Created immortal (indestructable)?

[JehovahsWitness]

To my knowledge "immortality" is only spoken of as being a reward for certain faithful. What is the scriptural basis for saying "humans" were originally created immortal*?

- do you believe Satan is immortal?
- do you believe the wicked are immortal?

- do you believe God can destroy them (as in put an end to their existence) but will never choose to do this?

- do you believe God cannot (does not have the ability to) destroy them (put an end to their existence)?

Why?


*by immortal I mean basically "indestructable"

[JehovahsWitness]

When you say this, do you mean at the beginning? Like how did Satan get power before humans were created? This is an extremely difficult question.

Yes, and it is.

Perhaps there was no such thing as a time before humans.

So? There was a "defeat" as you put it. What were the factors that contributed to it.

Or it could be that Satan existed in hell before humans but just in a tormented state because there was no suffering to feed off.

This only adds to the question of defeat, for not only where there two against one (and yes, if you believe Jesus is God, though they were "one god" they were still TWO persons). If Satan were in "hell" being tormented and Jesus and God were two persons neither being tormented and both having independent power, how could Satan ever possibly gain a defeat from that position?

All these scenarios sound absolutely ridiculous ...

True

... because no one knows. Not even the Genesis writers.

The bible does offer an explanation, one that is in my opinion more convincing that your "non explanation" that boils down (after numerous posts) er... I dunno.

Bottom line is, no one knows. It is beyond our understanding. I just know that God did not give Satan his power of omniscience and omnipresence. That is independent on whether there is sin or not to feed off.

The bible writers knew because God told them and they wrote it down.

Bottom line is, no one knows. It is beyond our understanding. I just know that God did not give Satan his power of omniscience and omnipresence.

Here is one the numerous logical problems with your baseless personal theory. You presume Satan is omnicient and omnipresent. You presume that he is therefore a co-creator equal in god in these two aspects. In doing so you set up for a nonsence theory of a non-equal equality (you stated Satan was equal with God and when questioned this "eqality" turned out to be not equal at all). And then have the problem of how a non-equal Satan can gain a defeat over his co-creator but more powerful co-worker. The hole gets deeper but you just keep on digging...

In short, I have to question the validity of your conclusions.

You admit you have no idea how Satan's present position came about. By your own explanation he started from a position of disadvantage having less power (no independent power) possibly in a "hell" being tormented and somehow from there ended up with power to rival God. When asked how this could be you spend 10 lines explaining nobody knows ...

• Was it you that asked if I as one of Jehovah's Witnesses could think "indepdendently of the bible"? Well I've let you explain the basis for your beliefs and when examined they have no foundation because when I ask the most basic quesion of "How did Satan end up with so much power?" your answer is "I don't know" along with a number of scenarious which I find, (please forgive me) to be ridiculous.

So yes, I can think independently of the bible, I can think that your explanation, independent of the bible is paper thin and entirely without substance, I can think that your ideas that boil down to... ", I don't know but I know what DIDN'T happen" to be unconvincing. I can think that if you don't know what happened and if what you believe did happen couldn't have because even by your own scenerio for all practical purposes God was superior in power to Satan in quality and autonomy, you are in no position to say either what did happen or what did not.

You fail to answer the question of how and why did Satan end up in the position he is in now, so do forgive me for turning to a better, more logical and more reliable source than your imagination, ie the bible.

JW

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 178 by Claire Evans]




[center]
Today young man, you have become like a son to me. I beget thee[/center]

____________

Questions:

• 
  
  1. Do you use the word "beget" to mean "father/son relationship consistently all through the Bible, or is it just sometimes?
  2. Are there other possible meanings for "beget"?
  
  

____________

We know that one of the definitions of beget is to produce offspring through sex.

Ok, that would be the common definition that I was using.

However, produce also means come into existence and Jesus being begotten means He, as the Son in the flesh, caused to be in existence in this world.

When it comes to humans, "caused to be in existence in this world" usually involves sex.
You want to drop the "offspring through sex" part and just keep the "produce" part.

That's fine.

But now, we are talking about another "kind" of production.
Whatever it is, we are talking about another kind of causation that the normal human reproduction.

But since God can do magic, maybe "sex" wasn't needed.
Fine. It was magic.

I can accept that "beget" might mean "caused by magic".
I have no trouble with that because the Bible is full of magic.

The father-son relationship in the context that they are one an the same can warrant the use of the word begotten.

You lost me there.


I am confused as to your usage of the word "cause".
The cause and the effect can't BE the same.


IF the father and the son are ONE AND THE SAME, saying that one CAUSES the other doesn't make sense.

This is getting VERY complicated.
I suppose we are talking about some kind of magical causation.. which isn't the same as what we commonly call "causation".

But now, I'm guessing.
I should ask you instead.

Could you elaborate?

However, there is this passage in Psalms 2:7

I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.

Clearly this refers to the Lord adopting the Psalm writer and not producing him from reproduction. So you can say they have a father-son relationship.

Ok, I see your point.
Very well done.

From what I understand, you're using "beget" to mean general causation, magical causation, sexual reproduction, OR a metaphor for approbation ( which would be a kind of "relationship" in that, if I approve of you, then we have something to build on, if I don't, then maybe not )


If you could correct me if I'm wrong.

So, again, what does the use of the word "father" mean when it comes to the Bible and the god's relationship to Jesus?

It could be a metaphor, I suppose. Someone is NOT what we commonly call a son, but that is CALLED a son, like what happens at an adoption... ( and just to make a cute rhyme, I will add "begotten as a son quite sudden" )

It's like when I put my arm around a young man at a wedding and say: "You are like a son to me". Or, using a metaphor: "You are a son to me". When I do that.. all I REALLY mean is that "I love you". But of course, the Bible is WAY WAY more poetic than that.

I think that the Bible way would go like this: "Today, at your wedding, I beget you as my son ". Weird way of putting it... but it's poetry.

I can make a case that "God" is a metaphor and that "son of God" is another metaphor, and the "father/son" relationship is yet another. The Bible is just chock a block full of two scoops of metaphors.

[center]
But I really do think the important question is : "Metaphor representing WHAT"?[/center]


I suppose, like any fine art, that's in the eye of the beholder.
I say "begot" is a metaphor for "You have become"... as in "You have become like a son to me. "

What does that "Mona Lisa" mean?

I could have could my interpretation.
You could have your interpretation.

They might match, or maybe not.



Before I continue, I would like to see if you agree so far. Answering this question might help :

____________

Question:

• 
  
  Is the very poetical phrase " eternally begotten" a metaphor for "Today, my boy, you have become like a son to me"?
  
  

____________

[Claire Evans]

When you say this, do you mean at the beginning? Like how did Satan get power before humans were created? This is an extremely difficult question.

Yes, and it is.

Perhaps there was no such thing as a time before humans.

So? There was a "defeat" as you put it. What were the factors that contributed to it.

A defeat we know subsequently because of Jesus. No human being can know what happened before humans existed.

Or it could be that Satan existed in hell before humans but just in a tormented state because there was no suffering to feed off.

This only adds to the question of defeat, for not only where there two against one (and yes, if you believe Jesus is God, though they were "one god" they were still TWO persons). If Satan were in "hell" being tormented and Jesus and God were two persons neither being tormented and both having independent power, how could Satan ever possibly gain a defeat from that position?

As the Holy Spirit, God and Jesus are one. They had to separate roles when Jesus was on earth and was "separated" for a time.

I had to think about this very carefully to come up with various scenarios not committing to any of them.

I was thinking further. Perhaps the Gnostics had a kernel of truth when they said the material world was "evil". God had his power separately in heaven and Satan had separately in hell as we know opposites exist like illustrated in the atom theory. One does not exist without the other. I think when the material, or physical world, came into being, both God and Satan were present. We can see on this earth that there is a mixture of good and evil. There is life and there is death. Was there ever time when the material world did not exist? I think not because the universe had no beginning, unless you believe in the Big Bang Theory. It is possible that the material world always existed. Satan from his separate can do what he wants. There is no good to restrain him in that dimension. However, manifesting in this dimension, power has to be given to him by people who sin because of the presence of the Holy Spirit. And Satan wants the suffering of God's creation.

... because no one knows. Not even the Genesis writers.

The bible does offer an explanation, one that is in my opinion more convincing that your "non explanation" that boils down (after numerous posts) er... I dunno.

More convincing? Do you believe God needed a day of rest?

Bottom line is, no one knows. It is beyond our understanding. I just know that God did not give Satan his power of omniscience and omnipresence. That is independent on whether there is sin or not to feed off.

The bible writers knew because God told them and they wrote it down.

So that's your proof? Because God told them? How did He tell them? Voice in the clouds? They were in a trance and performed automatic writing. I'll tell you where the creation story comes from and that is the Sumerian texts:

The Lost Book of Enki – Creation story

By evetime, complete was the encampment! For the night therein the heroes gathered. Ea and Alalu and Anzu the doings considered; all that was done indeed was good!

And it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day.

On the seventh day, the heroes in the encampment were assembled,

To them Ea spoke these words:

A hazardous journey we have undertaken, from Nibiru to the seventh planet a dangerous way we traversed.

At Earth we with success arrived, much good we attained, an encampment we established.

Let this day be a day of rest; the seventh day hereafter a day of resting always to be!

https://sites.google.com/site/wordsofen ... ird-tablet


"By daybreak Ea the ongoings considered; to separate waters from waters heed he was giving.
Engur he made of the sweet waters the master, drinking waters to provide." (The Lost Book of Enki)

Then God said, "Let there be a canopy between bodies of water, separating bodies of water from bodies of water!" So God made a canopy that separated the water beneath the canopy from the water above it. And that is what happened: God called the canopy "sky.' The twilight and the dawn were the second day� (Genesis)

THIRD DAY

"And it was evening and it was morning, the second day on Earth it was.
When the Sun morning announced, the heroes their assigned tasks were performing.
With Alalu Ea to the place of grass and trees his steps directed,
All that in the orchard grows, herbs and fruits after their kind to examine.� (The Lost Book of Enki)

-

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.� And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.


All day the Sun was shining, the great light by day it was.

By evetime Kingu, Earth's moon, in fullness a pale light on Earth it cast,

A lesser light to rule the night, among the celestial gods accounted to be.

And it was evening and it was morning, the fourth day on Earth it was.

-

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.� And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.


On the fifth day "Enki gave words, in the marshlands to make a barrier;
With canebrakes and green reeds an enclosure to fashion, Fish from fish there separate,
A trap for carp that from a net could not escape,
A place whose snare no bird that is good for food could escape.
Thus were fish and fowl, by their good kinds separated, for the heroes provided." (The Lost Book of Enki)

-

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.� 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.� 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.


By evetime, complete was the encampment! For the night therein the heroes gathered. Ea and Alalu and Anzu the doings considered; all that was done indeed was good! And it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day. Sixth day


31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

And it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day.

On the seventh day, the heroes in the encampment were assembled,

To them Ea spoke these words:

A hazardous journey we have undertaken, from Nibiru to the seventh planet a dangerous way we traversed.

At Earth we with success arrived, much good we attained, an encampment we established.

Let this day be a day of rest; the seventh day hereafter a day of resting always to be!

-

Gen 2:2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

http://www.benpadiah.com/otherstuff/ENKI/03.html

The Sumerian text is older than Genesis. The oldest writing is 2700 BC. So lets say the Sumerian text is 2000 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_literature

The date of authorship of Genesis is said to be between 1440 and 1400 BC. So we know where the Genesis writers got the creation story from.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-Genesis.html

Bottom line is, no one knows. It is beyond our understanding. I just know that God did not give Satan his power of omniscience and omnipresence.

Here is one the numerous logical problems with your baseless personal theory. You presume Satan is omnicient and omnipresent. You presume that he is therefore a co-creator equal in god in these two aspects. In doing so you set up for a nonsence theory of a non-equal equality (you stated Satan was equal with God and when questioned this "eqality" turned out to be not equal at all). And then have the problem of how a non-equal Satan can gain a defeat over his co-creator but more powerful co-worker. The hole gets deeper but you just keep on digging...

Equal in the terms of having supernatural powers but ultimately that equity was no more when it came to Jesus. He defeated evil.

In short, I have to question the validity of your conclusions.

You admit you have no idea how Satan's present position came about. By your own explanation he started from a position of disadvantage having less power (no independent power) possibly in a "hell" being tormented and somehow from there ended up with power to rival God. When asked how this could be you spend 10 lines explaining nobody knows ...

• Was it you that asked if I as one of Jehovah's Witnesses could think "indepdendently of the bible"? Well I've let you explain the basis for your beliefs and when examined they have no foundation because when I ask the most basic quesion of "How did Satan end up with so much power?" your answer is "I don't know" along with a number of scenarious which I find, (please forgive me) to be ridiculous.

The power Satan has rivaling God on earth is based on power given to him by people. Else he would have no power in this world if everyone committing to God. Let us be honest, who has the power when it comes to the world? There's famine, war, corruption, torture, etc.

So yes, I can think independently of the bible, I can think that your explanation, independent of the bible is paper thin and entirely without substance, I can think that your ideas that boil down to... ", I don't know but I know what DIDN'T happen" to be unconvincing. I can think that if you don't know what happened and if what you believe did happen couldn't have because even by your own scenerio for all practical purposes God was superior in power to Satan in quality and autonomy, you are in no position to say either what did happen or what did not.

You are in no position to tell me that the world was created in 7 days. Here is the alternative to Satan not having power of his own: God gave it to him. God is responsible for the evil in the world. Satan had to have been created evil because Jesus said Satan was a liar and murderer from the start. There could be no such thing as a rebellion in heaven because no evil could exist in heaven.

You fail to answer the question of how and why did Satan end up in the position he is in now, so do forgive me for turning to a better, more logical and more reliable source than your imagination, ie the bible.

JW

I don't understand why you can't understand that sin empowers Satan. He feeds off negative emotions. The more sin, the more powerful he gets and that is obvious looking at the world today.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 178 by Claire Evans]




[center]
Today young man, you have become like a son to me. I beget thee[/center]

____________

Questions:

• 
  
  1. Do you use the word "beget" to mean "father/son relationship consistently all through the Bible, or is it just sometimes?
  2. Are there other possible meanings for "beget"?
  
  

____________

We know that one of the definitions of beget is to produce offspring through sex.

Ok, that would be the common definition that I was using.

However, produce also means come into existence and Jesus being begotten means He, as the Son in the flesh, caused to be in existence in this world.

When it comes to humans, "caused to be in existence in this world" usually involves sex.
You want to drop the "offspring through sex" part and just keep the "produce" part.

That's fine.

But now, we are talking about another "kind" of production.
Whatever it is, we are talking about another kind of causation that the normal human reproduction.

But since God can do magic, maybe "sex" wasn't needed.
Fine. It was magic.

I can accept that "beget" might mean "caused by magic".
I have no trouble with that because the Bible is full of magic.

Magic isn't the right word. That is the acquisition of supernatural powers by witchcraft and that doesn't apply to God.

The father-son relationship in the context that they are one an the same can warrant the use of the word begotten.

You lost me there.

If Jesus and God did not have a Son and Father role in this world, then God could not beget Jesus. God can't beget God yet can beget Jesus even though they are one.

I am confused as to your usage of the word "cause".
The cause and the effect can't BE the same.


IF the father and the son are ONE AND THE SAME, saying that one CAUSES the other doesn't make sense.

This is getting VERY complicated.
I suppose we are talking about some kind of magical causation.. which isn't the same as what we commonly call "causation".

But now, I'm guessing.
I should ask you instead.

Could you elaborate?

They are one and the same as the Holy Spirit in heaven but not same entity on earth. Else Jesus could not have prayed to the Father. You could say that three facets of God are in heaven. All three of the trinity assumed different roles for this earth. Therefore a part of the whole entity of God could manifest itself in this dimension. I don't blame you for being confused. We cannot know how this is done.

However, there is this passage in Psalms 2:7

I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.

Clearly this refers to the Lord adopting the Psalm writer and not producing him from reproduction. So you can say they have a father-son relationship.

Ok, I see your point.
Very well done.

From what I understand, you're using "beget" to mean general causation, magical causation, sexual reproduction, OR a metaphor for approbation ( which would be a kind of "relationship" in that, if I approve of you, then we have something to build on, if I don't, then maybe not )


If you could correct me if I'm wrong.

That's correct. Those different meaning of "beget" applies to certain contexts.

So, again, what does the use of the word "father" mean when it comes to the Bible and the god's relationship to Jesus?

It could be a metaphor, I suppose. Someone is NOT what we commonly call a son, but that is CALLED a son, like what happens at an adoption... ( and just to make a cute rhyme, I will add "begotten as a son quite sudden" )

It's like when I put my arm around a young man at a wedding and say: "You are like a son to me". Or, using a metaphor: "You are a son to me". When I do that.. all I REALLY mean is that "I love you". But of course, the Bible is WAY WAY more poetic than that.

I think that the Bible way would go like this: "Today, at your wedding, I beget you as my son ". Weird way of putting it... but it's poetry.

I can make a case that "God" is a metaphor and that "son of God" is another metaphor, and the "father/son" relationship is yet another. The Bible is just chock a block full of two scoops of metaphors.

I hope my above comment sheds more light on this.

[center]
But I really do think the important question is : "Metaphor representing WHAT"?[/center]


I suppose, like any fine art, that's in the eye of the beholder.
I say "begot" is a metaphor for "You have become"... as in "You have become like a son to me. "

What does that "Mona Lisa" mean?

I could have could my interpretation.
You could have your interpretation.

They might match, or maybe not.



Before I continue, I would like to see if you agree so far. Answering this question might help :

____________

Question:

• 
  
  Is the very poetical phrase " eternally begotten" a metaphor for "Today, my boy, you have become like a son to me"?
  
  

____________

Is the very poetical phrase " eternally begotten" a metaphor for "Today, my boy, you have become like a son to me"?

In the context of a mere mortal, like the Psalm writer, and God, yes. In the case of Jesus, God did not adopt Him metaphorically just to have a relationship with Him. We can't say the Psalm writer and God are one; just assuming different roles on earth.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 183 by Claire Evans]


[center]4,380,000,000,000 days[/center]

Perhaps there was no such thing as a time before humans.

Yes, perhaps a lot of things, Claire.
We can make an incredible amount of hypotheses about what and why things happened before we even existed. IF there was such a time, we just wouldn't know about it.

And if there was NOT such a time, how would we remember?
I sure don't think you "were there", right?

A defeat we know subsequently because of Jesus. No human being can know what happened before humans existed.

We happen to know a lot about what happened before humans existed.
It's just that humans weren't around at the time.

We think that the universe existed 12 billion years before any humans existed. That's 4,380,000,000,000 days. That's about 4 trillion earth days.

All those days.. no humans around.
We know it.

____________

Questions:

• 
  1. Could you elaborate on how we know what happened before humans existed "because of Jesus"?
  
  2.If you say that we can know "because of Jesus" that means that we KNOW. So, I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that humans can know or can't?
  
  3.Is there any supporting Bible passage for your claim to know what happened before human existence?
  
  
  

____________




[/center]

[ttruscott]

The date of authorship of Genesis is said to be between 1440 and 1400 BC. So we know where the Genesis writers got the creation story from.

GOD may have inspired the writing of the bible to correct earlier stories that were just wrong...

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 184 by Claire Evans]



[center]
Trying once again to understand theistic English[/center]

Magic isn't the right word. That is the acquisition of supernatural powers by witchcraft and that doesn't apply to God.

I'm an agnostic, an atheist and a skeptic, Claire. You might prefer the term "MIRACLE" and that's fine.. don't get too upset.. Miracle just means to me "God magic"... Magic alone is a generic term.. not just "Demon magic", but all KINDS of magic.

So, when God makes a "miracle" happen, by a word.. or a thought... however he does that... if he aint using NATURAL means.. then it's magic. God magic, or "miracle".. same same.

It's magic no matter who does it.

Maybe we can call it "divine magic" if it comes from god and "demon magic " if it comes from a demon... hows that?

The father-son relationship in the context that they are one an the same can warrant the use of the word begotten.

You lost me there.

If Jesus and God did not have a Son and Father role in this world, then God could not beget Jesus. God can't beget God yet can beget Jesus even though they are one.

I'm still lost, Claire.

Your explanation is even more mysterious than what you are trying to explain.
Sorry.

I think the problem is that you are USING the word "beget" to EXPLAIN "beget". If you are saying ( AND I HAVE TO GUESS ) that the word "beget" means "causes", then, I could TRANSLATE that statement above to mean:

"If Jesus and God did not have a Son and Father role in this world, then God could not cause Jesus. God can't cause God yet can cause Jesus even though they are one. "

Is that what you mean?
I'm guessing again...

They are one and the same as the Holy Spirit in heaven but not same entity on earth.

You lost me again, Claire.

God is something like "three in one" up in heaven but NOT on earth?
I don't get it.

I don't get a lot of what you write.
Like mostly nothing.

Every time you try to explain to me.. I get MORE LOST.
I must be very dense.

Else Jesus could not have prayed to the Father.

I have no idea, Claire.
It's that "three in one" thing....

If GOD has three aspects or whatever.. And all three are separate but together in some way... Well, I suppose one could have a relationship with the other. Who knows?

Do these three parts have a relationship in heaven?
Or just on earth?

I am MORE lost than I was before, Claire.

You might understand all of this.. but you sure don't explain in a way that I can comprehend.. at least, not YET.

I can't even DISAGREE with you, and you should know by now how I just LOVE to disagree with theists.

I would love to disagree with you but I can't.
I don't have a CLUE as to what you mean.

Maybe it's something the matter with me.. wouldn't be the first time, Claire.
But I HAVE been writing back and forth with all kinds of theists for a number of years now.

I seem to be able to comprehend AND disagree with many.
One thing though.. to be fair.. the whole concept of that "three in one" god just doesn't make much rational sense. Maybe that's why it's called a "mystery" in Roman Catholicism.

Ya just gotta believe it, if you are RC.
Well, I'm not longer RC, and I don't feel that I just have to believe it.

IT STILL makes no sense. Unfortunately, your attempts to make sense out of this isn't working on me yet. I don't get it.. I don't understand what you mean.

You might as well be speaking Greek to me.

You could say that three facets of God are in heaven.

Oh yeah, I could say just about anything.
Three in one, together, yet separate, only in heaven, you say.

Pity.

All three of the trinity assumed different roles for this earth.

In heaven, Jesus isn't the son?
You lost me again.

Therefore a part of the whole entity of God could manifest itself in this dimension. I don't blame you for being confused. We cannot know how this is done.

Well at least you admit that.
I don't know how you could possibly say that you KNOW that.

I understand, however, how you could BELIEVE it.
I used to.. I was RC.


They just told me I had to.

Those different meaning of "beget" applies to certain contexts.

Ok, good.
We have different meanings for the word.

Now.. which one are you talking about?

I hope my above comment sheds more light on this.

Not much, no.
Sorry.

I could explain why in detail..
I could write to you what I'm guessing you're saying.

This is an excruciating process...

Trying to get a clear meaning out of what you write... it's like ... I'd say herding cats.. but I have trained cats in my day... it's not as hard as they say.

Getting to know what some theists mean... ahhhh now that's really really difficult.

Lots of poetry.. not much clarity.
Your meaning in there SOMEWHERE.. it's just that I cant get at it very easily.

I feel like a dentist trying to pull a molar out with a banana.. this is going to be tough.

____________

Question:

• 
  
  Is the very poetical phrase " eternally begotten" a metaphor for "Today, my boy, you have become like a son to me"?
  
  

____________


[/quote]

Is the very poetical phrase " eternally begotten" a metaphor for "Today, my boy, you have become like a son to me"?

In the context of a mere mortal, like the Psalm writer, and God, yes.

Ok......

Jesus is supposed to be more than a "mere mortal"... yah... Whatever he is.. he isn't a "mere" anything.

In the case of Jesus, God did not adopt Him metaphorically just to have a relationship with Him.

In the case of Jesus, God isn't a metaphorical father?
I'm not following.

We can't say the Psalm writer and God are one; just assuming different roles on earth.

I'm lost again.

If X and Y are IDENTICAL... or "are one", their relationship would be.. something like looking in the mirror. Sometimes, I talk to myself.. I get to mumbling incoherently after I debate Christians online, for example. I am having a "relationship" with myself.

So, the math ( or logic ) doesn't work.
Your explanation is just more indecipherable poetic language, as far as I'm concerned.

YOU may understand yourself, but I sure don't understand you.
Too bad, right?

[Claire Evans]

The date of authorship of Genesis is said to be between 1440 and 1400 BC. So we know where the Genesis writers got the creation story from.

GOD may have inspired the writing of the bible to correct earlier stories that were just wrong...

The stories are the same. The Sumerian text said the gods rested on the seventh day. Genesis copied that and you know it.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 184 by Claire Evans]



[center]
Trying once again to understand theistic English[/center]

Magic isn't the right word. That is the acquisition of supernatural powers by witchcraft and that doesn't apply to God.

I'm an agnostic, an atheist and a skeptic, Claire. You might prefer the term "MIRACLE" and that's fine.. don't get too upset.. Miracle just means to me "God magic"... Magic alone is a generic term.. not just "Demon magic", but all KINDS of magic.

So, when God makes a "miracle" happen, by a word.. or a thought... however he does that... if he aint using NATURAL means.. then it's magic. God magic, or "miracle".. same same.

It's magic no matter who does it.

Maybe we can call it "divine magic" if it comes from god and "demon magic " if it comes from a demon... hows that?

I think it is the wrong context but each to their own.

The father-son relationship in the context that they are one an the same can warrant the use of the word begotten.

You lost me there.

If Jesus and God did not have a Son and Father role in this world, then God could not beget Jesus. God can't beget God yet can beget Jesus even though they are one.

I'm still lost, Claire.

Your explanation is even more mysterious than what you are trying to explain.
Sorry.

I think the problem is that you are USING the word "beget" to EXPLAIN "beget". If you are saying ( AND I HAVE TO GUESS ) that the word "beget" means "causes", then, I could TRANSLATE that statement above to mean:

"If Jesus and God did not have a Son and Father role in this world, then God could not cause Jesus. God can't cause God yet can cause Jesus even though they are one. "

Is that what you mean?
I'm guessing again...

Yes, but using the word "cause" does not include the father-son relationship God had with Jesus. So beget is a more fitting word.

They are one and the same as the Holy Spirit in heaven but not same entity on earth.

You lost me again, Claire.

God is something like "three in one" up in heaven but NOT on earth?
I don't get it.

I don't get a lot of what you write.
Like mostly nothing.

Every time you try to explain to me.. I get MORE LOST.
I must be very dense.

You are not dense. I don't think this really can be explained to a non believer. A non believer, understandably, wants to understand by using logic. Logic cannot be used here.

Else Jesus could not have prayed to the Father.

I have no idea, Claire.
It's that "three in one" thing....

If GOD has three aspects or whatever.. And all three are separate but together in some way... Well, I suppose one could have a relationship with the other. Who knows?

Do these three parts have a relationship in heaven?
Or just on earth?

I am MORE lost than I was before, Claire.

You might understand all of this.. but you sure don't explain in a way that I can comprehend.. at least, not YET.

I can't even DISAGREE with you, and you should know by now how I just LOVE to disagree with theists.

I would love to disagree with you but I can't.
I don't have a CLUE as to what you mean.

Maybe it's something the matter with me.. wouldn't be the first time, Claire.
But I HAVE been writing back and forth with all kinds of theists for a number of years now.

They had three different roles when Jesus was on earth yet the Bible does mention Jesus has continued as Jesus in heaven.

John 14:1-3New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Comforts His Disciples
14 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?

I think it is a way that we can identify with God through Jesus. I believe we will see Jesus in death. We cannot see God so we will see Him through Jesus.

I believe, when Jesus ascended to heaven, He was interchangeable with God; that they no longer had different roles. Sometimes I pray to Jesus, other times the Holy Spirit and sometimes to the Lord. I know I'm praying to one God.

I seem to be able to comprehend AND disagree with many.
One thing though.. to be fair.. the whole concept of that "three in one" god just doesn't make much rational sense. Maybe that's why it's called a "mystery" in Roman Catholicism.

Ya just gotta believe it, if you are RC.
Well, I'm not longer RC, and I don't feel that I just have to believe it.

IT STILL makes no sense. Unfortunately, your attempts to make sense out of this isn't working on me yet. I don't get it.. I don't understand what you mean.

You might as well be speaking Greek to me.

We, as Anglicans, also refer to it as the mystery of faith as no one can truly understand it.

You could say that three facets of God are in heaven.

Oh yeah, I could say just about anything.
Three in one, together, yet separate, only in heaven, you say.

Pity.

All three of the trinity assumed different roles for this earth.

In heaven, Jesus isn't the son?
You lost me again.

As explained above.

Therefore a part of the whole entity of God could manifest itself in this dimension. I don't blame you for being confused. We cannot know how this is done.

Well at least you admit that.
I don't know how you could possibly say that you KNOW that.

I understand, however, how you could BELIEVE it.
I used to.. I was RC.


They just told me I had to.

We cannot understand how it is done, only that it is done.

Those different meaning of "beget" applies to certain contexts.

Ok, good.
We have different meanings for the word.

Now.. which one are you talking about?

Beget as in God causing Jesus to be the Son. Beget shows the father-son relationship.

I hope my above comment sheds more light on this.

Not much, no.
Sorry.

I could explain why in detail..
I could write to you what I'm guessing you're saying.

This is an excruciating process...

Trying to get a clear meaning out of what you write... it's like ... I'd say herding cats.. but I have trained cats in my day... it's not as hard as they say.

Getting to know what some theists mean... ahhhh now that's really really difficult.

Lots of poetry.. not much clarity.
Your meaning in there SOMEWHERE.. it's just that I cant get at it very easily.

I feel like a dentist trying to pull a molar out with a banana.. this is going to be tough.



____________

Question:

• 
  
  Is the very poetical phrase " eternally begotten" a metaphor for "Today, my boy, you have become like a son to me"?
  
  

____________

Is the very poetical phrase " eternally begotten" a metaphor for "Today, my boy, you have become like a son to me"?

In the context of a mere mortal, like the Psalm writer, and God, yes.

Ok......

Jesus is supposed to be more than a "mere mortal"... yah... Whatever he is.. he isn't a "mere" anything.

In the case of Jesus, God did not adopt Him metaphorically just to have a relationship with Him.

In the case of Jesus, God isn't a metaphorical father?
I'm not following.

No, they are one and the same so God is not a metaphor. The psalmist had was not one with God.

We can't say the Psalm writer and God are one; just assuming different roles on earth.

I'm lost again.

If X and Y are IDENTICAL... or "are one", their relationship would be.. something like looking in the mirror. Sometimes, I talk to myself.. I get to mumbling incoherently after I debate Christians online, for example. I am having a "relationship" with myself.

So, the math ( or logic ) doesn't work.
Your explanation is just more indecipherable poetic language, as far as I'm concerned.

YOU may understand yourself, but I sure don't understand you.
Too bad, right?

You aren't a supernatural being. It's kind of like God in heaven "dividing" Himself to assume different roles. So although Jesus said if one has seen Him, they have seen the Father, doesn't mean they were identical. For example, God can't be tempted yet Jesus was. God is omniscient but Jesus wasn't:

Matthew 24:36

"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 189 by Claire Evans]



[center]

What does "magic" mean in religious English?[/center]

I think it is the wrong context but each to their own.

I don't understand what " context" you mean.
I'm talking about definitions.. Religious English vs Common English

Magic is a word in both kinds of English.

You are a religious person, I am not.
But we are both using the very same word.

IF we want to be able to understand each other when we USE the word, we need to know how we define it.

When I am having a philosophical discussion, unless I am using a word in a non-standard way, I usually just go by the common usages that are defined in standard English dictionaries.

People are quite free to define words in any way that they want to.
That's perfectly fine.
That's ok.

What is NOT ok is to forget to tell us what they MEAN...


If God can create an entire universe with a word.. or.. a thought, that's magic to me. IF God created the angels and then some of them rebelled.. and they did evil deeds by using supernatural powers, that's still magic.

There might be god magic which is considered good magic or white magic, and then there might be demon magic which is considered bad magic or black magic.

I suppose that some people will ONLY use the word "magic" to mean demon... supernatural powers.. and never use "magic" to mean God's supernatural powers.

That may be that "religious English" again.

When I go to a NON religious dictionary, I find that the definition of the word "magic" agrees with me:

" the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magic

But as I said earlier, that's the common English use of the word.. not the religious one. Religious English seems to be quite different.

One thing is for certain:

If we cannot agree on what words mean.. then we are going to have a heck of a time discussing them.

I would define magic as "supernatural powers".


____________

Question:

• 
  
  Could you give us your definition of "magic"?
  
  

____________