Why can't unbelievers know the truth and reality of God.

CrowCross

Well-known member
Human nature has never changed (the temptation of Adam and Eve proves that). Jesus had the same human nature you and I have.
The sin nature makes us rebellious to God. Humans have a natural tendency to sin.

Prior to the fall..not so as A&E were created very good.

God created man in His own image,...not a sinful image. Since the fall Adams progeny has been made in Adams image mixed with Gods image...the image has been smeared.
Jesus was born of a virgin and by-passed the Adam linage/image.

At the resurrection we will be raised uncorrupted...no sin nature.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
The sin nature makes us rebellious to God. Humans have a natural tendency to sin.

Prior to the fall..not so as A&E were created very good.
SO why did they fall into SIN the first chance they got?? Human nature has never changed. And HOW was Jesus "tempted in every respect as we are" (James 1:14) if He didn't have a human nature????
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
SO why did they fall into SIN the first chance they got?? Human nature has never changed. And HOW was Jesus "tempted in every respect as we are" (James 1:14) if He didn't have a human nature????
Jesus had a human nature as he was fully human. He just didn't have a human sin nature.

Why did they fall into sin? Well, just because you can sin doesn't mean you have a sin nature...all it means is you can sin.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Jesus had a human nature as he was fully human. He just didn't have a human sin nature.

Why did they fall into sin? Well, just because you can sin doesn't mean you have a sin nature...all it means is you can sin.
There's no such thing as a "Human SIN Nature" (that's just a "Theological invention"). There's just a Human Nature. If Jesus didn't have a human nature just like you and me, then He WASN'T TEMPTED IN EVERY RESPECT AS WE ARE.
 

J regia

Well-known member
Jesus had a human nature as he was fully human. He just didn't have a human sin nature.

Why did they fall into sin? Well, just because you can sin doesn't mean you have a sin nature...all it means is you can sin.
But Jesus didn't claim that he wasn't without sin (Mark 10:18). And he only claimed to be a prophet, even though his mother and her family didn't believe him (Matt 13:55-58 John 7:5).
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
But Jesus didn't claim that he wasn't without sin (Mark 10:18). And he only claimed to be a prophet, even though his mother and her family didn't believe him (Matt 13:55-58 John 7:5).
Are you REALLY that ignorant of Jesus???? If Jesus HAD SIN, then he couldn't have been the SIN OFFERING that cleanses us.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
If "reality exists independently of our minds" and "we definitely can NOT understand that reality without our mind", then how are we to know and "understand that reality" "independently of our minds" silly? Like get a grip man.
No-one is suggesting that we understand things without our minds. And you still haven't shown any contradiction in what was said.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
There's no ambiguity in regards to the ONLY way and place the truth and reality is known to occur. That ambiguity and ignorance just resides in your unbelieving mind.
You're just repeating the ambiguity. And denying it after having it repeatedly and very clearly explained to you is simply dishonest. Again, you are failing to distinguish between locating reality and locating the knowledge of reality in a mind.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
There's no such thing as a "Human SIN Nature" (that's just a "Theological invention"). There's just a Human Nature. If Jesus didn't have a human nature just like you and me, then He WASN'T TEMPTED IN EVERY RESPECT AS WE ARE.
Jesus had a human nature just like you and me...but, His nature wasn't like a filthy rag.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
No-one is suggesting that we understand things without our minds. And you still haven't shown any contradiction in what was said.

Sure you are and you are here defending just that silly.

If you "definitely can NOT understand that reality without our mind", then how are you to know and "understand that reality" "independently of our minds" silly? Your position is untenable.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Sure you are and you are here defending just that silly.

If you "definitely can NOT understand that reality without our mind", then how are you to know and "understand that reality" "independently of our minds" silly? Your position is untenable.
That's not my position. You really should make a stronger effort to understand why people disagree with you.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
You're just repeating the ambiguity. And denying it after having it repeatedly and very clearly explained to you is simply dishonest.

Strawman. I am pretty sure that the truth and reality can only be known to exist and occur in and with a believing mind. And outside of a believing mind or in a unbelieving mind the truth and reality are unknowable and has no way or place to occur.

Again, you are failing to distinguish between locating reality and locating the knowledge of reality in a mind.

"locating reality and locating the knowledge of reality in a mind" all occur in and with a believing mind silly.
Everything we know we only know to occur in and with our believing mind and outside of belief and a believing mind nothing can be known to occur.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Strawman.
No it wasn't.

I am pretty sure that the truth and reality can only be known to exist and occur in and with a believing mind. And outside of a believing mind or in a unbelieving mind the truth and reality are unknowable and has no way or place to occur.
You're repeating the ambiguity again. This is neither helpful nor constructive.

"locating reality and locating the knowledge of reality in a mind" all occur in and with a believing mind silly.
According to you. But that doesn't change the fact that these are two distinct claims with different meanings that you continue to dishonestly conflate together with deliberately ambiguous language.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
No it wasn't.

You're repeating the ambiguity again. This is neither helpful nor constructive.

According to you.

No silly, according to the truth and reality.

But that doesn't change the fact that these are two distinct claims with different meanings that you continue to dishonestly conflate together with deliberately ambiguous language.

Irrelevant. Because they can only be known to exist and occur in and with a believing mind. So my point has been made and you can't show otherwise no matter how hard you try silly.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
No silly, according to the truth and reality.

Irrelevant. Because they can only be known to exist and occur in and with a believing mind. So my point has been made and you can't show otherwise no matter how hard you try silly.
Why will no not answer this question?

Do you understand that the following two statements mean two very different things?

a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist.
b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
No it wasn't.

You're repeating the ambiguity again. This is neither helpful nor constructive.
According to you. But that doesn't change the fact that these are two distinct claims with different meanings that you continue to dishonestly conflate together with deliberately ambiguous language.

The ONLY way and place that the truth and reality can be known to occur and exist is ONLY ambiguous to unbelievers, because everyone else knows that the ONLY way and place that the truth and reality can be known to occur and exist is in and with a believing mind. And your unbelieving mind (atheism) doesn't allow you to know this truth.

Why will no not answer this question?

Do you understand that the following two statements mean two very different things?

a) only a believing mind can know that the truth and reality exist.
b) the truth and reality exist in and with a believing mind, which fact can be known.

Irrelevant, because both are ONLY knowable in and by a believing mind and in NO other way or place can the truth and reality be known to occur or exist silly.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
The ONLY way and place that the truth and reality can be known to occur and exist is ONLY ambiguous to unbelievers, because everyone else knows that the ONLY way and place that the truth and reality can be known to occur and exist is in and with a believing mind. And your unbelieving mind (atheism) doesn't allow you to know this truth.

Irrelevant, because both are ONLY knowable in and by a believing mind and in NO other way or place can the truth and reality be known to occur or exist silly.
Your language is ambiguous to everyone, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, and you are reduced to dishonestly evading our questions because you know you are wrong.
 

Algor

Active member
Your language is ambiguous to everyone, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, and you are reduced to dishonestly evading our questions because you know you are wrong.
Man, that wall has a lot of blood and hair on it. Not even dented.
 
Top