Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

God is Not a Person

page: 17
15
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

I have a very good friend of mine next to me, an excommunicated Catholic, who is telling me that both the OT and the NT declares "God" to be omniscient. Partnering this with my own experience and research, I am forced to conclude that YOU are not a true Christian. Let me guess, you don't believe Jesus died and rose three days later either.


The OT says the opposite.
Why did The Lord allow Satan to test Job? To see how it would turn out.
Why did The Lord ask Adam where he was?
Why does The Lord have a ladder with angels going up and down between heaven and earth?
So they can see what is going on and go back and report.
Why did The Lord have to walk to Sodom?
To see for Himself that the reports were true.


You say the OT claims that "God" is not omniscient?


Job 37:16

Do you know the balancings of the clouds,
the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge.



Psalm 147:5

Great is our Lord and mighty in power;
his understanding has no limit.



1 Samuel 2:3

Talk no more so very proudly,
let not arrogance come from your mouth;
for the LORD is a God of knowledge,
and by him actions are weighed.


Are these passages in your OT?
edit on 9-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 

Of the above list, the only one that comes anywhere NEAR what I do believe is the "Personal salvation by grace," and even that is very "iffy", since in my mind "salvation" isn't even an issue.
I think that is a sort of shorthand to state the basic Christian belief that we are not saved by following a long list of laws in the Old Testament.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



I think that is a sort of shorthand to state the basic Christian belief that we are not saved by following a long list of laws in the Old Testament.



The atonement as a result of the life, and particularly the death, of Jesus,
Personal salvation by grace,
The inerrancy of the Bible


I copied a very small selection of what Wildtimes posted, in which the relevant belief in included. So what part of "the inerrancy of the Bible" implies that we are not saved by following that list of laws, when the Bible itself dictates that ONLY by doing so can we be saved?

What church do you follow?! It seems like a very strange one, for being Christian.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Presumably, they will all answer in mostly the same way, unless their church is so utterly vague as to leave a dozen different impressions scattered around the pews for people to pick up on their way out.
I like this "utterly vague" part.
My particular denomination subscribes to no creed and is made up of people who accept the personal responsibility to study the Bible themselves and to come to an understanding of God.
Sitting there listening to one person's opinion is worthless in the face of the necessity of a personal relationship with God.
edit on 9-12-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



I like this "utterly vague" part.
My particular denomination subscribes to no creed ans is made up of people who accept the personal responsibility to study the Bible themselves and to come to an understanding of God.
Sitting there listening to one persons opinion is worthless in the face of the necessity of a personal relationship with God.


Huh...well, that would explain your beliefs then.
I've always thought that group-think has proven more detrimental than helpful, and it clearly makes a difference. Spirituality is more of a solo mission, as it means something different to everyone, although getting help from a friend certainly adds that extra perspective that helps to clarify the ideal that the world is not absolute.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Are these passages in your OT?

God has superior knowledge and understanding.
I believe that. It doesn't mean He know everything all at once, even in the future.
What God knows in advance is things He is confident that He can bring about Himself.
edit on 9-12-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

. . . the Bible itself dictates that ONLY by doing so can we be saved?

That is the purpose of the New Testament, to explain why we are not bound to the old law but are in a new epoch of grace where we are saved from those requirements, by Jesus.
Jesus is the son of God and is our Lord that we are to follow, where the old The Lord in the OT was really an angel representing God rather than God Himself, and we have a better representative in His son who can also represent us to God having been born among us as a man.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



That is the purpose of the New Testament, to explain why we are not bound to the old law but are in a new epoch of grace where we are saved from those requirements, by Jesus.


The OT was published after Jesus died. Wouldn't that eliminate the need to write an OT and just jump straight to NT? Especially when you suddenly decide "Oh, I guess these rules aren't needed anymore because the guy who came up with them is dead and his students are scattered."

Sounds like a convenient excuse to say, "Oh, now that he's dead we can rewrite it and he can't do crap!"


Jesus is the son of God and is our Lord that we are to follow, where the old The Lord in the OT was really an angel representing God rather than God Himself, and we have a better representative in His son who can also represent us to God having been born among us as a man.


What proof do you have of this? You call yourself Christian, but you're trashing half of the Christian doctrine. You're either full Christian, or not Christian at all. It's okay to not be Christian, you know. I'm not, and I very much enjoy keeping my soul.
edit on 9-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
The OT was published after Jesus died.


What on earth makes you think that? The books of the Old Testament were all written in a period over 1,500 years prior to Christ.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

. . . the Bible itself dictates that ONLY by doing so can we be saved?

That is the purpose of the New Testament, to explain why we are not bound to the old law but are in a new epoch of grace where we are saved from those requirements, by Jesus.
Jesus is the son of God and is our Lord that we are to follow, where the old The Lord in the OT was really an angel representing God rather than God Himself, and we have a better representative in His son who can also represent us to God having been born among us as a man.


The OT says it was God himself on the mount with moses... along with many other passages claiming God himself spoke through these "prophets"...

But lets remember.... Satan was an angel as well...




posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



What on earth makes you think that? The books of the Old Testament were all written in a period over 1,500 years prior to Christ.


Well, if the OT was published prior to Jesus, then it wouldn't include his death and all that followed, right? So it was published after. It may have been in the writing for long before that, but it wasn't actually finished. Which means that they would have just refashioned it into the NT and did it that way. Why did they wait so long to revise it? What was the need to write an OT then a NT? They are essentially the same.

And his name isn't Christ. It's Jesus. Christ is a title that belonged to many people. He wasn't special.
edit on 9-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Well, if the OT was published prior to Jesus, then it wouldn't include his death and all that followed, right? So it was published after. It may have been in the writing for long before that, but it wasn't actually finished. Which means that they would have just refashioned it into the NT and did it that way. Why did they wait so long to revise it? What was the need to write an OT then a NT? They are essentially the same.

Wait.
No.
The OT is the pre-Jesus bunch of writings, supposedly. Although, if one looks at Thomas Paine's writings, even it (the OT) is full of mythology and supernatural stuff at which any reasonable person would scoff.


There are matters in that book, said to be done by the express command of God, that are as shocking to humanity, and to every idea we have of moral justice, as any thing done by Robespierre, by Carrier, by Joseph le Bon, in France, by the English government in the East Indies, or by any other assassin in modern times.

When we read in the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, etc., that they (the Israelites) came by stealth upon whole nations of people, who, as the history itself shews, had given them no offence; that they put all those nations to the sword; that they spared neither age nor infancy; that they utterly destroyed men, women and children; that they left not a soul to breathe; expressions that are repeated over and over again in those books, and that too with exulting ferocity; are we sure these things are facts? are we sure that the Creator of man commissioned those things to be done? Are we sure that the books that tell us so were written by his authority?

It is not the antiquity of a tale that is an evidence of its truth; on the contrary, it is a symptom of its being fabulous; for the more ancient any history pretends to be, the more it has the resemblance of a fable. The origin of every nation is buried in fabulous tradition, and that of the Jews is as much to be suspected as any other.

tpnha.keybrick.net...
edit on 9-12-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen
 



What on earth makes you think that? The books of the Old Testament were all written in a period over 1,500 years prior to Christ.


Well, if the OT was published prior to Jesus, then it wouldn't include his death and all that followed, right? So it was published after. It may have been in the writing for long before that, but it wasn't actually finished. Which means that they would have just refashioned it into the NT and did it that way. Why did they wait so long to revise it? What was the need to write an OT then a NT? They are essentially the same.


I don't even know where to start with that.

The Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible -- it is the holy book of the Israelites and, apart from passages (mostly from the prophets,) that foreshadow him, there is no mention of Jesus, nor would there be. It was written by a variety of authors, including Moses, David and Daniel, over the course of 1,500 years and was complete and finished several hundred years prior to the birth of Jesus. The New Testament is the story of Christ and his followers, and is a Christian, not Jewish, document.

How can you possibly not know something as basic as that?



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

Hiya, adj!


It was written by a variety of authors, including Moses, David and Daniel, over the course of 1,500 years and was complete and finished several hundred years prior to the birth of Jesus.

I'm going to take the liberty to say that the "variety of authors" were SUPPOSEDLY Moses, etc. etc.


I proceed to examine the authenticity of the Bible; and I begin with what are called the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. My intention is to shew that those books are spurious, and that Moses is not the author of them; and still further, that they were not written in the time of Moses nor till several hundred years afterwards; that they are no other than an attempted history of the life of Moses, and of the times in which he is said to have lived, and also of the times prior thereto, written by some very ignorant and stupid pretenders to authorship, several hundred years after the death of Moses; as men now write histories of things that happened, or are supposed to have happened, several hundred or several thousand years ago.


This is from The Age of Reason, Part II, by Paine.
tpnha.keybrick.net...

He makes a very good argument for his hypotheses; are you familiar with his treatment of the subject?
I know it is over 200 years old; and since his time perhaps there has been actual "proof" or "evidence" of who authored those works ascribed to Moses et al.;
but, what do you think?



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


And this treatment pertains only to Moses, or have other similar suspicions been leveled at the authors with such credibility?



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


And this treatment pertains only to Moses, or have other similar suspicions been leveled at the authors with such credibility?

Every one of them (the supposed 'authors'). And I'm not done reading it yet.

Paine is genius at pointing out the contradictions, and thereby the fallacies, from the OT to the NT.

Highly recommend reading it; not just you, but ANYONE who is interested in an intelligent approach to "The Bible".

His arguments are pretty much irrefutable.
So far.

But, like I said, in the past 200+ years, people may have been able to prove him wrong. I haven't found where, yet, but....I'm only a hobbyist.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
I know it is over 200 years old; and since his time perhaps there has been actual "proof" or "evidence" of who authored those works ascribed to Moses et al.;
but, what do you think?


I always take religious historic criticism from that era with a grain of salt, as there was a concerted effort (sometimes on the part of the religious) to apply reason and science to areas where they had no business being, with the result being conclusions that are specious, at best.

Tradition holds that Moses wrote the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (apart from the recording of his death, lol) and I've never seen any good reason to dismiss that tradition. Whether he actually wrote them is of little consequence, of course, but to say that he didn't, simply because it meets with some agenda, does not seem reasonable.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Tradition holds that Moses wrote the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (apart from the recording of his death, lol) and I've never seen any good reason to dismiss that tradition. Whether he actually wrote them is of little consequence, of course, but to say that he didn't, simply because it meets with some agenda, does not seem reasonable.


There you have it, denizens of ATS. They don't care whether it's actually real or not. It's TRADITION. And as long as it's tradition, any lie is perfectly okay. Just because we want the TRUTH, doesn't mean that we should tear down a falsehood. After all, tradition is always more important than truth.

Hahaha...I could puke.

edit on 9-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen
 



Tradition holds that Moses wrote the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (apart from the recording of his death, lol) and I've never seen any good reason to dismiss that tradition. Whether he actually wrote them is of little consequence, of course, but to say that he didn't, simply because it meets with some agenda, does not seem reasonable.


There you have it, denizens of ATS. They don't care whether it's actually real or not. It's TRADITION. And as long as it's tradition, any lie is perfectly okay. Just because we want the TRUTH, doesn't mean that we should tear down a falsehood. After all, tradition is always more important than truth.

Hahaha...I could puke.


What are you, twelve?

Where does it say "I know it's not true, I believe it anyway"?

Learn to read -- I said that it's traditionally held to have been written by Moses, and I've never seen any good reason to dismiss it. If there was a good reason, I would, because the texts are not signed "Love Moses", so they could legitimately have been written by anyone.

You, on the other hand, appear to dismiss the traditional view simply because you want to be contrarian.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



What are you, twelve?

Where does it say "I know it's not true, I believe it anyway"?


Insults are unnecessary. If you want to continue this conversation, I would appreciate a little bit of respect. To begin with, I never said you know it's not true. I said you don't care. Read my post a little more carefully.

And you accuse ME of being twelve.



Whether he actually wrote them is of little consequence,


^ Right here. You exhibit a clear disregard for the actual veracity of these texts.


You, on the other hand, appear to dismiss the traditional view simply because you want to be contrarian.


For the time being, I reject the traditional point of view because it's outdated, barbaric, and influenced by the idealized conception of a bloodthirsty tyrannical egomaniac.






top topics



 
15
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join