Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26

[Davros of Skaro]

Seriously, what are you trying to say here because I simply don't get it, a little clarity in your argument would help us all...

The bible is quite clear as to the shared cosmology of the Ancient Near East, only a person unfamiliar with that History would be surprised.

Just watch the video, or does your thought police imaginary friend does not allow you to, then do not watch it.

I am very clear, and provided evidence for that the Old Testament is written by men born out of polytheistic much earlier cultures.

[Jor-el]

Just watch the video, or does your thought police imaginary friend does not allow you to, then do not watch it.

I am very clear, and provided evidence for that the Old Testament is written by men born out of polytheistic much earlier cultures.

Oh, is that all?

Thank you for that old news. The bible is quite clear that other gods do exist, but the correct term you are seeking is not polytheism, but rather henotheism or monolatrism, that is what the bible teaches and what it defends as did ancient Israel... so... again please clarify why you might think this is important.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Jor-el

[Davros of Skaro]

Oh, is that all?

Thank you for that old news. The bible is quite clear that other gods do exist, but the correct term you are seeking is not polytheism, but rather henotheism or monolatrism, that is what the bible teaches and what it defends as did ancient Israel... so... again please clarify why you might think this is important.

It's all man made myth.If you cannot see that then here is a video for you to enjoy while you wait for the day you can dance on the ashes, and skulls of your enemies.

[Jor-el]

It's all man made myth.If you cannot see that then here is a video for you to enjoy while you wait for the day you can dance on the ashes, and skulls of your enemies.

Yes, yes... I see how you want to play it, you really don't have an answer... I love the saying that accurately describes the situation: One man's meat is another man's poison.

[Davros of Skaro]

Yes, yes... I see how you want to play it, you really don't have an answer... I love the saying that accurately describes the situation: One man's meat is another man's poison.

Can you prove the Bible is the inspired word of God, and it's true without saying the Bible says it's true there for it is true?

[Jor-el]

Can you prove the Bible is the inspired word of God, and it's true without saying the Bible says it's true there for it is true?

I can demonstrate the Historical accuracy of much of the bible, and the probable accuracy of the remainder of it, but proving that it is the "inspired word of God" needs to be taken by faith since no matter how much of the former I can prove, it would just mean that it is a relible witness, it does not make it automatically the inspired word.

As such your question cannot be answered, in any reliable manner that you would accept, unless God himself told you so, or you had a time travel machine handy... do you happen to have one laying around?

[Davros of Skaro]

Here is my time machine.

You're right. It does take faith to believe that one's own religion/belief is the correct one out of the 3,000+ religions/beliefs of the past, and present.

[Jor-el]

Here is my time machine.

You're right. It does take faith to believe that one's own religion/belief is the correct one out of the 3,000+ religions/beliefs of the past, and present.

You mean the vídeo is your time machine? It falls far short. It missed the comparison between galaxies, it also started in the middle, it leaves out the microscopic and the molecular universe altogether among a few other aspects.

[media=]

But this is really beside the point, God has always started small, one man and woman became mankind, one man and woman became Israel, one man brought forth redemption.... the fact that we inhabit a small pebble in the universe, is only the starting chapter of the book.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Jor-el

[Davros of Skaro]

You mean the vídeo is your time machine? It falls far short. It missed the comparison between galaxies, it also started in the middle, it leaves out the microscopic and the molecular universe altogether among a few other aspects.

But this is really beside the point, God has always started small, one man and woman became mankind, one man and woman became Israel, one man brought forth redemption.... the fact that we inhabit a small pebble in the universe, is only the starting chapter of the book.

Awesome video, but I am into the feel of the original video.

So is this the "New Israel", or God's plan?

[Jor-el]

Man that was an interesting vídeo, but also extremely.... how should I put this.... one sided?

Mankind was created with on purpose in mind, and that was never to spend eternity in heaven, but rather to administer the creation of God which means administering the entire universe in all its infinite glory....

We are physical beings made of matter for a reason... this is our dominion, the physical realm, not some dreamy cloudyheaven

As the good book says:

“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

So rather than the little story the vídeo tried to put forth, we have a bright future, that does not end with God coming with New Jerusalém to Earth, what it means is that this little speck of dust will literally become, Earth Central, the center of all power in the universe. We will rule in his name, just as there are many other creatures in heaven who are at this moment tasked with doing the same.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Jor-el

[Davros of Skaro]

Man that was an interesting vídeo, but also extremely.... how should I put this.... one sided?

Mankind was created with on purpose in mind, and that was never to spend eternity in heaven, but rather to administer the creation of God which means administering the entire universe in all its infinite glory....

We are physical beings made of matter for a reason... this is our dominion, the physical realm, not some dreamy cloudyheaven

As the good book says:

“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

So rather than the little story the vídeo tried to put forth, we have a bright future, that does not end with God coming with New Jerusalém to Earth, what it means is that this little speck of dust will literally become, Earth Central, the center of all power in the universe. We will rule in his name, just as there are many other creatures in heaven who are at this moment tasked with doing the same.

Yes, because the good book is so good. XD

[Jor-el]

Yes it is, irrespective of some peoples opinions and some whacky vídeos trying to convence us otherwise.

[Davros of Skaro]

Yes it is, irrespective of some peoples opinions and some whacky vídeos trying to convence us otherwise.

I am not trying to convince you, because I know the mental gymnastics you people do to continue the belief in your blood thirsty animal burning smell loving fictional master.

[Jor-el]

I am not trying to convince you, because I know the mental gymnastics you people do to continue the belief in your blood thirsty animal burning smell loving fictional master.

Of course you aren't....

[Doug1029]

I can demonstrate the Historical accuracy of much of the bible, and the probable accuracy of the remainder of it, but proving that it is the "inspired word of God" needs to be taken by faith since no matter how much of the former I can prove, it would just mean that it is a relible witness, it does not make it automatically the inspired word.

As such your question cannot be answered, in any reliable manner that you would accept, unless God himself told you so, or you had a time travel machine handy... do you happen to have one laying around?

If the Bible is a book of folklore, then one would expect to find some accurate historical references in it, along with some inaccurate ones. One would also expect to find stories that really happened, along with stories that didn't happen. That's exactly what I found.

Doug

[Davros of Skaro]

Of course you aren't....

[Ben Masada]

Actually jesus did not "understand" that reference to be the Jewish People, or even Jewish Elders. For Jesus to have meant that it would effectively be belitteling his own statements in that text, when he categorically states that "I and the Father are one." (verse 30).

This irritated his fellow Jews to such a degree that, according to the same text: 31The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.

Now, if Jesus was in fact saying that Psalm 82:6 was the Jewish People, why would they do that?

No Jesus is saying, just as there are other gods (Is it not written in your Law,'I said, you are gods'? and they (the Jews) realized that he is making himself to be divine but more than that that he is stating that he is "The Hashem", "The Divine Presence".

As is demonstrated in Exodus 23:20-33:

²⁰ “See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. ²¹ Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.

That is why the Jews further state in the same text: 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

If Psalm 82:6 were a reference to the Jewish people my dear friend, Jesus use of it would not have evoked such consternation.

Let us ask some pertinent questions regarding context here...

Question: What is the conflict about?

Answer: Jesus Divinity

What do the Jews say about Jesus Divinity?

Answer: That there is only ONE God and that Jesus was claiming to be God.

Who is the "Them" in the phrase: "I have said you are “god?

If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?"

Answer: Since this is a direct reference to Psalm 82:6, then it cannot be talking about human beings for the simple reason that nowhere in the entire bible does the term "elohim" refer to human beings of any kind... ever!

Jorel, as I can see, you are talking about John 8. If I were a Christian I would never open the book of John in chapter 8. The whole chapter is not only a blunder of the author but also the worst damage ever possible to be made against Jesus. First of all Jesus is having a discussion akin to an argument with the Jews who had believed in him. (John 8:31) Then later, things get really hot as Jesus call them children of the Devil. (John 8:44) How could he call the Jews who had believed in him children of the Devil? But it is still not the worst damage as we have in verse 41 when the Jews listening to him, probably grown up with him, knew enough to know that Jesus had been born out of fornication. That's according to the KJV translation of the Bible. In the NAB we have that Jesus had been born through an illegitimate birth. Is it to wonder how they knew of such a thing? IMHO we have only the writers of the NT who deny that Joseph was a biological father to Jesus. Could it be that the myth of Pantera could have been true at all? I prefer to take this chapter as a blunder by the Hellenist who wrote the gospel of John or the Fathers of the Church who allowed such a thing to get into the canon of the Church.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Ben Masada

[buckskin scout]

Jorel, as I can see, you are talking about John 8. If I were a Christian I would never open the book of John in chapter 8. The whole chapter is not only a blunder of the author but also the worst damage ever possible to be made against Jesus. First of all Jesus is having a discussion akin to an argument with the Jews who had believed in him. (John 8:31) Then later, things get really hot as Jesus call them children of the Devil. (John 8:44) How could he call the Jews who had believed in him children of the Devil? But it is still not the worst damage as we have in verse 41 when the Jews listening to him, probably grown up with him, knew enough to know that Jesus had been born out of fornication. That's according to the KJV translation of the Bible. In the NAB we have that Jesus had been born through an illegitimate birth. Is it to wonder how they knew of such a thing? IMHO we have only the writers of the NT who deny that Joseph was a biological father to Jesus. Could it be that the myth of Pantera could have been true at all? I prefer to take this chapter as a blunder by the Hellenist who wrote the gospel of John or the Fathers of the Church who allowed such a thing to get into the canon of the Church.

Jesus' seedline comes through Nathan as recorded in the Gospel of Luke because the Solomon seedline was cut-off through the sins of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 36). Jesus was the last heir to King David's throne and he left no living descendents himself. Or do you claim to have a living descendent of Nathan today?

Edited December 13, 2013 by GoSC

[Davros of Skaro]

Jesus' seedline comes through Nathan as recorded in the Gospel of Luke because the Solomon seedline was cut-off through the sins of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 36). Jesus was the last heir to King David's throne and he left no living descendents himself. Or do you claim to have a living descendent of Nathan today?

Jesus had a wife, and continued his bloodline.

Here is proof.

[buckskin scout]

Jesus had a wife, and continued his bloodline.

Here is proof.

lol ... what a nutjob!

[Davros of Skaro]

lol ... what a nutjob!

He is living a fancy life on people that did not read the part about false prophets coming in the name of Jesus.

So either nutjob, or criminal genius. XD

[Ben Masada]

Jesus' seedline comes through Nathan as recorded in the Gospel of Luke because the Solomon seedline was cut-off through the sins of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 36). Jesus was the last heir to King David's throne and he left no living descendents himself. Or do you claim to have a living descendent of Nathan today?

No, I cannot but you cannot prove that Jesus was ever a king at all and neither can History either of Israel or of the world show a single evidence for that matter. Jesus was born poor, lived poor and died the death of a poor political criminal according to the NT. (Luke 19:37-40) So, what are you talking about? I was rather expecting a feedback about the contradiction as a result of the blunder in John 8:31,41,44. Don't you have any thing to say about it?