NationStates Jolt Archive

But Jesus is both fully God and fully man, so therefore your proposal doesn't hold water.

Irrelevent.

So - his 'fully god' half is not subject to chronological processes... okay...

But his 'fully human' half is.

Thus... all human, or part human... Jesus would still be bound by laws of cause and effect.

Irrelevent.

So - his 'fully god' half is not subject to chronological processes... okay...

But his 'fully human' half is.

Thus... all human, or part human... Jesus would still be bound by laws of cause and effect.

In your earlier post you admitted to the possibility that God could forgive all sins, past present and future. So, going on that, and the assuption that Jesus is God, but at the same time man, for nothing is impossible for God, then He could forgive all sins, He being God and all.

How did you get so ill-informed?

I want sources to back up all your ridiculous claims.

The Turin Shroud has long been acknowledged as a hoax, and I don't knwo who told you there was a single 'Neanderthal Man' skeleton, or that 'he' was an arthritic man?

Carbon 14 dating has an acknowledged flaw with dating marine life... it's commonly known and accepted... it doesn't suffer the same fault on non-marine items.

I want sources for your saying that the shroud is a hoax. The only way we could be absolutely sure it was a hoax or not was if some eyewitness to the burial gave testimony under oath that the shroud is fake, and then that testimony was passed down. I'll believe that, yea, but not some scientists counting molecules or making speculations on DNA, then coming to the conclusion that it must be fake because it just sounds like a crazy story.

In your earlier post you admitted to the possibility that God could forgive all sins, past present and future. So, going on that, and the assuption that Jesus is God, but at the same time man, for nothing is impossible for God, then He could forgive all sins, He being God and all.

This is true - I said as much.

But: although 'god' COULD forgive all sins; past, present and future - Jesus could not be sacrifice for those same sins... since his HUMAN form is chronologically bound... thus - the future was beyond his ability to 'experience'.

It isn't the flaw of god that stops the forgiveness being for all-time of sins... but the mortality of the human flesh that Jesus inhabited.

Also - as I pointed out... if 'god' can just forgive all sins... past, present and future... because he exists OUTSIDE of chronology.... then it makes NO SENSE to sacrifice Jesus... since 'god' would not be bound by CAUSE and EFFECT.

I want sources for your saying that the shroud is a hoax. The only way we could be absolutely sure it was a hoax or not was if some eyewitness to the burial gave testimony under oath that the shroud is fake, and then that testimony was passed down. I'll believe that, yea, but not some scientists counting molecules or making speculations on DNA, then coming to the conclusion that it must be fake because it just sounds like a crazy story.

You made the assertion first, that the Shroud is the very article from the burial of Jesus.

Thus - by debate 'rules', it is you that has to prove your claim... since I express serious doubt of the veracity of your claim.

Yet if god is the origin of everything he is also the origin of sin

Sin is the absence of Loving God. (like darkness is the absence of life)



Ghorunda, John, the beloved apostle, is not John, the gospel writer

The Bible is metaphore.

Remember what Agustine said.
To real literally is to read carnally. To read interperativly is to read spiritually.

It is folly to read any spiriutal text carnally.

I have a couple of sorta conradictions that have always puzzled me :confused: :).

The bible says God created the heavens and the earth and everything on it. That the first man was created by God in his image and all humans thereafter are decended from Adam and Eve.

If thats true (as many Christians claim) then why haven't all people from the dawn of time worshiped the Jewish/Christian/Islamic God? How come the Indians of the America's, the Australian aboriginies, the native peoples of Africa etc each have their own belief systems that have never included the God that supposedly created them? Most of the world had never heard of this God until the missionaries arrived and started forcing it into their culture, destroying their culture in the process.

The other thing is the world wide flood business. There is absolutly no evidence that Australia has ever been the victim of a flood that covered the entire continent. We did use to have an inland sea, but that dried up hundreds of thousands of years ago. So did Australia just escape the flood because it didn't happen or did God just not bother wasting water on us :D.

Adam and eve could have been a way to tell the complex story of creation to people who had no idea about science.

The flood- could be a story to make people follow the commandments. Also, could have been an annual flood in the Tigris-euphrates river valley where the rivers rose extremely high that year.


The actual historical facts do not matter. What matters is the message behind the stories.

The main thing I am challenging with the Adam and Eve story is the creation myth itself. I've read on this forum, many others, religious books and articles, heard from religious people and seen for myself when I read the bible that God created everything him/her/itself in 7 days, that Adam and Eve were the first humans and were created by God. If thats true, and the bible isn't lying or a just a book of myth (which I think it is as an atheist) then why doesn't every person in the world know and worship this one God? They should since he created them too.

I read somewhere (can't remember where or I'd link it) that the flood story is down to race memories and folk stories about the filling of the Mediterranian sea (excuse spelling). Scientists have found evidence of human habitation in some of the deepest parts of it and have put forth a theory that thousands of years ago, the opening to the Atlantic blocked off, the sea gradually dried up and people moved into the new land. They then think a massive earthquake a couple of thousand years later reopened the opening and the water rushed in. Hence the massive flood story. The fact remains however that the bible says that the whole world was flooded and most creatures perished except the ones on Noah's ark. Obviously if the flood didn't happen then neither did the ark.

The bible presents itself as fact and religions expect their followers to accept it as fact without question in most cases. I think the historical facts do matter. If not then why would anyone bother reading or believing in it.

The bible presents itself as fact and religions expect their followers to accept it as fact without question in most cases. I think the historical facts do matter. If not then why would anyone bother reading or believing in it.

Catholism doesn't take the bible as historical fact. It was written by people who thought the world was flat. To them that great flood could have been the over the whole world. They were surrounded by water on all sides as far as they could see.

Its extrtemely unlikely that the world was created in 7 24-hour periods. It could be 7 longer periods or a story made to explain a complex idea

The Bible is metaphore.

Remember what Agustine said.
To real literally is to read carnally. To read interperativly is to read spiritually.

It is folly to read any spiriutal text carnally.

That's fantastic... I love it.

The bible presents itself as fact and religions expect their followers to accept it as fact without question in most cases. I think the historical facts do matter. If not then why would anyone bother reading or believing in it.[/QUOTE]

Just to let you know that not all religions expect people to believe in the Bible as literal fact. There are spirtual lessons to be learned from the Sacred Texts of all of the worlds religions. Let me go look for a quote that might help.

Some Christians claim that the Holy Ghost descended after the resurrection of the Christ and that Christ is alluding to this. But as the Holy Ghost was always with the Christ, is this logical? Again he says, "He will guide you unto truth," he will be better for you than I. He adds, "Until I go, he cannot come." Endeavor to understand the divine words, otherwise difficulties will arise. Had the Jews understood symbology, they would have understood the Christ. The holy books are full of significance and must never be taken literally. Elijah also was expected to come from heaven, and the Christ said, "Elijah is none other than John the Baptist." The reality of John was in the supreme concourse. It is essential to have divine perception in order to see the truth, to hear the call, and obey -- liberating the hearts from all earthly attachment.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 38)

And God is limited because the Earth is the domain of Satan, and has been ever since Adam ate of the forbidden fruit. He's referred to as the "god of this world" 2Cor4:4, so God has no *legal* jurisdiction to operate beyond the willingness of the faithful. Sure, he could if he wanted, but it would go against the system he set up in the first place. God gave man dominion of the earth, and man turned it over to satan.

Do you hear how childish that argument sounds? What are ya, top mates with God or something? I can break down that whole post to "God is like a child, looking at a scary ride saying 'well I could go on it hella easy, cause I'm cool, but I just don't want to right now."

The Bible is metaphore.

Remember what Agustine said.
To real literally is to read carnally. To read interperativly is to read spiritually.

It is folly to read any spiriutal text carnally.

My interpretation of this post "Ze Bibal! She is full of sheet! But if you mould ze sheet into a pretty poo-poo sculpture you can sell her for millions!"

Perhaps... although what a day, or a thousand years have to do with it, I'm not so sure.

Since Jesus (if he existed) was neither crucified yesterday, nor a thousand years before, was he?

And, while God MAY exist outside of time (would have to, indeed), Jesus was supposed to be god incarnate - which means he would be limited by human chronology.

We KNOW this, because he lived each of his days chronologically, sequentially.

So - while 'god' could, theoretically pardon all sins, ever... Jesus could only atone for those committed before or during his coming.

Of course - it's all a nonsense anyway. If 'god' is not limited by chronology, then he wouldn't have to wait for Jesus to come... since the ACTUAL time at which Jesus arrived would be irrelevent to a deity that was outside of cause and effect.

You missed what I was trying to convey. The verse in question means that time doesn't have the same meaning to humans that it does to God. If God is outside of time, then He is not limited by linear perceptions of time. This is why, from God's perspective, Jesus can atone for all sins ever committed simultaneously because God does not view time in a linear fashion.

However humans do view time in a linear fashion, therefore God has to insert Jesus into our timeline at a point in which humanity can accept him for who he is.

You missed what I was trying to convey. The verse in question means that time doesn't have the same meaning to humans that it does to God. If God is outside of time, then He is not limited by linear perceptions of time. This is why, from God's perspective, Jesus can atone for all sins ever committed simultaneously because God does not view time in a linear fashion.

However humans do view time in a linear fashion, therefore God has to insert Jesus into our timeline at a point in which humanity can accept him for who he is.

You also missed what I was trying to convey.

If 'god' exists outside of time, he can forgive all sins of all time, future or past... BUT if 'god' exists outside of time, there is no reason why HE would need Jesus as a sacrifice - since there could be no before or after, for 'him'.

The excuse that 'god' would need to put Jesus here so HUMANS could understand is ludicrous... it entirely misses the point of 'faith', and makes no sense regarding those forgiven for sins occuring (chronologically) BEFORE Jesus.

1."The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are all over his works." [Psalms 145:9]

vs.

"Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.[...]
Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it[...]
Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger." [Isaiah 13:6, 9, and 13]

2."Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen." [Romans 15:33]

vs.

"The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name." [Exodus 15:3]

3."The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin." [2 Kings 14:6]

vs.

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" [Exodus 20:5]

4."I and my Father are one." [John 10:30]

vs.

"If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I." [John 14:28]

5."Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." [Genesis 7:2]

vs.

"Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah." [Genesis 7:8-9]

There are more.