/relativity.html

You can do your search for more.

If you have the time, do a google search for Flat Earth theory and Geocentricism. Heck, just type in the Universe and the Earth is 6,000 years and see tthe number of forums and sites that are dedicated to ridiculous ideas. Einstein's theory of relativity hasn't been falsified; there's too much evidence for it; and scientists aren't idiots.

Dark matter ( i think, from what i read before my last post) is not an assumption but it counts against BB.

No it doesn't.

I think it is observed some where in space. Baryogenesis (again i think from what i remembered reading before my last post) is more of an hypothesis ( purposedly did not use the word "speculation" that explains stuff mostly in favor of BB.

Cheers.

Pretty much sums it up.

somze:
@nferyn
You were actually correct about the explosion argument. Most websites i go through fall short of explaining it as a chaotic explosion but stick to a gradual expansion.

Bcause the Big Bang, according to the theory, wasn't an explosion, but an expansion.

2. This object appeared because , em em err err ugghh! Look I'm a scientist, i'm smart take it that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

That's not what he said, and he certainly wasn't implying that. While, non-scientists and Creationists have the luxury of making up or "inventing without due cause" non-answers to cosmology and other sciences that deal with origins, scientist don't. So, the evidence shows: space, time, etc, were caused by the big bang; and at one point there may have been a singularity. Due to physical and other constraints it isn't possible at the moment to go beyond a certain point in time. However, there are some very good hypotheses for what was "before" the Big Bang.

3. As a scientist that knows a lot about everything i'm allowed to purely speculate without any inference or evidence just pure speculations. My fellow science friends too have their speculations about BB. You go ahead choose which one you want and its okay as far as no supernatural force is involved.

Don't be asinine. Supernatural forces would be included if there was a way to test them (after describing them, of course) mathematically or otherwise in the future and to tie them in with other working theories.

As much as BB has it range of "observational" scientific evidence (that assumes the correctness of a lot of unproved theories like Einstein's Relativity, Cosmological Principle, inflationary theory. Heisenberg uncertainty principle - most basically mathematical models)

Einstein's theory of relativity has been shown to work and has testable evidence behind it. The others work mathematically, IIRC - that is evidence in its own right (although I think Heisenberg's goes further than that).

and its speculations, like -
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_pillars.html

it also has a number of scientific issues (problems and puzzles) it is grapling with. Such as

[list]
[li]Horizon problem[/li]
[li]Flatness/oldness problem[/li]
[li]Magnetic monopoles[/li]
[li]Baryon asymmetry[/li]
[li]Globular cluster age[/li]
[li]Dark matter[/li]
[li]Dark energy[/li]
[/list]

I haven't come across some of them, but I do know Dark matter isn't an assumption and there are working theories for Baryogenesis. And so on.

freelance:
"A little one shall become a thousand and a small one a strong nation. I the LORD will hasten it in his time." Isaiah 60:22

BEAUTIFUL ANALOGY!

The analogy is neither beautiful nor apt.

"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and
untrimmed beards, like that man outside."

"Ah, but barbers DO exist! " answered the barber. "What happens, is,people do not come to me."

"Exactly!"- affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist!
What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him.

That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

Incidentally, many other theists will assure that pain and suffering aren't a result of people not seeking God; while, and this is true, many have searched for a God and found none. Go figure.

nferyn:
This is incorrect, the existence of Yahweh is logically impossible, just as cubic spheres are logically impossible. The existence of Invisible pink unicorns on the other hand has a probability of non zero and they are thus more likely to exist than Yahweh.

Ergo, the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists. Blessed be her horned hoof

ricadelide:
@ KAG,
i had two posts; i don't think you read the prior post, perhaps it would answer some of your questions.

By gum, you're right. I don't know how I missed it. I'll get on it now.

I'd like to apologise before hand for breaking your post into parts - I've found that it's the easiest way to address the contents of posts.

@KAG,
Ok, I know where you are coming from. And i can see where your grouses mainly lie and i'd try to focus on them to the best of my ability to explain issues.
I wont really answer directly word for word what you wrote because it'd just drag endlessly. Rather i'd try to answer the issues behind what you wrote.

No problem, but I'm sure you'd understand if I mention that I am, naturally, wary of a response to my post that, rather than answering my actual questions, responds to what another thinks are issues behind my words. That is not to say, though, that it wouldn't address my points.

Let me explain the issues i percieve you have grouses with.
First, God's omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.
I'd try to paint a picture of God for you, and correct the image (distorted as it is) that you have of Him.

If my image is distorted, I have only the spokepersons (both the books and the human agents) of God to blame.

As regards God's omniscience, try to see it as God being aware of what will happen before it does, while as regards his omnipotence, see it as it his; all-powerful - but understand it in this context; he has set boundaries for himself.
the first boundary is the fact that he has 'given' the earth to man. Ps. 115;16 "The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth He has given to the sons of men" Also Gen 1;26-30, Gen. 2:15
the other boundary is that he gave man a free will.

The first (omniscience) is what I understand the word to mean; the latter isn't. I will, however, accept your definition of that attribute of God. By the way, I don't think that verses actually support the view that the omnipotent Christian God has set boundaries for himself: the verses neither say that nor allude to that fact.

Now getting into more detail the issue of choice. God created beings with free wills. humans have free wills, angelic beings have free wills. God has his own will as well. see each person's will as a sphere of influence. every person's will can be absolute to himself and cannot be encroached upon. however you could have the two spheres coming in contact when a person chooses God or chooses satan such that God's will becomes the person's will or Satan's will becomes the person's will as the case may be. Now, here on earth spirits cannot encroach on a man's free will, but fellow men can. that is why an evil human being is of more threat to me than an evil spirit - because he is man, and can encroach on my will or sphere of influence (but that's something i don't want to get into now)

By any definition of freewill, it is untrue, in my opinion, that every person's will is absolute to their selves and cannot be enroached upon. It is the sign of human hubris to suppose that a person is somehow above the influences of his or her society, zeitgeist, the state of the mind and condition of the brain, and many other factors.

God cannot encroach in earthly affairs without a man's permission. That might seem absurd but it's the truth.

I think it is absurd because the Bible - particularly the Old Testament - says otherwise.

That is why we pray. We pray so that we can allow God to 'encroach' in our affairs by His might. The same principle applies in witchcraft; some people pray to the devil and give him a gateway in their lives so he can operate.

Most Witches don't pray to the devil.

However the down side is that having a choice does not exempt from consequences. No. the fact that you can choose what you want, inherently places a responsibility on you. and confers almost by definition, the need to act responsibly and choose good. You can easily understand this from human societies and human liberties, whilst we are free and can choose what we want, when we choose to do wrong, we face the consequences.

I understand; however, you have to understand that good is relative and that many will, as a matter of principle, choose other Gods and philosophies that aren't the Christian one, because those are the ones that they "know" are good. It is - as I've attested over and over again - not just nor is it love to condemn them to eternal torment for sincerely held and honestly chosen ideoligies.

When God made man, He made him innocent, naive and placed choices before man. God put man on earth and effectively handed it over to him as man's domain. You say since God is all-powerful, why didn't he make him choose good? or since he is all-knowing, why did He make man since He knew man would fall? However what you should remember is that we are made in the image of God, each man is a world unto himself and can autonomously determine his sphere not being encroached. For God to be fair, he had to make man, and he had to make him have the ability to choose irrespective of the outcome (ie rejection). Do you think GOd was happy that man didn't choose him, of course not. that was why it greived his loving heart when man rejected Him.

I think my question or what I was hinting towards wasn't any of those; it was something more along the lines of since Christians assert God is omniscient and omnipotent she knew and created the conditions necessary for the disobedience in Genesis. Also, God wouldn't have had to "enroach on the freewill" of the humans in Eden for them to have chosen good, anymore than the presence of a parent enroaches the freewill of a doubtful child. In fact, all God would have had to do was to show up before or during the serpents conversation with Eve (that, or not even put the tree there). No, to be logically consistent we have to accept that the outcome had to have been part of the plan.

God is not some angry avenger out to 'get' everyone who disobeys Him.

Not since the Old Testament, that is.

No. he is a God who is interested in fellowshipping with his creation. and the decison to choose wrong affected God just as much, if not more, than it affected man.

I don't see how and I don't see anything that shows that to be so.

For a choice to be that, a choice, God's omnipotence and omniscience cannot be involved; those are God's attributes not man's. He wanted and expected the man to choose life (the tree of life) but man did not.

An omniscient God could not possibly be expecting something that is known wouldn't happen. Unless, of course, there's some kind of delusion at play.

(and we can indeed say he could not). However, where God's omnipotence and omniscience plays in is when he provides a remedy for the fall. Ordinarily, in a level playing field of justice, man is, or should be, condemned for disobeying. but God in His foreknowledge had provided a way out. And that way out was ultimately played out years later in the death and ressurection of Christ. How you would know that God could not influence man's outcome because 'his hands were tied' (by man's free will) is when you understand that at one point, GOd 'regretted that he had made man'.

So now the other thing is; fine, there is punishment, but why does it have to be 'eternal'? human beings are spirits pocessing a soul and living in a body. spirits are by nature eternal, they don't die. SO if there has to be a punishment for a spirit, it has to be an eternal punishment.

Now, let's assume that human beings are indeed spirits possessing a soul and that the spirit is eternal, it still doesn't follow that the punishment for an eternal being has to be eternal. There is no absolutely no reason to logically assume or conclude that an eternal being has to be in the same state of grace or punishment for eternity. Furthermore, Christian theology has taught us, in its teachings on Lucifer and his cohorts, and other spiritual matters, that it is not the case that an eternal being remains in the same state infinitely.

A man has a long time (the space of a lifetime) to avert the eternal consequences of wrong actions and within that time frame, GOd forgives, and he forgives, and he forgives (i'm talking from both knowledge and experience). I have known His love and mercy and He does forgive, but like i said i'll say again, his forgiveness is within a time frame; and that time frame is a man's life. Once that life leaves the body, a man must face judgement.

First, for most of the human species, time has been rather short. Second, many who have indeed atoned for wrong actions will still be condemned to an eternal torture. Finally, I have understood that you do believe that humans only have the relatively short life span to choose the Christian doctrine, but I still don't see why it is that way. If human life is just one very, very limited aspect of our being, then one would have to wonder why an omniscient, omnipotent God who some have claimed is omni-benevolent would create conditions that ensure the better part of most of his beloved creatures' being is spent getting tortured with no chance for mercy due to sincere remorse.

So what i'd advise is, rather than focus on the potential for punishment and the possibilty of being lost, why not focus on the plus side and see that, there is really no reason for any body to be lost.

Because I haven't seen the plus side and the whole is necessary for an honest choice.

we know the real reason why people reject God and his provision (i don't really want to get into it now).

I know that there are many reasons people reject both the Christian God and the Christian doctrine, not just a reason.

what i usually tell people "if you know what i know, you'd be in the same position i am".

Then it may become necessary for yiy share adequately what and how you know what you know.

God is indeed love,

I still haven't seen any reason to accept that as true.

but there are many things we have to seek understanding for, and i understand your concerns. My goal is to answer as many questions as i can when the objective is knowledge and not mere arguements.

I have to go home; i'd answer the other issues when i get home.

No problem. Once again, thanks for taking the time.

Good to know.

GeeCee:
I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is.

Not if the God is Cthulhu you wouldn't.

Oro Gojigo:
E tire me o! Man dey live on borrowed life, breathe the air e no fit explain, use a brain that has more fundtion than a computer, etcetram etcetram. Still man say question and querry the existence the Supernatural One . Data or no data, Christianity is real; God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost don't merely exist, they are alive. Unfortunately, your point of view have no effect on that fact.

Look up false syllogism.

Sorry for the delay. No excuses.

ricadelide:
@ KAG,
now, reading your post, the second issue i'd address is the issue of sin and redemption.
this is an overwhelmingly broad subject and so, in order not to write a whole book here, i'd just address the concerns you raised.

That's fair enough, but I'm sure you'll understand when I say that it still doesn't explain how love and eternal torture aren't mutually exclusive.

when Adam sinned, he became enslaved to sin. what that means is that, he lost the ability to not do what is wrong and it became 'natural' for him to do wrong. before then, doing what is wrong like lying or stealing (just examples) was unnatural ie it wasnt the standard course of events. After Adam became aware of good and evil, however, he naturally gravitated towards evil - because he lacked the power (we now know that ability is the power of holiness, which is the very nature of God) to choose to do good when the option of evil is present. Now, although, he was made in the image of God and was innocent, every man that came after him took up the image of Adam which was a sinful nature. (Compare Gen. 5;1 to Gen 5;3)

How does that work? What I mean is, why woudl every man after Adam be in the image of Adam and not God? Furthermore, if everyone after Adam was sinful (that doesn't seem to be true though, because Enoch was sinless, if I recall correctly) then doesn't it stand to reason that they, except the chosen, are all being totured for eternity too?

Now coming to the issue of morality; i used to be a moralist at one point in my life so i can understand. there are many problems with this. when a man decides to be moral, he does good things and to an extent doesn't do wickedness. But the 1st thing to note is this; who sets the rules of right or wrong? the creature or the creator? if it has to be the creator, then we must understand His terms. You see, when an action takes place, eg helping somebody, GOd does not look at the action, rather he looks at the source of the actions. we are selfish beings, moral or not. so when i help somebody as a moralist, my ego is satisfied, i feel good with myself and i can actually boast that i am good. to me i've done something good; but before God i've done nothing, because i have acted from my own selfishness and while my action is deemed by man to be good, i've fallen into another pit - self-pride which God abhors 1Pet 5.5

That's a rather cynical view of morality if you don't me saying so. If pressed, I'd point out that morality isn't "determined" (morality isn't usually a conscious decision by people) by a creator, but by we humans. However, your point is taken and I get what you mean.

the second issue with morality is that; you can't always do what is right. At one point you'd do wrong. Now GOd's requirement is so stringent that, at any point where a man does wrong, he is adjudged guilty of all. (James 2: 10) So much that, in God's eyes, soemone who kills a man is just as guilty as one who tells a lie. that is why, with God, it is not a matter of 'my good outweighs my bad therefore i shouldnt be punished'

And we get to the rub of it. That, in my opinion, is neither just nor good. A person that chooses to lie for the good of another surely cannot be seen in the same light as someone that commits murder - it's usually considered insane to view things in that light. However, to get back to the main point, a being that tortures a being for infinity for lying, especially if the lie was for a good cause (and I can give you examples of what I mean by lying for a good cause) doesn't sound like a loving being.

it is a matter of 'be Holy' rather than 'be moral'. God (and GOd alone) is Holy (by nature). like i said i've lived a moral life,

Not to be a dick, but considering that the Christian God has committed murders too "holy" must have a meaning I haven't encountered.

but while i did so, i came across people who were filled with God's Holy Spirit (who is the One who enables one to live above sin AND self) and therefore lived a Holy life and i was severely convicted (ie i felt guilt) of the shallowness of my so-called morality. You see, when you get a glimpse of God, or come in contact with people who 'carry' GOd, you'd be humbled and you'd realise that your morality is at best filthy (Isaiah 64;6) that is why people that know God and walk with Him undergo more stricter judgement because God expects more from them. and thus what constitutes 'sin' to them might not necessarily be 'sin' to the average man (eg Moses) but i can't go into this now.

I haven't come across any one that fills that bill, Christian or otherwise.

What Jesus did

Fair enough.

Now, if after you one hears the gospel, which is what i just said above, God expects (like he expected from Adam in the garden) that men accept his free gift (or rather his REMEDY). but if man rejects this offer, then what he is saying is 'i don't need you' , i will do it by myself.

Or one rejects the "offer" because one is sceptical about the claims, aware of the things that don't add up, and wary of the "good news". Really, there are many reasons one would reject what you call a free gift (take my gift or I'll kill you!) and many of them are no different from why you've rejected other religions.

Now GOd's standard for judgement does not change, and so that man is expected to live by God's standard (which is impossible) so that is why people get condemned.
Now for those who never heard the gospel, the standard of judgement is different and it is explained in Romans 2.

So there is hope for the dead, Jesus wasn't necessarily the only way, etc?

SO, what i'd say is, the gospel is not about damnation, it is the GOOD NEWS. its about SALVATION. what happens is that some uninformed men distort the message by preaching about fire and destruction thus causing people to recoil in fear. when i got to understand the gospel, i believed it and i was saved Eph.1:13, Eph 2;8-9 now i have a very much clearer understanding of life that i didn't have before but beyond that, i am a TRANSFORMED person. 2Cor 5:17
SO if you have anymore questions, let me know, or if you want to accept Him, let me know as well so i can explain further. God bless.

nb, i'd recommend you read Romans 10.

Good to hear. Thanks for taking the time out. I'm still rather interested in how anyone can resolve eternal torture with love, though.

ricadelide:
what exactly is your point? Is it that GOd does not forgive? you need to read the story of Paul to answer that or if that is not enough, i can tell you my own story. Or that human systems don't punish indefinitely? Do you live on this planet; ever heard of 'life imprisonment without the possibility of parole'? Your question was how a loving God can punish sinners. And i've answered you that it is because He is also a Holy and a Just God. He administers justice. Is that too hard to understand?

Not so much a point as a question: how can eternal torment be reconciled with love? Does God forgive? Apparently, not after one has died and sometimes not if the leader of one's tribe or society has been "bad".

Also, I was careful to specify that humans can and do show clemency when "when there is a chance for repentance and rehabilitation". The idea of eternal punishment for grossly evil things like not belonging to the right religion or telling a white lie for example, leaves neither the opportunity for redemption nor does it even seem justified. Justice is meting out punishment for a crime or wrong fairly, singly and with the aim of hopefully changing the person or keeping society safe. Those aren't done with omniscience in the human system, but they are usually effective and fair.

God has set limits within which a man can recieve forgiveness and therefore escape indefinite punishment. that limit is called 'time'. within the human time frame, a man can obtain forgiveness. but once a man dies, he has lost his capacity to ask for forgiveness, and thus brings upon himself eternal damnation. Heb.9.27 "People die once, and after that they are judged"

That's part of the point, why have a time limit? A time limit that condemns, once again, the vast majority, even the contrite, to infinite, unending punishment. Sounds neither like justice nor love.

why would Jesus have had to die to save sinful men? Are you actually asking a question or trying to sound wise?

Asking a question.

I've explained why Jesus had to die; if you bothered to read the scriptures i put it would help. Let me restate; man sinned, and deserved to be punished.

The point of the question was why would an omnipotent God need to have "himself" die temporarily after billions of years of earth time and thousands of years of human life to save humans from something he either ochestrated or knew was going to happen? It all seems rather melodramatic and unnecessary. I have read the Bible, but I got lost somewhere between God is love and damn you all to hell. Also, and I hope this isn't off-topic, what exactly is/are the sins moral humans (that is, the moral non-christians) have committed that they deserve to be punished for? And are children included in the whole deserving punishment thing, too?

God, who is rich in mercy, knew that man, in his own natural effort, can never live above sin, therefore he sent his son who lived a sinless life and on the cross he bore man's sin and therefore the consequences of our sin ie punishment for our sins. But because he is God, death could not hold him captive and He rose again breaking the power of sin and death and setting free from sin those who beleive in Him. Is that enough?

No, it isn't enough. First, why can't humans live above "sin"? There have been many incidents and reporst of people who have lived moral and blameless lives. They managed it. Furthemore, without really understanding what sin means to you, it is arguable that people could possibly need to be punished for their "sins"; however, I don't see how eternal punishment can be a justified punishment.

you might need to read ROmans, Hebrews, Ephesians to understand the details. i just paraphrased the whole thing because that's the whole christian message.

I have.

Isn't the Christian GOd all-powerful? Meaning what? I don't get your drift - do you mean he should in his 'all powerfulness' make us all holy or make us obey him or what? He made human beings, not puppets, that they should choose Him of their own free will.

Not quite. I meant something along the lines of "Why would an omnipotent God need to have "himself" die temporarily after billions of years of earth time and thousands of years, etc?" Also, he really doesn't have to make humans puppets to get his point or across or to give a better chance for choice (remember, people are sceptical for a reason).

Also, isn't the "sacrifice" a tad redundant considering the vast majority (and we're talking billions and billions) of people will end up in hell?
Wow. I'm baffled by this statement. Let me give an analogy, you discover a drug that cures AIDs, then when you are about to market the drug, it was brought to your notice that some people will not buy the drug. Because some people (as always) will doubt the drug's potency, will you decide not to market the drug? How illogical is that?

May I suggest that your analogy doesn't quite fit the situation as I've heard it told. It's more like alledgedly discovering the cure for AIDS, after alledgedly creating or causing AIDS. Then, after pointedly refusing to divulge how I got the cure and to show actual evidence of the cure (I tell people to just have faith), I go through a bizzare and paradoxical procedure that involves most of the intended target not even knowing that the cure exists. Did I also mention that after marketing the drug, the effects of the cure on people can't be distinguished from those who haven't been cured nor from those who used the drugs of other healers I assure you are quacks. Is it illogical? Perhaps.

Morever, how many times do we have to say that God DOES NOT want anyone to perish. 2Pet3;9. Even if it was only one sinner on earth, He would still have come down to die.

Let's just say for the omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient deity he has being alledged to be, he's doing a rather poor job of not wanting anyone to perish.

your statement is severely flawed; the fact that some people choose to reject him doesn't mean that He shouldnt do the right thing.

The statement or question sought to explore the concept of an omniscient God doing an implausible deed to save people from a relatively intangible thing and doing it in a way that elicits rejection by a good number and is unknown by others.

it only shows that people choose to reject him without cause conjuring up reasons when there isn't any.

You mean the reasons like: "wait, where's the evidence for such an extraordinary claim", "that makes absolutely no sense, why would God have to sacrifice himself to himself" and all those others that point to the disreprancies aren't real reasons and are just conjured up out of spite or something?

Please check your statements before you make them. Omniscient means all-knowing. It does not mean all-influencing. He knew all things. He didnt make man sin. NO. Man sinned and earned his punishment. Hell was prepared for the devil and his followers. When you reject God, you automatically become a follower of the devil and thus are consigned to the same fate.

Maybe you should look up the meaning of omniscient. According to Christian theology (at least the one that preaches omni-deity), God knows the outcome of everything, knew even before creating humans what would happen with humans and knows/knew the end result of every human - do you see where I'm going with this? - and generally planned it all. It stands to reason, logically, that if hell was planned for the Devil and his followers (by the way, by follower, I thought you meant demons), then God did plan and design for humans (the majority as the case turns out) to end up in hell. That brings us back to my initial question - how can that be reconciled with love?

By the way, would the people who didn't reject the Christian God but ended up committing some sin or the other before death be considered followers of the Devil?

Your assumption is baseless.

I wasn't; it was based on primarily on interpreting "followers" as demons.

I hope i'm wrong but reading your post, I don't really think you want answers, you seem to want arguments.

I want discussion and answers. Read into that what you will.

My answer was clear enough and your responses were not even related to what i wrote.

Your response was clear, but, like I mentioned, didn't really address my question. Also, I just quickly re-read my responses, they were all related to what you wrote.

I don't know your beleifs or convictions so i don't know where you are coming from mentally; i don't give myself to irrelevant arguments. so if you really are interested in gaining knowledge, ask relevant questions. maybe you can let me know what your perspective is so i can answer more pointedly. cheers

I'm a struggling atheist; my questions - at least most of them - have been relevant and related to both the thread and your post; I'm always interested in gaining knowledge; and my perspective is, while I have seen no way to reconcile eternal torment with omniscience and omnibenevolence, maybe some other person could attempt it or point out a way before I consider it a closed subject (in my mind).

ricadelide:
Just a brief answer because i'm past my bedtime. God is just, He is a God of justice, therefore he will not leave the guilty unpunished. In our human systems we have courts and all that, and we do not complain about why evil, guilty men need to be punished by a prison sentence.

We do, however, complain when "evil", guilty men are punished indefinitely when there is a chance for repentance and rehabilitation. It seems the human system, despite its lack of omniscience, has figured out somethings the Christian God hasn't.

However, that is a small part of the story, the greater part of the story is that in Rom 3: 23 -26 and Eph. 2:1-7. In the former verse, Jesus, who was sinless, was shown to have died as a propitiation for us sinful men, and took upon himself our sin (2Cor 5: 21, Isaiah 53:6) and thus the punishment we deserve, so that we who have beleived in him are justified and declared righteous and free from guilt and condemnation. Also, see John 3:16.
So although God is Love and full of mercy, He is also a God of Justice.

Why? Why would Jesus have had to die to save "us sinful men"? Isn't the Christian God all-powerful? Also, isn't the "sacrifice" a tad redundant considering the vast majority (and we're talking billions and billions) of people will end up in hell?

God has done so much for us in Christ Jesus that the question of hell should not even arise if we respond properly to the gospel message in faith and obedient acceptance of his gift of grace. It is not God's will that any man should perish (2Pet 2:9, John 3:17). Hell was not originally prepared for man but for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41)

If hell wasn't originally prepared for humans, then God isn't omniscient. Is that a fair assumption?

However, people who reject God's salvation declare themselves enemies of God and willingly remain followers of the devil thereby earning the same punishment (John 3: 18 - 21, Eph. 2:1-7)

Hope you understand. Pray you accept His gracious gift of life. Cheers.

I most certainly do not understand. I hope this oesn't come across as hostile or anything, but your response did not really answer my question.

ricadelide:
men, you have no clue. so you think some people sat down and decided on what to include and not include so future generatios can 'adapt your words to their time'!!??!

Of course not, there's no reason for that - just ask Nostradamus and the Deplphic oracle if you don't believe me, oh wait, they're somewhere other than here. I guess you'll just have to take my word for it.

and please, there is a lot of 'exactness' in Biblical prophecy.

Yes, so exact that Muslims and Bahai followers can be sure the bible predicts their respective leaders.

in fact, many times so exact that the odds of them happening are at best impossible.

Not really, no.

the Holy Spirit who inspired the scriptures was not trying to be 'safe' when the old testament prophecies were made. Cheers and i really hope and pray you find Him one day.

Spirits never seem to want to play it safe, but what do they know. I hope I find him someday too.

ricadelide:
lol, i'm 'pretty certain' that you either don't know what you're saying or you don't want to acknowledge the truth. you would have made a better argument by saying (like the jews claim) that the christ has not come - which, of course, is untrue.

Why is the opinion of the Jews on the matter of the messiah untrue? They've a better argument than Christians in that they can show that the Christian christ did not fulfill the many prophecies required of him - many Christians accept that but dubiously claim he'll fulfill them at some later date, when he returns.

Rather than making an uninformed statement that no God prophesied the 'coming of any Christ'. maybe we're talking about different 'gods' but I am talking about the Judeo-Christian GOd.
the coming of the messiah has been prophesied all through the jewish old testament - even since the incidence of the fall. i don't really have time now to list you all the scriptures; if you need it i can do that later.

Okay, show me where the Christian God prophesied a messiah and how it can be verified. Feel free to list the scriptures of the coming of the messiah.

Christ indeed came in fulfilment of prophesy Matt 1:22-23

Well, that's one person that alledgedly tried to claim the title. Didn't do he was meant to though.

Errrh, sorry but may i let you know that you don't have any idea what that verse was talking about? If you don't believe that the Scriptures are the inspired word of God and are infallible, it would surprise no one that you can't understand it and would interpret it to mean something else. So please next time don't even try.

Don't be silly, understanding th Bible has little to do with believeing it is inspired and infallible (which it isn't as a cursory read through the Bible and comparing it with reality should show).

Matt. 16.28, Mk. 9:1, Luke 9.27
in the first verse it says, "there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" In all the three books where this is quoted, it is in the context of transfiguration. the next verse He takes 3 of them and takes them up to a mountain and he is transfigured before them showing them his glory. Peter later refers to this in 2Pet.1.16-18

"For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty" (emphasis mine). This experience was a type of his second coming as they witnessed his majesty and glory.
However the greater meaning of the verse is seen in the references in Mark and Luke where it becomes clear that he was referring to the setting up of His Kingdom on earth when the Holy Spirit was poured out after the ressurection. This took place on pentecost and by God's grace the kingdom has been growing ever since. The last time i checked some 11 of them witnessed that event (except for Judas)

Speaking about contexts, only Mark and Luke set it in a transfiguration context. Matthew does not.

See:

27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

In context, it's apparent that Matthew's intended meaning differs significantly from the others (what's new?). In Matthew we see that rather than a leaving the author has Jesus coming back: "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory" and "before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Matt 24:32-34
“Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34 “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away
its very clear - when this verse is read in context - what it means. when the signs of the fig tree appear, you can tell what is about to happen ie that summer is near. Likewise, when you begin to see the signs of the last days you can tell that His coming is near. Thus, the generation that sees these signs take place will not pass away until all these things are fulfilled.

Again, speaking about contexts, the entire chapter, read and accepted in context disagrees with your interpretation. First, the chapter tells us who Jesus was talking to: "3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said," That establishes Jesus' subject.

Second, their question and Jesus' reply in context show that Jesus wasn't referring to some generic, out there somewhere generation, he was talking directly to them:

"when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you.

Finally, the much discussed part, "34 I tell you the truth, this generation, " confirms that Jesus was indeed talkimg to his disciples. It would have been just as easy for the author to have had Jesus saying the equivalent of "the generation that sees those things, "; instead, the author has Jesus saying "this generation" as in the generation we're currently in as I live and breathe.

May GOd open your eyes so that you can know the TRUTH.

I suspect you mean truth in the Orwellian 1984 sense.

Jesus died to save you from your sins and yourself. God bless.

Blessings all around.

Wicca and witchcraft: http://www.wicca.com/celtic/wicca/wicca.htm

Doesn't seem exclusive to Africa.

Now that we've established that hell is like a lake of fire or something, and, I'm assuming, people will be cast there for like eternity, can somebody explain how that doesn't contradict the idea of love, especially in an apparently omniscient being?

ricadelide:
@doubters,
it is no wonder that some people will refuse to heed the TRUTH. the same bible you quoted from above has explained in 2Pet.3.9 that 'God is not slack in fulfilling his promise', but of course you have hardened your heart and refuse to heed

You say hardening of heart, I say honesty.

Is it not the same GOd who prophesised the first coming of Christ as the Messiah? Sure He is.

I'm pretty certain that no God prophesied the coming of any Christs or Messiahs.

And definitely He will fulfil His word in His time. No one knows the day or the hour, but one thing we know, we are not in the dark lest the Day come upon us as a surprise. but for those in the dark,,,,,He will come as a theif in the night (ie unexpectedly)

Many things have been prophesised to take place first before He comes. they have already started taking place, first the jews were restored to Isreal, now we see before our eyes as many of the other prophesies in Matt 24 and other scriptures are being fulfilled.

Dude, take up with the people that decided to break the rules of prophesying (never even give a hint of exactness. That way, given enough time, future generations can adapt your words to their time). They decided to include things like: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." not knowing that not only would their generation pass away, but hundreds would as well. Just as well they aren't aware, eh?

pilgrim.1:
2 Pet. 3:9 -- The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Most Jews who take the reformed Judaistic view or interpretation of Scripture will deny just about anything. So it is no wonder that one finds such statements as the one you quoted. In like manner, the Bible speaks of something that would happen "quickly" following the disobedience of the Jews:

Deut. 28:20 -- "The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me."

Question: did the Jews not forake God in wicked doings? And did He not make good His warning to them? If He did, was Deut. 28:20 a failed prophecy because the "quickly" did not happen as man counts quickly??

Anyone who has a good knowledge of Biblical history, especially of the Jews, should know that the word "quickly" does not mean the same thing as instantaneous even in Jewish understanding. Rev. 22:20 stands as it is; and Jews who deny that can be forgiven for not even understanding the meaning of the same word "quickly" in their own Scripture.

The trouble with practising prophecy is you can't get it alll right. Then again, who needs to get it all right when apologists can postdict and change the definitions of choice words. Ah! Michel de Nostredame did pick the right profession afterall.

Anyway, when you remember there were other prophecies like:

Matthew 16
8 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom


and:

Matthew 24
29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


It sort of becomes a bit more difficult to honestly use the tired the word doesn't mean what it usually does argument - in my opinion.

Is Jesus Coming Back Again?

No. It is appointed for man to die once; after that, no judgement.

goodguy:
@ uzygirl

I'm not exactly sure whether this is the case. For the ships, I believe they normally take a detour; while the planes, I believe, normally move to a much more higher altitude whenever they get to that region.

Do you have any evidence that any of that happens?

@ lafile

If there's nothing 'special' about it, there won't be so much hype over it. Maybe you should read these parts again:

I knew a lady from Loch Ness, she said, "hey, what's the big deal with your serpent, anyway?" I replied, as only I could reply, "everyone's made a fuss about it. Ain't it obvious I have a large and unusual one?"

# The Bermuda Triangle, also known as the Devil's Triangle, is an area of the north Atlantic Ocean where it is popularly believed a significant number of ships and aircraft have disappeared under highly unusual circumstances. It has become popular through its representation by mass media as an area of paranormal activity where the known laws of physics are violated.

# The area known as the Bermuda Triangle is one of the two places on Earth where a magnetic compass does point towards true north, a phenomenon called compass variation.

# Additionally, readings on directional devices do not operate normally inside the triangle.

. . . and many more.

The number of wrecks in this area is not extraordinary, given its size, location and the amount of traffic it receives. Many of the ships and planes that have been identified as having disappeared mysteriously in the Bermuda Triangle were not in the Bermuda Triangle at all. Investigations to date have not produced scientific evidence of any unusual phenomena involved in the disappearances. Thus, any explanation, including so-called scientific ones in terms of methane gas being released from the ocean floor, magnetic disturbances, etc., are not needed. The real mystery is how the Bermuda Triangle became a mystery at all.

The modern legend of the Bermuda Triangle began soon after five Navy planes [Flight 19] vanished on a training mission during a severe storm in 1945. The most logical theory as to why they vanished is that lead pilot Lt. Charles Taylor’s compass failed. The trainees' planes were not equipped with working navigational instruments. The group was disoriented and simply, though tragically, ran out of fuel. No mysterious forces were likely to have been involved other than the mysterious force of gravity on planes with no fuel. It is true that one of the rescue planes blew up shortly after take-off, but this was likely due to a faulty gas tank rather than to any mysterious forces.

http://skepdic.com/bermuda.html

I suggest you do some research on the Bermuda Triangle to know what makes it really 'special'.

Regards.

Research?

aproko.com:
KAG, sorry oh, but wetin jesus wear that time?na trouser abi na jalabiya??

Manly, manly clothes.

the bible should not be interpreted literalily all the time.

Why not?

sometimes you need to dig deep to find out what the bible is trying to tell us.if the girl doesnt want to wear trouser because she thinks its a sin either against God or her boyfriend, then let her wear all the mini skirts in the world.its her choice and she alone bears responsibility for her choices. no need fighting over something that petty.

The petty something is enough to send you to an eternity of torture. It makes sense.

Can God Ever Make Mistakes?

Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground."

Ivvie:
The wicked shall be turned to hell and the nations that forget God. The fact every one does something does not mean it is right. The Lord will not hold back putting a whole nation to hell. Exodus makes it clear that you should not follow the multitude to do evil. Trousers on women is what a Christian calls wickedness and abomination.

Exactly! It's funny how people somehow assume that just because God is love he wouldn't paradoxically throw them all into hell for wickedness and abominations like women deigning to wear trousers.

These couldn't be done 50 years ago. The more reason why divorce is flourishing without bounds or limits.
Plus, negative spirits encircle any human that cross dresses. It's also a turn-off in the physical realm too. The reason men don't complain is because most have learnt to embrace pervesion (perverts). The Psalmist said "Lord, incline not my heart to practice iniquity." It's unlady-like to be in trousers.

To be fair, I think that's why the devil and his cohorts fiddled with the climate: to encourage people to cross-dress. Some have complained about the cold; I say if Jesus could have borne his cross like a man, then it's a small price for a woman to bear the cold like a man - a amn that wears skirts, only that would be an abomination, but you get the point.

Mini Skirts - If you know the history to this, any decent girl wouldn't be caught in this circle. A child of the devil started this in the late of '55 which ushered in the swinging sixties.

Next thing you know humans are suffering from stds and AIDs, yet some want to blame God for them not knowing that it was all started by the mini skirt.

The worst so far is women wearing boxer-briefs (boxer shorts). This is so un-called for. Sin starts from something small and blows out of proportion when appreciated.

I agree. I knew a woman who said there was nothing wrong with wearing men's boxers shorts; now, she's a lawyer and an atheist.

romeo:


talk some sense and stop deceiving people here,

I guess it wasn't a meta-physical question, then.

just qoute the verse for me and tell me how u expect them to survive the weather

Deuteronomy 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

How do I expect who to survive the weather?

romeo:
are u sure you are in london??

Is that like a meta-physical question or something? You know, like: "are we really here, or are we like the bacteria in a giant's toe-nail scab?" or "is the moon still made of cheese when you stop looking at it?"

busygirl:
@ KAG, LMAO at your post. You're in london and you call wearing trouser a sin.

It's only a sin if a woman wears trousers.

_{that's strange} because the weather here is rather harsh, and most people don't wear skirts because of this. Even pastor's wives do wear trousers.

The wives of some pastors steal from the collection plate too, that doesn't mean we should.

As for me, I haven't seen anywhere in the bible that said "thou shall not wear trouser" I think religion has nothing to do with this, It's individual differences that arise.

It says women shouldn't waer the apparels of men, and since the trousers were made for men -

stimulus:
Hi @KAG,

Well, there again. I don't see the connection at all.

It's a long complicated story involving Peter Rabbit, Jesus and the Catholic church.

No, it's not. It's quite a challenge, I must admit; but then I might try and make an attempt sometime soon.

Cheers.

Better you than me - I gave up at the start.

They are both sins, because it's clear that God wants us to understand that the clothes we - humans - wear can defile us, and the terrible crime of wearing the wrong clothes can condemn you to an eternity of suffering. Think on it, pray on it, don't end up in hell for something so small - from our perspective.

stimulus:
Hi @all,

There's no need for anyone to be offended. It's either we as Christians take the challenge or leave it (1 Pet. 3:15-16). At the end of the day, even where answers are offered, no one is compelled to abide by any answers - nor even any challenge for that matter.

Exactly! When the challenge to find the connection between Jesus' story and the Easter bunny and Egg was given out, South Park rose to the occasion with grace; others decided to leave it be. At the end of the day, everyone had a laugh and shared some hugs.

Personally, I believe that the Lord Jesus said He would rise from the dead on the third day (Mark 9:31) - and that for me makes all the difference.

Cheers.

But is saying the same as doing?

babyosisi:
read the gospels and find out.

I read the Gospels, I didn't find out.

find some other hobby.

Who has the time?

monshege:
what are yu trying to prove?






whats your point?

Me? Nothing. Nothing at all.

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone

misright:
[s]The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of Biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. (I go some stuff proving evolution is false and impossible). The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory instead of a law.[/s]

Wrong. all wrong.

Evolutionists have never found the missing links. Each time they annouce finding one it is later proven to be false. They claim sciencetific support when none exists.

Missing link for what?

Don't believe your biology science text book. Biologiests keep revising science taht was supposed to be scienctifically fact.

Yeah, not being dogmatic is a terrible thing. By the way, the fact hasn't been changed

Why would you believe evolution when it ahs many errors?

Why would you expect anyone to believe your post when it has many errors? Not that the two are analogous.

stimulus:
@KAG,

I'll simply offer you one thing so we don't argue like kids. The Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 9:6 points to the Messiah - as affirmed by the weblink you offered. Anyone reading the article there would not miss it. However you try to read it, the Incarnation is undeniably there in that verse - 'Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given' - and that makes all the difference as to whom that verse was pointing to: none other than the Messiah. I introduced nothing of my own in calling your attention once and again to the article on your weblink; and it is inconsequential that you're pretending it isn't there.

I guess we've moved on from the presentation of and debate on Old Testament writers that equated the son of God with God. So, is it possible that Isaiah was prophesying a messiah? Yes, I'd say it's a strong possibility; however, and this is just me returning briefly to the early point, the author wasn't equating the messiah with YHVH.

By the way, I wasn't pretending the argument presented in the article wasn't there, I was simply disregarding it because the article itself was tangential to the discussion on whether the Jewish interpretation of the verse supported the deification of the "prophesied" person.

There is no way one could intelligently flaw an interpretation without an alternative understanding of the subject in question. That you argue with the analogy of echoes confirms that you, at least, would know 'vaguely what echoes are.' One cannot claim to have 'no idea' about a subject and at the same time try to flaw the views of others.

Like I pointed out I know what the words mean - hence the similarity with a vague understanding of echoes - but I can't interprete the text as a whole. I'll try to give a better analogy using a text, when I can.

stimulus:
@KAG,

The very same thing you assumed about my post.

It wasn't an assumption, and again you didn't answer my questions.

Whichever is the reading, the whole premise was that Isaiah 9:6 was about the Messiah.

And I've always had to call your attention back to the very same point - that the verse, even in Jewish understanding, is actually about the Messiah.

It actually makes all the difference.

For crying out loud, it doesn't really matter whether the verse is messianic or not, what matters is this part: “The Mighty God is planning grace", based especially on the first question you asked: who was the prophet Isaiah referring to by the name "The mighty God"? The answer is and has always being YHVH.

Again, my response was a direct answer to your initial query - that Isaiah 9:6 was referring to the Messiah which in that verse is called 'the Mighty God'. I did not refer you to a Midrash; rather, the weblink you provided actually confirmed the very same thing offered in my rejoinder without any detractions.

This is getting tiring, so I'll just ask that you read the line of discussion again.

Which is which? That it could be 'anything' isn't saying anything at all.

It's offering you a range of what it could be.

No matter how many times you dribble round it, the Jewish interpretation points to the Messiah - please go back and read your own weblink!

And no matter how much you introduce the non-sequitur, the Jewish interpretation makes it clear Isaiah wasn't equating anybody with YHVH.

I appreciate your recognition of the unnecessary stretch of this debate. However, as far as Isaiah 9:6 is concerned, even in Jewish understanding, it points to the Messiah.

And like I said, if you want to discuss "the midrashic interpretation of Isaiah, how it pertains to a messiah and how the Christian messiah failed to fulfill any possible interpretation of the verse as a prophecy, then start a new thread" I'll participate.

See, it's really a simple case, isn't it? How many times do I have to call your attention to what the website says about the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 9:6 as pointing to the Messiah? That's what the article says, and that's what I've maintained.

This is probably the first time a person I'm debating has missed the point of me posting a website I disagree with, but they would trust, simply for the evidence. Remarkably, you're still missing the point.

The Bible does not present the Trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) as separate; for throughout there's only been one LORD God known by the covenant name 'Jehovah' (or YHVH). That it is a divine mystery has not been well received by many who study the subject - in just the same way that the Incarnation of the Son is a mystery.

So when the New Testament has Jesus saying prayers like this: "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.", he was in reality praying to himself? From what I can see, they would certainly have to be separate entities for one to offer a prayer to another in the manner suggested by the text. Furthermore, to say that it's a mystery after offering some kind of an explanation really does seem contradictory.

I honestly have to admit that was my interpretation of those verses concerning the Son (not the same as 'adding' to the verse) - for that is what other texts (such as John 1:3) point out.

I see that it's your interpretation, but I don't see how you can call reading, instead of the "God made" written in the text, "God's son made" not adding to the verse. Also, you say that's what John 1:3 points out, but that's not what Genesis itself points out. Moreover, it's highly unlikely anyone before John 1:3 (and even afterwards in the Jewish community) would have read the verse that way.

While I would not really want to stretch this into a discourse on echoes, your analogy actually works out my premise. You would not be able to 'point out' the flaws of ancient Greek explanation on that unless you knew what echoes were in the first place! In the same way, it really doesn't help one's argument to state that he/she has 'no idea' about a subject in order to see the flaws in other views.

The analogy works, because like the text in question, I know what the words say in as much as I know, vaguely what echoes are. However, I can't explain how echoes are made or what they mean just like I can't explain the text; I can spot a flawed or ad hoc interpretation though.

stimulus:
@KAG,

Are you not rather crying out against your own slant?

How can I be crying against "my own slant" by responding to your slant? By the way, what's my slant?

'Still showed the Jewish interpretation of the verse' - as pointing to who else than to the Messiah?

Again, a midrashic reading of the verse isn't the debate.

What then is the 'full and right interpretation of the verse'? Incase you missed it, here again are a few lines from the same link:

That's all that needed to be said from the onset in regards to my offering Isaiah 9:6 in answer to your initial question. The Jewish understanding of that verse simply points to the Messiah.

Again, the right interpretation: "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”—"

Second, some midrashic reading of the verse can interprete the verse as a messianic verse, but of course, that isn't and hasn't been the point. The point - and I've had to keep going over it for you, again and again - is and has always been that the portion of the verse you higlighted and thought meant the messiah would be the same as YHVH actually reads (according to the Jewish interpretation of the verse): The Mighty God is planning grace.

And this again is different from the Messiah?

It makes no difference.

I don't see any detraction other than your roundabout allusion to 'Jewish interpretation' in the attempt to see someone else in that verse. Throughout I've maintained the same thing; which you now have had to admit.

Let's see:

I asked: Which prophets in the OT indicated the son of God is God?

Stimulus: who was the prophet Isaiah referring to by the name "The mighty God"?

KAG: YHVH

Stimulus: What exactly is the "Jewish" translation of Isaiah 9:6?

KAG: For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”—

Stimulus: In reference to the 'Jewish translation', who is being referred to as the Mighty God in that verse other than the Messiah?

KAG: I already told you: YHVH

As you can see, I was neither debating the implications of a midrashic reading nor was I debating any reference to a messiah. That you've decided to turn the line of discussion to whether Isaiah was predicting the messiah is a detraction.

Right then, could you please offer what in your context Zachariah 12:10 would be alluding to by the word 'pierced'?

Same question as above.

In my opinion, it could be anything from a slight to an insult.

I'm not so sure what you meant by 're-introduce' my earlier point on Isaiah 9. However, I've tried to be consistent with my position on that text; and have severally called your attention to the article on the website you offered.

You haven't been that consistent and I gave the website solely for the Jewish interpretation of the verse; stay focused.

Leaving out the midrashic reading, if it suits your argument, would the common interpretation otherwise be different from the very same thing argued all along - that it points to the Messiah?

Look, the debate is already long enough, but if you want to discuss the midrashic interpretation of Isaiah, how it pertains to a messiah and how the Christian messiah failed to fulfill any possible interpretation of the verse as a prophecy, then start a new thread. I'll participate and give my views. For now though, stay on topic.

Your honesty is quite a queer one as you've been circling round the very affirmation of the article on the website you offered. I wasn't playing 'injured party', try as much as you may have hoped so; and better luck on that if you've been snivelling on your 'irritation' and 'getting ridiculous' earlier.

Yeah, sure, pity when I posted the link I didn't say "hey, look at what the author of this article has to say on the issue of messiahship", I'm pretty sure I wrote, "see, Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 9:6", but whatever. So, are you going to answer my question, or should I just put this to another of those misses?

I'm aware the Trinity means different things to many people; but I'm not one who assumes that God consists of separate entities. In that instance I would agree with you in that last line, that the Spirit of God is not a separate spirit from or of God. He is the very same One who created the world; the distinction being one that I'm persuaded is as borne out in my earlier rejoinder: He is the agency by which creation subsists - as would be the same thing pointed out in Psa. 104:30 - 'Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.'

If the spirit isn't a seperate entity then how can there be a trinity i.e. a collection of three beings?

By that I meant to offer the role of the Son who, being the Word (or, 'Logos') brings creation into existence. It is through Him that all things were made (John 1:3).

However, the verses don't say "the son" brings creation into existence et al., it says God (as in YHVH) did the making, so simply "offering the role" is your addition.

Indeed, it is true that in some instances one may readily recognize flawed interpretations that are completely off-keyed on issues discussed. However, you can only argue the case of 'flawed' interpretations where you have an alternative one to offer for consideration; rather than stating that you have no idea! That was the simple reason why I refrained and instead offered pointers such as the word 'prophecy' in Prov. 30:4.

Actually, that's not quite true: one doesn't necessarily need an alternative to recognise a flawed interpretation of a text or issue. For example, I may not have an explanation for how echoes are produced, but I can easily point out that the explanation proffered by the ancient Greeks is flawed and wrong.