Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

The "Love Argument" in a syllogism(s)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by TibiasDad View Post
    That is a logical fallacy! While seeking your interests instead another's is indeed an example of selfishness, it is not the only one. If there is only one person, then there is only one self to seek and it is self-seeking by default and definition. The only answer to the question "what can Godís love seek if he is the only person in existence?" is "Himself "!
    Only by your definition is love self-seeking in this case. I don't think I find the wording, "God is love", in the Tanakh because He is much more than that, nor is love defined in the Tanakh by your standards.

    Originally posted by TibiasDad View Post
    God is always the most sovereign being, but if there is nobody lesser than him, who does he rule? What does he rule over, who does he command. Kingship is a human value concept. From our perspective, God is the Eternal king. God is the Eternal Sovereign in relation to his creation.
    Focus on your words... From your perspective. I think you've assumed that God requires creation to be King, but the word Eternal doesn't mean that. It's from before time as well.


    Originally posted by TibiasDad View Post
    In eternity past, before there was anything other than God, there was nothing to be King of other than himself. So he was the most powerful and sovereign being, because he was the only being. Saying God is עוֹלָם, is pragmatically eternal, a for as long as can be practically known statement. As long as there has been something to rule over, he has been the Sovereign King!

    Perhaps this has run its course for now. I honestly thank you for the discussion. I have learned a great deal.

    Shalom,


    Doug
    The term king, melech, in the Hebrew denotes not just rulership, but also the intellectual head. So, you can see how this applies in this case.

    Yep, this has run its course.

    Alechem Shalom

    Gumby
    Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. Leo Tolstoy

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gumby View Post
      God created from the non-physical. Jesus dual-nature is based on the physical. Major change. it's funny how you run away from answering if God really came in the flesh. Well, did he?


      Big time. One YHWH, One God, and you say there are multiple people that are YHWH and God.


      The son is not the Father, remember? You've already admitted the son of man is not the Ancient of Days.


      Actually not. That was an insert and not his own words. The heavens and the earth are still here, so Torah still applies. Are you going for another liberal reply?


      Jesus is not God. It's simple. He's created.


      Yes, creation comes from God. And since God created from nothing, He's always been Creator. Follow?


      Who said Jesus loved on par with God? Jesus didn't create anything. The Tanakh points to the Father exclusively.


      He doesn't have a physical form, Deut 4:9,12. Preincarnation is a joke. Have you studied the different words for form, image, and what they mean? Jesus wasn't perfect as he is limited in knowledge, space, etc.


      He also said we can be one with them.


      A false god is one that takes physical shape, vailed, covered with something. That is Jesus, and the Church created him. Your own words shoot you down.

      We're not to make gods of anything in heaven, earth, the seas, man or woman, animals, etc. You've made a man into a god.

      Daniel 2:11
      And it is a hard thing that the king asketh, and there is none other that can declare it before the king, except the God, whose dwelling is not with flesh.


      covering, molten image, vail

      From nacak; properly, a pouring over, i.e. Fusion of metal (especially a cast image); by implication, a libation, i.e. League; concretely a coverlet (as if poured out) -- covering, molten (image), vail.

      see HEBREW nacak
      A false god is one that takes physical shape, vailed, covered with something. That is Jesus, and the Church created him. Your own words shoot you down.

      A false god is a god that does not actually exist. The distinguishing factor that God gives regarding himself and other "gods", is that he is: I Am! v.s they are not.

      "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." ( Isa 43:10)

      ​​​​​​​Doug
      Dare to be Gracious

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TibiasDad View Post

        A false god is one that takes physical shape, vailed, covered with something. That is Jesus, and the Church created him. Your own words shoot you down.

        A false god is a god that does not actually exist. The distinguishing factor that God gives regarding himself and other "gods", is that he is: I Am! v.s they are not.

        "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." ( Isa 43:10)

        Doug
        NO SUCH THING as "I YAM," Popeye.

        "I will be that/which I will be," SIR. Jesus said "Before Abraham existed, I was." In the JEWISH view of preexistence, sir. And what WAS Jesus? The Messiah sir?
        Shema will change the Christian World.

        Turn it upside down. To where it once was, the POV of JESUS, his DISCIPLES and his SERVANTS.

        Know God YHWH Elohim is One. And love Him with all. Mk 12, red letter words.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TibiasDad View Post

          A false god is one that takes physical shape, vailed, covered with something. That is Jesus, and the Church created him. Your own words shoot you down.

          A false god is a god that does not actually exist. The distinguishing factor that God gives regarding himself and other "gods", is that he is: I Am! v.s they are not.

          "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." ( Isa 43:10)

          ​​​​​​​Doug
          False gods, represented in the form of idols, are not real. Jesus as a god of flesh took form, after YHWH.

          You're right, Jesus is not The God.
          Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. Leo Tolstoy

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gumby View Post
            False gods, represented in the form of idols, are not real. Jesus as a god of flesh took form, after YHWH.

            You're right, Jesus is not The God.
            No god is real except Yahweh because no god exists or ever existed or will ever exist besides Yahweh. That is the primary reason for the prohibition of images and idols as objects of worship or representative of a supposedly real deity. False godís, be they represented by an idol or just in rhetoric, are not really existent and that is Godís measure of falsity. He exists to act, and false gods don't.

            The personality that became the physical man, Jesus, has always existed. The form is not the issue, it is whether existence is real or not. "In the beginning was the Word", that is to say, in the beginning the Word was already existent. That he assumes a physical form does not diminish his already being existent before creation, and thus, uncreated and eternal in being. Jesus is not a god of flesh, but God in flesh. There is a huge difference. He is a spirit being that inhabited flesh. He is not fleshy in his nature of existence, thus not a "god of flesh".


            Doug


            ​​​​​​
            Dare to be Gracious

            Comment


            • Originally posted by nothead View Post

              NO SUCH THING as "I YAM," Popeye.

              "I will be that/which I will be," SIR. Jesus said "Before Abraham existed, I was." In the JEWISH view of preexistence, sir. And what WAS Jesus? The Messiah sir?
              And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you. (LXX Exodus 3:14)

              I am = ego eimi which is precisely what Jesus said in John 8:58. Ego eimi is the first person, singular, present tense, indicative, active of the intransitive verb to be, or as it was termed in my early schooling, the state of being verb. So the Greek texts of both references use the present tense, not the past, or imperfect tense. Thus, there is an "I yam".

              Doug
              Dare to be Gracious

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TibiasDad View Post

                No god is real except Yahweh because no god exists or ever existed or will ever exist besides Yahweh. That is the primary reason for the prohibition of images and idols as objects of worship or representative of a supposedly real deity. False god’s, be they represented by an idol or just in rhetoric, are not really existent and that is God’s measure of falsity. He exists to act, and false gods don't.

                The personality that became the physical man, Jesus, has always existed. The form is not the issue, it is whether existence is real or not. "In the beginning was the Word", that is to say, in the beginning the Word was already existent. That he assumes a physical form does not diminish his already being existent before creation, and thus, uncreated and eternal in being. Jesus is not a god of flesh, but God in flesh. There is a huge difference. He is a spirit being that inhabited flesh. He is not fleshy in his nature of existence, thus not a "god of flesh".


                Doug


                ​​​​​​
                Tanakh doesnt teach the spoken word of God is a person.

                Taking form in the flesh is a creation. There's no way around that.

                Daniel 2:11
                And it is a hard thing that the king asketh, and there is none other that can declare it before the king, except the God, whose dwelling is not with flesh.
                Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. Leo Tolstoy

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gumby View Post
                  Tanakh doesnt teach the spoken word of God is a person.

                  Taking form in the flesh is a creation. There's no way around that.

                  Daniel 2:11
                  And it is a hard thing that the king asketh, and there is none other that can declare it before the king, except the God, whose dwelling is not with flesh.
                  1) You presuppose that the traditional Jewish interpretation is the only possible meaning.

                  2) God certainly takes the form of a man with Abraham. Besides, God can do anything he wants to do that doesn't deny his holiness of character.

                  3) Daniel 2:11 is the reply of the pagan astrologers referring to their various deities, not Yahweh. And they are asserting that these gods do not live with humans so as to be called to come and interpret the dreams as they, the astrologers had been. It doesn't say anything about whether God can or ever would live among men.

                  4) Taking on the form of flesh is not being created. It is an adaptation of his primary form of existence to an additional form of existence. It is a preposterous notion that God is incapable of appearing or manifesting himself as another type of creature. Was not Satan capable of taking the form of a serpent to tempt Eve? Is Satan's capacity to adapt his spirit nature to a physical form something that God doesn't have? Can God give the ability of such a feat of he himself doesn't have that capacity? Do not demonic spirits inhabit human bodies? Is this then impossible for the one who initially created these once angelic beings?


                  Doug
                  Dare to be Gracious

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TibiasDad View Post
                    1) You presuppose that the traditional Jewish interpretation is the only possible meaning.
                    No different than you propsing the Christian view is correct. The difference is that the historical and traditional view is Judaism, and no evidence has been presented that that view changed during the 2nd temple period or that the prophets had changed their words or stance.

                    Originally posted by TibiasDad View Post
                    2) God certainly takes the form of a man with Abraham. Besides, God can do anything he wants to do that doesn't deny his holiness of character.
                    No, God can't do whatever He wants. He can't contradict logic, and Himself. The infinite doesn't fit in a body, and that's what Christianity wants to do. It contradicts logic. I've explained several times based on Exodus 33:14-23, Numbers 6:24-26, Deut 4:9,12, Isaiah 38:17, Isaiah 40:18,25, that what we see is a revelation of God's blessings, and this is His appearance, as it is clear that God has no physical form, nor can take in physical form, such of that of man, blood, or similar physical likeness. Holiness is perfectly separate at its core, and being man is far from being separate.

                    It's clear that we can't see God's face, presence, and live. This would apply even to all members of your godhead.

                    If He doesn't fit, then your idea ain't legit.

                    Originally posted by TibiasDad View Post
                    3) Daniel 2:11 is the reply of the pagan astrologers referring to their various deities, not Yahweh. And they are asserting that these gods do not live with humans so as to be called to come and interpret the dreams as they, the astrologers had been. It doesn't say anything about whether God can or ever would live among men.
                    The Babylonians had Daniel in their midst for some time, and would have been influenced by him and other Jews. The fact is God doesn't live physically in men. You'd have to show that is physically possible for a Being that has no physical attributes.

                    Originally posted by TibiasDad View Post
                    4) Taking on the form of flesh is not being created. It is an adaptation of his primary form of existence to an additional form of existence. It is a preposterous notion that God is incapable of appearing or manifesting himself as another type of creature. Was not Satan capable of taking the form of a serpent to tempt Eve? Is Satan's capacity to adapt his spirit nature to a physical form something that God doesn't have? Can God give the ability of such a feat of he himself doesn't have that capacity? Do not demonic spirits inhabit human bodies? Is this then impossible for the one who initially created these once angelic beings?

                    Doug
                    I love the way you contradict yourself. Adaptation is a change. Angels are created beings, forces.

                    My understanding of angels, Satan, is much different than yours. You assume the serpent is Satan. Satan just means adversary in Hebrew. The angel of death, Satan, and our evil inclination, impulses, are all the same thing. We are our Satan, we are the cause of our death, we cause ourselves to sin. That is the metaphor in the garden. But, none of this really matters.

                    You havent bothered looking at what I gave drewd4d.
                    Last edited by Gumby; 02-22-19, 07:09 AM.
                    Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. Leo Tolstoy

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TibiasDad View Post

                      And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you. (LXX Exodus 3:14)

                      I am = ego eimi which is precisely what Jesus said in John 8:58. Ego eimi is the first person, singular, present tense, indicative, active of the intransitive verb to be, or as it was termed in my early schooling, the state of being verb. So the Greek texts of both references use the present tense, not the past, or imperfect tense. Thus, there is an "I yam".

                      Doug
                      Yes, just like Moses, Jesus was trying to say I AM has sent me to you.

                      This falls in line with Jesus saying throughout that the Father sent him.
                      Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. Leo Tolstoy

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gumby View Post
                        Mal 3:6 For I the LORD change not; And ye, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8138.htm.

                        Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
                        do speak, strike again, alter, double, be given to change, disguise, be diverse, pervert,

                        A primitive root; to fold, i.e. Duplicate (literally or figuratively); by implication, to transmute (transitive or intransitive) -- do (speak, strike) again, alter, double (like in natures), (be given to) change, disguise (like in the flesh), (be) diverse, pervert, prefer, repeat, return, do the second time.


                        Everything contained in flesh is limited. So is your idea of Jesus. His life proves it. To be in something means physicality. To be clear, nothing about Jesus is eternal.

                        Did you read Daniel 2:11?
                        And it is a hard thing that the king asketh, and there is none other that can declare it before the king, except the God, whose dwelling is not with flesh.


                        Actually not, because I've shown you already Avi Ad means "My Father is Eternal", http://biblehub.net/searchhebrew.php?q=my+father. So, it is clearly something other than what you think.

                        And you've conceded that the Ancient of Days is the Father, which supports the understanding above.


                        It's a made up statement, and would show Jesus to be a law breaker and teacher of unrighteousness to teach this to others. Till heave and earth... Jesus didn't fulfill all. The law of Kings, Deut 17:14-20, comes to mind.

                        The law is still kept even with the temple destroyed. It is discussed what would be the result of disobedience in Deut 28, and Lev 26, and how the payment for our iniquity is the suffering and dispersion that we've experienced.

                        So, you need to study some more.


                        Begotten is created, born today. Jesus is a man. Any add-on to a nature is a change in nature.


                        Focus... The basis of creation is the non-physical which was used to make the physical. So, creation started from the non-physical source. So, God has always created. He's not dependent on physical creation.

                        Come out of Babylon, drewd4d...


                        For humans.


                        The revelation showed God has no physical form, and we are commanded to teach this to our children, It's pretty cut-and-dry. There is no term "God the Son" in either the Tanakh or NT. Are you being liberal in your interpretation again?


                        Jesus didn't say so. Big difference.


                        There's no mention of a divine son. More liberal interpretations from you. Idolatry encompasses at it's base any association of God with a physical form, be it money, idols, people, etc.

                        The verses are clear that idolatry involves a god with a vail of any form. It definitely applies to your faith.

                        Study some more, https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4541.htm,

                        Deut 4:15
                        So since you saw no form of any kind on the day the LORD spoke to you out of the fire at Horeb, be careful that you do not act corruptly and make an idol for yourselves of any form or shape, whether in the likeness of a male or female, of any beast on the earth or bird that flies in the air, or of any creature that crawls on the ground or fish in the waters below.

                        Isaiah 40:25
                        To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One. https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1819.htm. Damah the root for blood, adam/man, any comparisons to the physical. Basically this is all that you and your religion have done.

                        Come out of Babylon, drewd4d...
                        Ok. We're spinning wheels here. I'll address the main points one more time and let you have the last word unless something new is brought up or get back to the OP.

                        1) I did come out of Babylon, into Trinitarianism. Did you read Daniel 2:11? It's the words of the Chaldeans to Nebuchadnezzar about his dream. They aren't talking about YHWH, whom they rejected. Again, nothing to do with Christianity.

                        2) The parenthetical statement in Mark 7:19 is a divine commentary on Jesus' words. By saying that nothing that comes into a man makes him unclean, He is saying that no particular foods are inherently bad. He is not giving license to not eat kosher because He kept the dietary laws up until His death.

                        3) When it comes to Matthew 5, you just aren't understanding. Heaven and earth didn't pass away before Jesus completed the law, and now, all is accomplished. Jesus said, "It is finished." Therefore, all is fulfilled. The veil was torn and the holy of holiness was exposed, ending the ceremonial law and the sacrificial system. Plenty of jots and tittles aren't being done, and it's actually a good thing.

                        4) It is your opinion that the Son's becoming flesh is a change. I say it is not. Some atheists would say that an eternal God doing something temporal, like creating, demonstrates a change. I say it is not. God can do two things at once, like, being outside of time and space while interacting with creation within it. With God, all things are possible.

                        5) Your point about idols is utterly moot. The incarnation of the Son is a work of God, not man. Again, the Trinitarian theology of the church is not comparable with Israel making a golden calf or their syncretism with the Canaanites by making and worshipping false gods. No comparison at all.

                        Lastly, you are a super smart guy and I very much enjoy our dialogue. I hope I haven't come across as trying to be offensive. It's all in the spirit of, and love for the truth.
                        Last edited by Mod8; 02-22-19, 02:52 PM.

                        Comment


                        • You are permitted ONLY 2 links per post, and going over the limit caused the software to hiccough. I only give a warning for one post because the original posts "disappeared."

                          Post again, but delete ALL the URLs

                          My post disappeared / Getting warnings about too many URLs

                          Those things happen because the software hiccoughs if there are too many URLs in a post, irrespective of the source.or subject. Therefore if you make several references to Scripture, and that Scripture has a link embedded in it, most likely your post will "disappear".

                          After you post that URL-laden post, you cannot see it, and your work seems gone , but not for the mods. We see them, and have to edit them, sometimes deleting an entire post as a matter of convenience.And a service to you, we tell you to post again, but without the URLs attached.

                          How do you re-post /correct something with too many URLs?. Follow these steps:
                          1. On the top right of the ribbon bar you will see 3 icons . The one in the middle with the capital A opens the Advanced Editor. Tap on it
                          2. From the right count FIVE groups . In that fifth group, there are two icons on the left side looking like chain links The link with the x subscript is the icon you need.
                          3. Highlight the entire text of your post or a part that you you knows URLs, and then tap on the link with the subscript x
                          4. To paraphrase the philosopher Marie Osmond, "Bye bye stubborn URLs!"
                          Last edited by Mod8; 02-22-19, 02:50 PM.

                          Comment


                          • You are permitted ONLY 2 links per post, and going over the limit caused the software to hiccough. I only give a warning for one post because the original posts "disappeared."

                            Post again, but delete ALL the URLs

                            My post disappeared / Getting warnings about too many URLs

                            Those things happen because the software hiccoughs if there are too many URLs in a post, irrespective of the source.or subject. Therefore if you make several references to Scripture, and that Scripture has a link embedded in it, most likely your post will "disappear".

                            After you post that URL-laden post, you cannot see it, and your work seems gone , but not for the mods. We see them, and have to edit them, sometimes deleting an entire post as a matter of convenience.And a service to you, we tell you to post again, but without the URLs attached.

                            How do you re-post /correct something with too many URLs?. Follow these steps:
                            1. On the top right of the ribbon bar you will see 3 icons . The one in the middle with the capital A opens the Advanced Editor. Tap on it
                            2. From the right count FIVE groups . In that fifth group, there are two icons on the left side looking like chain links The link with the x subscript is the icon you need.
                            3. Highlight the entire text of your post or a part that you you knows URLs, and then tap on the link with the subscript x
                            4. To paraphrase the philosopher Marie Osmond, "Bye bye stubborn URLs!"
                            Last edited by Mod8; 02-22-19, 02:51 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gumby View Post
                              No different than you propsing the Christian view is correct. The difference is that the historical and traditional view is Judaism, and no evidence has been presented that that view changed during the 2nd temple period or that the prophets had changed their words or stance.


                              No, God can't do whatever He wants. He can't contradict logic, and Himself. The infinite doesn't fit in a body, and that's what Christianity wants to do. It contradicts logic. I've explained several times based on Exodus 33:14-23, Numbers 6:24-26, Deut 4:9,12, Isaiah 38:17, Isaiah 40:18,25, that what we see is a revelation of God's blessings, and this is His appearance, as it is clear that God has no physical form, nor can take in physical form, such of that of man, blood, or similar physical likeness. Holiness is perfectly separate at its core, and being man is far from being separate.

                              It's clear that we can't see God's face, presence, and live. This would apply even to all members of your godhead.

                              If He doesn't fit, then your idea ain't legit.


                              The Babylonians had Daniel in their midst for some time, and would have been influenced by him and other Jews. The fact is God doesn't live physically in men. You'd have to show that is physically possible for a Being that has no physical attributes.


                              I love the way you contradict yourself. Adaptation is a change. Angels are created beings, forces.

                              My understanding of angels, Satan, is much different than yours. You assume the serpent is Satan. Satan just means adversary in Hebrew. The angel of death, Satan, and our evil inclination, impulses, are all the same thing. We are our Satan, we are the cause of our death, we cause ourselves to sin. That is the metaphor in the garden. But, none of this really matters.

                              You havent bothered looking at what I gave drewd4d.
                              Adaptation is only a change of circumstance, not a change of essential nature of existence. The Word becoming flesh does not change, not can it change his nature of being. He self-limits his abilities to rely, as all humans must, on God’s power and abilities.

                              Regarding Dan 2:11, the twenty-some versions at biblehub all relate plural gods, including the JPS Tanakh, 1917 version. The only exception is the Jubilee 2000 version, which has "angels of God" which is a plurality in itself. And the astrologers said that they don't dwell with man, as in , don't love on earth like men, and thus cannot be summoned to the King for consultation.

                              There is nothing illogical about and infinite resource adapting to a finite situations. Again, self-limitation does not equate to a cessation of capacity. We, as adult parents, have to limit the way we function when dealing with much younger children. We have to speaking in their language to a certain extent and not use the fullness of our vocabulary to get the point across. If we go to the doctor and they use doctor-speak to tell us what's wrong, it is not generally helpful to their patients. Finger bones instead of philanges goes a long way to being clear and understandable. Are doctors less knowledgeable because they choose to use only a certain extent of their knowledge in any given situation? Neither is God by adapting to human limitations.

                              Again, if evil spirits, demons, can indwell human form, why can't God?

                              Doug
                              Dare to be Gracious

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TibiasDad View Post
                                Adaptation is only a change of circumstance, not a change of essential nature of existence. The Word becoming flesh does not change, not can it change his nature of being. He self-limits his abilities to rely, as all humans must, on Godís power and abilities.
                                I've shown that adding a nature is a change. The spoken word became all that was created as shown in Genesis. There is no concept in Tanakh of the spoken word of God, dabar, being a person. You misunderstand what John is trying to relate, if it's truly a Jewish book.

                                You didn't really have a comeback for the verses I gave you.

                                Originally posted by TibiasDad View Post
                                Regarding Dan 2:11, the twenty-some versions at biblehub all relate plural gods, including the JPS Tanakh, 1917 version. The only exception is the Jubilee 2000 version, which has "angels of God" which is a plurality in itself. And the astrologers said that they don't dwell with man, as in , don't love on earth like men, and thus cannot be summoned to the King for consultation.
                                That's nice, but that doesn't mean that elohin, the Aramaic counterpart of the Hebrew elohim, cannot be understood as God. God doesn't dwell on earth as He is not physical. Only the physical can dwell somewhere.

                                Originally posted by TibiasDad View Post
                                There is nothing illogical about and infinite resource adapting to a finite situations.
                                Since the infinite, God, has no physical properties, how do you propose to prove that? What physical properties does God have to be finite?

                                Originally posted by TibiasDad View Post
                                Again, self-limitation does not equate to a cessation of capacity. We, as adult parents, have to limit the way we function when dealing with much younger children. We have to speaking in their language to a certain extent and not use the fullness of our vocabulary to get the point across. If we go to the doctor and they use doctor-speak to tell us what's wrong, it is not generally helpful to their patients. Finger bones instead of philanges goes a long way to being clear and understandable. Are doctors less knowledgeable because they choose to use only a certain extent of their knowledge in any given situation? Neither is God by adapting to human limitations.
                                You're talking about physical examples, as even a human's knowledge is limited by the amount of info that can be stored in his/her brain.

                                Originally posted by TibiasDad View Post
                                Again, if evil spirits, demons, can indwell human form, why can't God?

                                Doug
                                Who says they do? The ancient world didn't understand mental illnesses the way we do today.

                                A genie can be trapped in a bottle because it's physical.

                                Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. Leo Tolstoy

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X