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"

[Claire Evans]

To Claire Evans:

Just wanted to reply to a few of your comments.

(1) You wrote that the Trinity concept is in the Bible. Where?

2 Corinthians 3:17

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

So we see here that the Lord is the Holy Spirit.

1 Timothy 4:10New International Version (NIV)

10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

We know that Jesus is our saviour so Jesus and God are interchangeable.

Likewise...

Luke 1:47

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1


..the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ...gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity.. Titus 2:13-14


"...CHRIST JESUS...being in the FORM OF GOD, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."--Philippians 2:5-8


For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

1 John 5:7

(2) You say that we "won't find logic associated with faith." I disagree. Logic is always a good thing to appeal to.

What is logical about a relationship and faith in God? Please logically explain how that can be achieved? Faith and reason aren't mutually exclusive but logic is not the same as reason.

The primary difference between logic and reason is that reason is subject to personal opinion, whereas logic is an actual science that follows clearly defined rules and tests for critical thinking. Logic also seeks tangible, visible or audible proof of a sound thought process by reasoning.

If one wants to find God in a scientific manner, they will be disappointed.

(3) Regarding your statement about the number of atheists: I say that there are atheists in spite of logic that is indeed associated with the ways of the Lord. He gave us the ability to reason, and it's my opinion that He wants us to do that. He never does things that have no logic.

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 1:18, KJV)

Reason isn't logic.

(4) In response to your question of "how did Satan get his power before humans when he needs human suffering to be sustained?".....I ask how did you arrive at the conclusion that he needs human suffering to be sustained? Where did that come from? Satan, according to the Scriptures, was created as a good angel and, since he had free will, eventually decided to become independent of God and to run his own show. He convinced a part of the good angels to switch sides, if you will. Then we had demons---bad angels. That's not difficult to understand.

I am looking forward to your comments and answers to my questions.

Have you not experienced that for yourself? That the more Satan manages to torment a person, the stronger he gets? I know that from experience. Demons need negative energy to replenish their energy:

http://www.spiritdaily.net/emotionsspirits.htm

Satan's presence in the Garden of Gethsemane was strong because Jesus was tormented by fear. Satan was feeding off the negative energy of fear. Once God gave Jesus peace, Satan left because he can't feed off positive energy exuded by peace.

First of all, in 2 Corinthians 3:17 it says that the Spirit was OF the Lord; In fact, there are TWO implications of "spirit" in that verse. The first implication is that God IS Spirit---that means He is a spirit Person, not a physical one. ("God is a Spirit..." John 4:24) Then, afterward, it mentions the Spirit OF God, which means the force with which He does things. He creates, He anoints, He blesses, He relates in many ways to humans and the rest of His creation by way of His force, or, spirit.

Anyway, this does not show that the Spirit is a third member of a trinity of Gods.

Isn't God as a spirit also called the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is not physical. The Holy Spirit is considered our intermediary to God through Jesus Christ who is now a spirit. Why is it so hard to imagine that there are different facets to one entity? John 4:24 refers to people who must be filled with the Holy Spirit to worship Him.

Are we to say that God stopped dwelling in Jesus once Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit when He was baptized?

Furthermore, Corinthians goes on to say that Jesus is the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17-18). Jesus was a physical being.

Secondly, Jesus and God are NOT interchangeable. God says that he is Jehovah and there is no one else that is God. (Psalm 83:18, KJV; Isaiah 43:10,11; Psalm 36:9)

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the Most High over all the earth." (Psalm 83:18, KJV)

"Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am HE: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, I am Jehovah; and besides me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:10,11, Darby)

"For with you is the source of life; by light from you we can see light." (Psalm 36:9, NWT)

If God thought the Jews understood God, then why did Jesus come to witness for the truth if the Jews had the truth already? The OT Yahweh contradicts the Father so badly that one has to wonder why.

Jesus also said that his Father, Jehovah, was "the only true God." (John 17:3) He didn't say "we are God."

Jesus said He and the Father are one so we didn't have to say "we".

Now, if Jehovah is the only God, and He is the Savior, how can Jesus be the Savior? He can be the Savior because JEHOVAH CHOSE HIM to do the job of coming to Earth and giving up his human life for mankind. Jesus was ANOINTED to do these things and represent Jehovah on the earth. Jesus was God's MEANS of saving mankind. The SOURCE of that plan was Jehovah. It was Jehovah who instructed Jesus as to what to do.

God without Jesus cannot be the saviour. Was it believed in the OT that God could only save by sending His Son? And I mean generally accepted by the Jews. If animal sacrifices were enough to redeem sin, then what was Jesus for? Consider that Jesus was incarnate of God so that He could come to this earth in physical form. Jesus wasn't just a representative. He said He was one with God! Any messiah can say they represent God.

"The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on me [Jesus; Luke 4:16-21], because Jehovah did anoint me to proclaim tidings to the humble, he sent me to bind the broken of heart, to proclaim to captives liberty, and to bound ones an opening of bands. To proclaim the year of the good pleasure of Jehovah, and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all mourners." (Isaiah 61:1,2, Young's Literal Translation)

Did Jehovah anoint himself?

"Jesus therefore responded [to those who accused him of making himself equal to God] and said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say to you, The Son is not able to do anything of himself, if he may not see the Father doing anything; for whatever things He may do, these also the Son doeth in like manner; for the Father doth love the Son, and doth show to him all things that He himself doeth." (John 5:19, Young's) So....Jesus LEARNED from the Father. God does not have to learn from anybody.

Jesus said: "I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to speak....The things I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak." (John 12:49,50) It doesn't look like Jesus and the Father, Jehovah, are one and the same. Jesus took orders from the Father.

Let's look at the egg analogy. We see the egg as one unit. Taking out the yolk, albumen and peel off the shell doesn't make them suddenly separate not related to the same unit. You can't see yolk and think it never came from the egg. It is the same. You cannot think of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as separate beings when they were one with the Father in the form of an egg. The various parts that make up an egg have different functions as Jesus and the Holy Spirit have yet are still one with the Father.

You are being, inadvertently I'm sure, deceptive in your presentation of Titus 2:13 as showing that Jesus is God. Versions DIFFER in its rendering! For example, the New American Bible puts it this way: "As we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God [Jehovah] AND OF our savior Jesus Christ." Totally different meaning than what you presented. (That word "of" means a lot.)

Us who believe in the trinity also say God and the Holy Spirit and Jesus. Yet this doesn't mean we are viewing them as three separate entities but rather three aspects of the one God. We cannot see God and so we can only see God when He is the form of Jesus. Seeing Jesus is seeing God.

John 1:1---"and the word was God"---is a mess of a translation, and I imagine St. John, who is now in heaven, cringes at the meaning trying to be conveyed by most Bible translators. The King James translation committee was so extremely biased by their own religious up-bringing that they made out the words of John to mean something he never meant! He was trying to show a DISTINCTION between "the" God and the Word. In Greek, "the" god had the definite article in front of "god." That showed that it was the only God that was being referred to. In the phrase "and the word was God," there is no definite article in front of "god," so it is correctly rendered "a god." So the Word was NOT the God. It is difficult to understand if a person doesn't know that in the Apostle John's time "god" meant any powerful, important person; the people thought of judges and political figures as "gods."

http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... s-ago.html


.

The mistake people make is that they assume that just because there is no definite article (the) in Greek then is must mean that it must have be an indefinite article (a/an). This is not always the case. When the indefinite article is omitted, then the English translation has to include the correct meaning:

"Literally in Greek, John 1:2 says: ‘He was in beginning with God.’ Notice that in Greek there is no definite article before the word ‘beginning’. It makes sense to include the definite article ‘the’ in our English translation for the sake of clarity and English idiom. Thus, ‘He was in the beginning with God.’

We take John 1:6 for example:

"There was a man sent from God whose name was John"

Just because there is no definite article, doesn't mean this should automatically include an indefinite one. We don't translate this as, "There was a man sent from the God..."

" In fact, if the over-generalization of ‘lack of definite article makes an indefinite meaning’ is applied to other words in the first few verses of John 1, the following phrases would be found:
1:1,2 ‘a beginning’ rather than ‘the beginning’
1:4 ‘a life’ rather than ‘life’
1:6 ‘from a god’ as noted above
1:6 ‘a John’ rather than ‘John’
Thus if an implied indefinite article (‘a’) is assumed to be present in every place where no definite article (‘the’) appears in Greek, it can often change the intended meaning of a passage.
These are clear instances that exemplify the fact that Greek cannot be translated according to some imposed English equivalent. The use of the definite article in the two languages has separate meanings and uses altogether."

So even though there is no indefinite article in Greek, there is a way to convey the indefinite article by including the word "tis"

"Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective."

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm


It was crucial you address all points which you tend not to do and that is why I'm reluctant to debate with you. So I post it again:

"...CHRIST JESUS...being in the FORM OF GOD, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."--Philippians 2:5-8


For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

This clearly indicates the belief in a trinity.

Why are people so reluctant to talk about evil and Satan? You are the second person I've come across that has glossed over the mention of Satan.[/quote]

[onewithhim]

To Claire Evans:

Just wanted to reply to a few of your comments.

(1) You wrote that the Trinity concept is in the Bible. Where?

2 Corinthians 3:17

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

So we see here that the Lord is the Holy Spirit.

1 Timothy 4:10New International Version (NIV)

10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

We know that Jesus is our saviour so Jesus and God are interchangeable.

Likewise...

Luke 1:47

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1


..the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ...gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity.. Titus 2:13-14


"...CHRIST JESUS...being in the FORM OF GOD, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."--Philippians 2:5-8


For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

1 John 5:7

(2) You say that we "won't find logic associated with faith." I disagree. Logic is always a good thing to appeal to.

What is logical about a relationship and faith in God? Please logically explain how that can be achieved? Faith and reason aren't mutually exclusive but logic is not the same as reason.

The primary difference between logic and reason is that reason is subject to personal opinion, whereas logic is an actual science that follows clearly defined rules and tests for critical thinking. Logic also seeks tangible, visible or audible proof of a sound thought process by reasoning.

If one wants to find God in a scientific manner, they will be disappointed.

(3) Regarding your statement about the number of atheists: I say that there are atheists in spite of logic that is indeed associated with the ways of the Lord. He gave us the ability to reason, and it's my opinion that He wants us to do that. He never does things that have no logic.

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 1:18, KJV)

Reason isn't logic.

(4) In response to your question of "how did Satan get his power before humans when he needs human suffering to be sustained?".....I ask how did you arrive at the conclusion that he needs human suffering to be sustained? Where did that come from? Satan, according to the Scriptures, was created as a good angel and, since he had free will, eventually decided to become independent of God and to run his own show. He convinced a part of the good angels to switch sides, if you will. Then we had demons---bad angels. That's not difficult to understand.

I am looking forward to your comments and answers to my questions.

Have you not experienced that for yourself? That the more Satan manages to torment a person, the stronger he gets? I know that from experience. Demons need negative energy to replenish their energy:

http://www.spiritdaily.net/emotionsspirits.htm

Satan's presence in the Garden of Gethsemane was strong because Jesus was tormented by fear. Satan was feeding off the negative energy of fear. Once God gave Jesus peace, Satan left because he can't feed off positive energy exuded by peace.

First of all, in 2 Corinthians 3:17 it says that the Spirit was OF the Lord; In fact, there are TWO implications of "spirit" in that verse. The first implication is that God IS Spirit---that means He is a spirit Person, not a physical one. ("God is a Spirit..." John 4:24) Then, afterward, it mentions the Spirit OF God, which means the force with which He does things. He creates, He anoints, He blesses, He relates in many ways to humans and the rest of His creation by way of His force, or, spirit.

Anyway, this does not show that the Spirit is a third member of a trinity of Gods.

Isn't God as a spirit also called the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is not physical. The Holy Spirit is considered our intermediary to God through Jesus Christ who is now a spirit. Why is it so hard to imagine that there are different facets to one entity? John 4:24 refers to people who must be filled with the Holy Spirit to worship Him.

Are we to say that God stopped dwelling in Jesus once Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit when He was baptized?

Furthermore, Corinthians goes on to say that Jesus is the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17-18). Jesus was a physical being.

Secondly, Jesus and God are NOT interchangeable. God says that he is Jehovah and there is no one else that is God. (Psalm 83:18, KJV; Isaiah 43:10,11; Psalm 36:9)

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the Most High over all the earth." (Psalm 83:18, KJV)

"Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am HE: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, I am Jehovah; and besides me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:10,11, Darby)

"For with you is the source of life; by light from you we can see light." (Psalm 36:9, NWT)

If God thought the Jews understood God, then why did Jesus come to witness for the truth if the Jews had the truth already? The OT Yahweh contradicts the Father so badly that one has to wonder why.

Jesus also said that his Father, Jehovah, was "the only true God." (John 17:3) He didn't say "we are God."

Jesus said He and the Father are one so we didn't have to say "we".

Now, if Jehovah is the only God, and He is the Savior, how can Jesus be the Savior? He can be the Savior because JEHOVAH CHOSE HIM to do the job of coming to Earth and giving up his human life for mankind. Jesus was ANOINTED to do these things and represent Jehovah on the earth. Jesus was God's MEANS of saving mankind. The SOURCE of that plan was Jehovah. It was Jehovah who instructed Jesus as to what to do.

God without Jesus cannot be the saviour. Was it believed in the OT that God could only save by sending His Son? And I mean generally accepted by the Jews. If animal sacrifices were enough to redeem sin, then what was Jesus for? Consider that Jesus was incarnate of God so that He could come to this earth in physical form. Jesus wasn't just a representative. He said He was one with God! Any messiah can say they represent God.

"The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on me [Jesus; Luke 4:16-21], because Jehovah did anoint me to proclaim tidings to the humble, he sent me to bind the broken of heart, to proclaim to captives liberty, and to bound ones an opening of bands. To proclaim the year of the good pleasure of Jehovah, and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all mourners." (Isaiah 61:1,2, Young's Literal Translation)

Did Jehovah anoint himself?

"Jesus therefore responded [to those who accused him of making himself equal to God] and said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say to you, The Son is not able to do anything of himself, if he may not see the Father doing anything; for whatever things He may do, these also the Son doeth in like manner; for the Father doth love the Son, and doth show to him all things that He himself doeth." (John 5:19, Young's) So....Jesus LEARNED from the Father. God does not have to learn from anybody.

Jesus said: "I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to speak....The things I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak." (John 12:49,50) It doesn't look like Jesus and the Father, Jehovah, are one and the same. Jesus took orders from the Father.

Let's look at the egg analogy. We see the egg as one unit. Taking out the yolk, albumen and peel off the shell doesn't make them suddenly separate not related to the same unit. You can't see yolk and think it never came from the egg. It is the same. You cannot think of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as separate beings when they were one with the Father in the form of an egg. The various parts that make up an egg have different functions as Jesus and the Holy Spirit have yet are still one with the Father.

You are being, inadvertently I'm sure, deceptive in your presentation of Titus 2:13 as showing that Jesus is God. Versions DIFFER in its rendering! For example, the New American Bible puts it this way: "As we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God [Jehovah] AND OF our savior Jesus Christ." Totally different meaning than what you presented. (That word "of" means a lot.)

Us who believe in the trinity also say God and the Holy Spirit and Jesus. Yet this doesn't mean we are viewing them as three separate entities but rather three aspects of the one God. We cannot see God and so we can only see God when He is the form of Jesus. Seeing Jesus is seeing God.

John 1:1---"and the word was God"---is a mess of a translation, and I imagine St. John, who is now in heaven, cringes at the meaning trying to be conveyed by most Bible translators. The King James translation committee was so extremely biased by their own religious up-bringing that they made out the words of John to mean something he never meant! He was trying to show a DISTINCTION between "the" God and the Word. In Greek, "the" god had the definite article in front of "god." That showed that it was the only God that was being referred to. In the phrase "and the word was God," there is no definite article in front of "god," so it is correctly rendered "a god." So the Word was NOT the God. It is difficult to understand if a person doesn't know that in the Apostle John's time "god" meant any powerful, important person; the people thought of judges and political figures as "gods."

http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... s-ago.html


.

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm


It was crucial you address all points which you tend not to do and that is why I'm reluctant to debate with you. So I post it again:

"...CHRIST JESUS...being in the FORM OF GOD, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."--Philippians 2:5-8


For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

This clearly indicates the belief in a trinity.

Why are people so reluctant to talk about evil and Satan? You are the second person I've come across that has glossed over the mention of Satan.

I would say No, God is not also called the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comes from God, it is not God. It is "force" emanating from Him, similar to the term "power."

There is some discussion out there that 2 Corinthians 3:17,18 refers to the Father, Jehovah, rather than Jesus. It says "the Lord." Which "Lord" is that? Since scribes refused to acknowledge the name of God in the Greek Scriptures, there has been great confusion. Even where "YHWH" is in the O.T. and is quoted in the N.T., copiers have declined to carry the Divine Name over in the quote. So how can we tell which Lord is being referred to? Some scholars would say it is "Jehovah" in 2 Corinthians and not Jesus.

Jesus said that he and the Father are "one," meaning they were unified, they saw eye-to-eye, they were in agreement, not that they are the same Person or the same God. It was the same thing that Jesus said about his disciples at John 17:20-23. He prayed 'that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us.... Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one....."

Doesn't that show you what "one" means in these scriptures (even in John 10:30)?

God, Jehovah, is the Savior. He doesn't need anybody else, but He chose to include Jesus in His plan for salvation. Jesus is the means by which Jehovah saves, as has been explained.

No, let's not look at the "egg analogy." It is a lame attempt to make God out to be THREE. He is not three, He is "one" and only one Person. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

You say that I don't usually address all of your points, but that is just not true. I have shown you that many Bible versions do not translate Phil.2:6 the way that the KJV translates it. You have chosen to IGNORE what I have, in a thorough manner, posted.

I have also commented on I John 5:7. Why do you keep ignoring that? I have commented on it now for the third time. (That verse is not accepted by most scholars today as authentic; it was added much later than when John wrote that first letter.)

How have I been "reluctant" to take about Satan? I have never been reluctant to talk about the number one opponent of God.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 218 by onewithhim]

[center]
Another long one about ID, I'm afraid.[/center]

OK. I see that you are not up for any discussion about irreducible complexity. I asked you to explain how it is NOT possibly true. I guess that's not going to happen. Just your raging about how you hate ID people. Hmmmm.

You see wrong.

We can certainly discuss irreducible complexity.
I'm not an expert.. but others are.. I can quote.

You say that any scientists who are for indications of ID are "ID people," spewing propaganda and lies, and that they all are Christians. I disagree. They are NOT all Christians. Michael Behe has stated that he does not say in any of his books that "God" is the who or what of ID. He says merely that ID is evident by scientific standards.

I don't really care if Behe is a creationist or not.
He probably is. He works for an organization committed to proving that creationism is real by way of science.

It's the old argument : "If there is a design, there must be a designer"
That's basically the teleological argument for the existence of God.

It's old.
It's circular.. it's invalid, it's been trashed, the theory of evolution does a way better job at explaining how nature works, Behe has just dressed up Paley's Watchmaker argument in pretty new , and very complex clothes.

It takes a while to undress that dressing up...
But once exposed, it's no better than Paley's argument.

Basically these people are saying that "if I see a design, that's proof of a design, and if there is a design, there must be a designer.... "

And the big honking elephant in the room is that we all know just who they think the designer is... don't we?

Do you really think that Behe is an atheist?

Mindless evolution cannot be backed up by applying the scientific method.

You are about 150 years out of date.
All these thousands of incompetent or dishonest scientist not using the scientific method? Really?

Because THEY seem to think that science has actually, proven that evolution is a fact of life. And that's not just a little bit.. The theory of evolution keeps on being confirmed over and over.. The theory of evolution keeps on yielding predictions.. useful predictions.

The theory of evolution works.
Intelligent Design.. wants to prove that there is an intelligent design.

It's easy to "see" design in nature.
It's not so easy to prove design in nature.

We see faces in the clouds.. maybe someone designed that too.

There is NO WAY TO PROVE IT by observation! (Do you know the steps in the scientific method?)

Then you have yourself an argument with a lot of scientists who disagree with your opinion. I am not a scientist.

Are you?

YOU are the one who has fallen for lies and dark schemes.

AHA.. here we go.. dark schemes and lies.
The theory of evolution is a dark scheme, do you figure?

Creationists actually got CAUGHT at lying and scheming... you can watch a long video about that.. What LIES are you talking about that the scientists have been caught at?

( there are science hoaxers who have been caught AND discredited )

You can't even see what true science really is, and that I have been interested in good science.

Are you quite sure that I cannot?

You accuse me of falling for lies, being gullible, and promoting some evil agenda by "creationists." That is highly insulting, esp. since I have explained what I believe in scientific terms, not religious ones.

Yeah, I'm harsh.
I am accusing you of having fallen for religious propaganda.

I don't mince my words.
I think it's appropriate for me to be honest.
I do want to help, you know.

I wouldn't be a good friend to you if I just let you stay wrong like that.
The least I can do is protest and be as honest as I can.

It's what a good friend DO, yo.

I agree that "just because someone is a scientist it doesn't mean that he is doing science."

Or perhaps we could be more generous.. Let's say that most people who claim to be doing science are actually doing science. But that doesn't mean they are doing GOOD science.

I think that way of putting it is better.. But I think my example of Issac Newton is a good one.. He did science and great science for a long while and is quite famous for it too. We all know his name and his fame. Then he stopped doing science and went into religion.. he wanted to prove that God exists.

So, yeah, even the greatest scientist in the whole world might not always be doing science. Although.. a lot of people might pay attention to when they talk about something else. Fame does that.

There are a majority of scientists out there that heap scorn on ID, and just because they are the majority it doesn't mean that they are doing science.

Ah.

That's where we would disagree.
The peer review procedures are VERY crucial to the scientific method.
Acquiring a scientific consensus is CRUCIAL in science. But a scientific consensus is not mere opinion.

If a scientific paper gets rejected, it's rejected for SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGICAL reasons. Most scientific papers almost automatically get rejected by peer review the first time around. It's a very harsh process.

Only the fittest scientific papers survive. They don't even allow spelling mistakes.
So, ID got trashed.. but for scientific reasons only.

Assuming no global anti-ID conspiracy, of course.

I have seen percentages published that indicate that it is about equal---scientists who reject ID and those who accept it.

Not in actual scientific circles, no. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.

A Pew Research Poll has it that only 66% of American scientists believe in the theory of evolution. That would be two to one. I was shocked by that statistic.

It may be that people in RELATED fields to the theory of evolution might believe it more than others. The US has a very low percentage of belief in the theory of evolution compared to the other countries in the world, so maybe it's not too surprising that it's so low in the US. Still, very shocking.

Of course, it doesn't mean that all of the scientists polled were PEERS... so they might not be ABLE to evaluate evolution papers. But they all are entitled to their opinions. For example, cosmologists may be scientists and some may have been polled, but they aren't IN a related field of study to evolution. Many many people are Christian fundamentalists in the US. Maybe many many scientists are, too. More research has to be done. Pew does good work. We should get more.

We don't want to fall for propaganda of any kind.
Calling up on numbers does NOT prove evolution or Intelligent Design.

But what exactly IS the scientific support for Intelligent Design?
Let's hear from the Discovery Institute.. one of the biggest supports of the hypothesis.

"The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[24] representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. In 2007 the Discovery Institute reported that about 600 scientists signed their A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list, up from 100 in 2001.[137] The actual statement of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a relatively mild one that expresses skepticism about the absoluteness of 'Darwinism' (and is in line with the falsifiability required of scientific theories) to explain all features of life, and does not in any way represent an absolute denial or rejection of evolution.[138] By contrast, a tongue-in-cheek response known as Project Steve, a list of scientists named Steve who agree that evolution is "a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences," has 1,382 signatories as of November 24, 2015.[139] People named Steve make up approximately 1% of the total U.S. population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_ ... fic_trends

Peer review is very harsh.
Most papers are rejected.

Behe's papers were rejected.
I don't know about other ID papers out there... but if ANY were ever accepted. it would make headline news.

At least creationists would rejoice.. and let us know real quick.
They claim that ID is good science.. but that "news" hasn't trickled down to the science reporters out there who watch for HEADLINE NEWS....

The theory of evolution vs creationism is a hot topic... sells a lot of copy.
Big time news would be great for business.

It is true as you say, "claims have to be DEMONSTRATED, not just claimed."

Yes, demonstrated by way of evidence.
We agree on that.

We have to keep remembering to agree on whatever we can.. we are certainly getting into hot water now ! Thanks for reminding me to keep my head.

Good evidence that a scientific theory is true can be gained by way of the theory being used to make PREDICTIONS.. if the predictions are validated.. then.. that's pretty good news for the scientific theory.

As long as the theory is PRACTICAL.. is useful, can make predictions.. can INCREASE our knowledge about the world.. that's the hallmark of a good scientific theory.

The theory of evolution is one of the best scientific theories ever made. 150 years of success is pretty darn good in my book for any theory.

We have to now compare Intelligent Design... what predictions can it make? As far as I can tell... only ONE. If there is design.. there must be a designer, so, let's predict that we should find a designer...

Well.. we are waiting for the results.
Where to look for that designer?

ID can't help.

Scientists who eschew ID cannot demonstrate mindless evolution.

Are you quite sure about that?
Because lots and lots of them are telling us "yes".

Despite what propaganda they have disseminated into the world, there has been NO OBSERVATION OF A LIVE CELL COMING FROM NON-LIFE.

Wait one minute.
That's true.. there has been no observation of a cell coming from "non-life".

That's not what ID is about.
That's not about irreducible complexity, either.

That's just something we don't happen to know.
Which proves NOTHING at all.

Ignorance proves nothing BUT ignorance.

I see you picked up on my propaganda idea. That's important. We don't want to be hoodwinked by propaganda. We should want to know what is true.

Do you really think that mainstream science is nothing but "propaganda"?

Do you honestly believe that biology and geology and all the related fields of study that confirm the theory of evolution over and over again is nothing but propaganda to, perhaps, fulfill some global "godless agenda"?

Some Cabal.

We know about massively huge religious organizations.. where is the headquarters for the global "theory of evolution" conspiracy? In hollowed out nuclear powered mountain lairs? Is it the CIA? Is it the pesky NWO?

Is evolution propaganda for Satan, perhaps?
What do you think the theory of evolution is really about?

Or maybe, just maybe, is the theory of evolution a way of finding out how the world works, and is just honest and spectacularly successful science that some religious zealots are upset about?

Maybe that's just wild speculation.
A world wide conspiracy that has lasted over 150 years is way more likely, do you figure? And the fact that creationist organizations have been CAUGHT conspiring and lying is just a mild coincidence?

Just WHO are the conspirators here.. ?
Just who are the actual scientists?

The scientists you admire are pulling the proverbial wool over the eyes of you and many others. How do their claims fit into the rigors of the scientific method?

You might think that the mainstream scientists are engaged in bad science.
I think the mainstream scientists are rather GOOD at using scientific methods.. what do you think?

There ARE a few books on the subject.
I suggest "Why evolution is true" by Jerry Coyne.

Here is a lecture ( not fantastic quality... )

Why Evolution is True and Why Many People Still Don't Believe It (Jerry Coyne, 2012)

Scientists who accept ID are not people that "KNOW" they are spreading lies.

We can't read their minds, of course, but some ID supporters HAVE been caught lying. That's a fact. You can watch the video I keep promoting in here. Their lies are on RECORD. We can check the record. The video I keep promoting is a good place to start. It explains that record of deception.

That's not a claim, that's a fact.
Some of the ID crowd got caught red handed LYING.
It was a CONSPIRACY... and it was EXPOSED in federal court.

The video talks about that court trial.
Evidence WAS presented there. Not too good for the ID crowd.

The science community says NO to Intelligent Design, and creationists still insist ID is "scientific". If ID IS scientific, then it's on the fringe, at the very least. The scientific fringe is HUGE. Lots and lots of people have their pet theories. Most don't even get CLOSE to peer review.

A few of those fringe theories are actually good, though. That happens too.
By now, most scientists working in biology have probably HEARD of intelligent design. It's not a go to most of them.

They really do see evidence of Intelligent Design.

Yes, I can accept that.
They really do "see" it.

And their peers have rejected intelligent design as a scientific theory.. sorry.
So, yeah.. they "see" design. It's just that they can't prove it.

That's how it goes in science.
Evidence is demanded.

Just because someone says he "sees" it.. doesn't prove anything at all.
If others can't see it along with him.. too bad.

You say that "they don't study nature." That is exactly what they do! They REALLY study nature, and have found the scientific existence of irreducible complexity.

I might have gone a bit too far in my rhetoric.
ID people might be doing a bit of science. I was over-generalizing a bit.

But not much.

Some of them might actually be doing real science at times. I got carried away. I think that Behe might actually be doing real science. But is his real science concerting ID any good?.. That's another matter. Doing very bad science becomes pseudo-science at some point. Maybe people consider ID to be pseudo-scientific because they see it as creationism instead. Proving "Genesis" isn't a scientific matter.. but a religious one.

Issac Newton did EXCELLENT science.. until he stopped doing that.. and went into religious studies for the rest of his life.

Some religious people might want to have Genesis seem more reasonable. That's their concern. Scientists concern themselves with understanding NATURE.. not holy books.

I think that he might have been instrumental in challenging the notion of vestigal organs. Vestigiality refers to genetically determined structures or attributes that have lost some or all of their ancestral function in a given species, but have been retained during the process of evolution.

But you have to take note:
It was OTHER scientists who found that vestigal organs might still have uses.
And that idea.. destroys the irreducible complexity idea.

Even if something is missing a piece or two.. it still can be useful to the organism.

I have YET to have any discussion by ANYONE about how the idea of irreducible complexity can be dismantled. All there is from people like yourself is ranting and raving.

Oh dear.
I rant
I rave.. its true.

Busted, oh so very busted.

But maybe you haven't quite done your due diligence.
There is plenty of stuff out there criticizing irreducible complexity.

I'm just a ranter and a raver.
I suggest you seek out actual experts.

The only thing that I'm an expert at is the ranting and the raving.
You are quite right about that.

I make no bones.

But if you haven't seen any good critique of Intelligent Design.. I urge you to look.
It's out there. I use a google for that.

This is a very short comment by Michael Behe in his book, "Darwin's Black Box." Apparently Richard Dawkins has conceded that biochemical systems CAN be designed, and "since Dawkins agrees that biochemical systems can be designed, and that people who did not see or hear about the designing can nonetheless detect it, then the question of whether a given biochemical system was designed boils down simply to adducing evidence to support design.

Right.
We should want evidence presented for a scientific claim.

I would agree with Dawkins that ID MIGHT be true.. if ID had some evidence to support it. No door is ever completely closed in science.

Bring the evidence, write the paper.. submit it to a scientific journal.
Then.. wait for the letter .. yea or nay.

That's how that works in science.
If your peers say "nay", then it's back to the black board.

If your paper gets published, others will take notice...and so on... if enough of your peers say "Yay", you might be nominated for a Nobel prize or two.

Demonstrating that Intelligent Design is true. would be a fantastic break for any scientist. Huge global news with massive implications. As they say, it would be a DEAL breaker. And the scientist.. instantly famous and a bit more wealthy, too.

We must also consider the role of the laws of nature.

I think that most scientists do.
I think that even Behe tries to do that.

That's what they do.
Some scientists come up with winning theories, and some don't.

The laws of nature can organize matter---for example, water flow can build up silt sufficiently to dam a portion of a river, forcing it to change course.

Yes, a lot of natural stuff sure seems to happen naturally, doesn't it?

The most relevant laws are those of biological reproduction, mutation, and natural selection.

I don't know if those are called "laws" ... maybe not technically. Let's say that they are facts and excellent theories. Using the word "law" in a debate with a Christian might lead us to conclude that there must be a "law giver" out there.. the very thing the Christian might want to demonstrate. It's the same as "design", really. Accepting design is tantamount to accepting a designer out there.

We don't want to simply ASSUME what it is we want to DEMONSTRATE.

If a biological structure can be explained in terms of those natural laws, then we cannot conclude that it was designed.

Well.. If it rains, I look up.. there are clouds... I attribute the rain to the clouds.. but that doesn't MEAN there is no designer designing the clouds. There MIGHT be... so, let me look a bit more... Who knows right?

Throughout this book, however, I have shown why many biochemical systems cannot be built up by natural selection working on mutations: ]no direct, gradual route exists to these irreducibly complex systems, and the laws of chemistry work strongly against the UNDIRECTED development of the biochemical systems that make molecules such as AMP.

That's his conclusion.

It's like saying this:

"I have shown why many cloud systems cannot be built up by natural forces such as gravity, sunlight or moisture, no direct, gradual route exists to these complex cloud systems, and the laws of chemistry work strongly against the UNDIRECTED development of the cloud systems that make rain."

So, clouds must be designed to make rain.

You might say: "keep up with the research about them clouds, fellah".
In any case, saying that because we can't explain something PROVES our hypothesis isn't enough. It's not sufficient to say either this or that.

We actually have to PROVE "that".

Behe is actually saying that since he can't explain certain biological processes, they must have been designed. Well, nice but ... he hasn't demonstrated a design.

"Alternatives to gradualism that work through unintelligent causes, such as symbiosis and complexity theory, cannot (and do not even try to) explain the fundamental biochemical machines of life....

He seems to be completely unaware of the massive amount of work being done in that regard.. Try... "the medical field" and all of biology .. Behe.. oh come on, Behe. What is he THINKING?

What does he imagine scientists are doing out there?
Satanic ritual?

Might there be an as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity?

OF COURSE.. that's why so many scientists are working on finding more and more about natural processes. That is quite literally all they DO.

That's what science IS.

What on EARTH is Behe talking about?
Religion?

No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility.

I disagree.. there are plenty O' fools out there.
A lot of people deny bits of reality they don't like.

It's a big huge honking problem.
That's why I keep promoting skepticism.

Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work

Yeah, imagine that.. nobody knows what they don't actually know.
So, therefore design?... no.

He would actually have to prove his hypothesis..

; further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.

What a terrible analogy.

Behe isn't trying to prove to us that computers are designed.. we all know that computers are all designed, and that they all have designers. What Behe is actually trying to prove that biological organisms are designed and have designers.

Simply stating that "it goes against human experience" isn't scientific evidence. Does he actually demonstrate evidence for design in that book? I don't recall. In any case.. so far so bad.

No evidence is offered except for his opinion.
That kind of thing doesn't pass for evidence in science.

But let's continue:

"Concluding that no such process exists is as scientifically sound as concluding that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist.

Wow.. I have to thank you for quoting that.
I had quite forgotten just how bad a thinker Behe really is.

He puts his ID hypothesis on the very same level as the Loch Ness Monster... did you see that? What's next, Bigfoot, alien abductions? ID is about as meaningful a belief as those... Well, people believe weird stuff.

Whataryagonnado?

The thing is.. scientists aren't very impressed by the Loch Ness Monster hypothesis either.. and for the very same reason... NO EVIDENCE is forthcoming.

So, until there IS any evidence for either to take a LOOK at.. we can maybe keep the door open to it just in case one day it comes a knockin'.

It aint knocking yet.
Behe seems to pretend that it has and still is.
Skeptics be fingerin' their ears.

In the face of the massive evidence we do have for biochemical design,

What "MASS" ?
He has to be joking, right?

He sees design, so there must be design.
That's his massive evidence?

He sees Old Ness so, there must be Nessy?

Others are not so impressed by claims to have "seen" them.
It' just like most apologists.. they claim MASSIVE amounts of evidence for God.. ( design is one such evidence ) And it just doesn't impress outsiders very much. All we ever GET are the claims of massive amounts of evidence. Yeah, massive, yo.

Personal experience gets cited a whole lot for religious claims.
I think Intelligent Design has to be experienced through the witness of the Holy Ghost, too. There isn't anything NATURAL to point to here.

SEEING "design" in nature is subjective.
Science doesn't care about subjective.

Sorry.
Religion cares about subjective experiences like that.

ignoring that evidence in the name of a phantom process would be to play the role of the detectives who ignore an elephant."

You see what he does there?

He claims that people who disagree with his conclusion are in denial. That's not evidence for ID. That's a claim about people who don't agree with him. It's just empty rhetoric. That's not science.

Does he actually provide any real evidence of ID?
Or is the book full of empty rhetoric like that?

I can't recall.

I think there was the mousetrap and the bacterial flagellum. the eye and blood clotting arguments, too. All trashed... utterly. Without remorse. Behe's book I think ( as I recall ) is a class study in very poor science. What to AVOID in science is the most we can learn by it. It's a classic book.

Of course, it's just a rehashing of Paley's Watchmaker analogy, but still.. it's a modern take.

Do you find this non-boring enough to actually read what this scientist said?

NON-BORING?

If I were bored, I wouldn't write about it.
NOT AT ALL.....

I'm very picky that way.

I think that "Darwin's Black Box" is a very interesting and important book. I'd even say that it's a scientific book. It uses science to prove a design. I'd say, that so far, you have presented us ( I read the book, but it's been a while ) terrible parts of the book. When it comes to science, what you quoted was just bluster.

In science, that kind of things is intellectual garbage.
Not science at all... mere opinion and polemic.

I'm pretty sure that he MUST do better than that in other parts, though.
I think that Behe is respected as some kind of credible scientist in certain regards.. but when it comes to ID?.. no. Not at all.

The parts of Behe's book you quoted above are not science at all.

In my opinion, it's not even close.
Do you think those quotes are in any way science?

Do you find this non-boring enough to actually watch a two hour documentary about it?

Maybe even without attacking his reputation and credulity? Just sticking with the discussion?

That's a very good point.

I engaged in a bit of character assassination.. but Behe's intellectual character has been already trashed a long time ago. In court, and in the scientific community.

We are humans.
All scientists are.. Even I'm human.
So.. reputation is very important.

Scientists DEPEND on their reputations. One slip.. and it's disaster for their scientific career.

The science community is very fair about the science.. devastating to individuals.
That's how it goes.

If one has been discredited as a liar and a fraud in public court and in the scientific community, it DOES matter, sorry. When one cries wolf one too many times, it's going to be much hard to be taken seriously the next time around. We are human. But even though that has happened to Behe and the rest of the ID community, if we are discussing the IDEAS.. then yeah.

I should stick to the ideas.
I can do that.

I've trashed Behe's ideas above.
Keep em coming, though. We only got started.

I think that scientifically, and rhetorically, they are USELESS at best and logically fallacious most of the time. It's awful stuff.

So far it is... I don't think I want to read the book.
But if you insist, I might be interested in going through it with you.. like a kind of a Bible study.. but .. it would be ID study.. If you do have an interest, I URGE you to start off by watching the video.

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

That's a very good point.
I do attack these people.

I guess I lose credibility when I do.

But a lot of people BELIEVE Behe's science is GOOD.. and that really gets my goat.
As to his idea.. well, I've started addressing the ones you presented.

Thanks for that.
Maybe next time you can present some more scientific stuff.

And just to be clear, the above quotes did not present one bit of actual evidence for ID. What you presented was Behe's opinions, his conclusions, and nothing else.

Opinions and conclusions are not considered evidence in actual science.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 204 by Claire Evans]

Mind if I add a comment about Logic ? Just thinking , in my opinion the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is illogical.
If it is can you explain to me?
Taking this thought a step further though if not for this incredible event if not for the crucifixion and resurrection there would probably be no such religion as Christianity. That's kind of what Paul said too , don't ya think? There isn't much else that separates Christianity from Judaism. Most of what Jesus taught was only a refinement of Torah Prophets and Wisdom litterateur. With out the illogical and miraculous crucifixion and resurrection there would be no Christianity.

Why would the crucifixion be illogical? You could use logic for the case of the resurrection by the process of elimination, I suppose. One of the arguments is how lies from a small group of people could convince so many that Jesus rose from the dead without any evidence. "Fake news" eventually gets exposed.

I don't agree that the Jesus refined the Torah. He came to bring about a new covenant.

[Claire Evans]

Just a couple more comments, though I have commented on these points several times before, and I'm a little chagrined that my comments, apparently, weren't considered valid.

Philippians 2:6 was quoted by you to show that Jesus was equal to God. Other versions translate that verse to mean something entirely different. For example, the New American Bible, New International Version, & the New American Standard Bible, to name just a few of many, render the verse as such:

"Who, although he existed in the form of God [spirit], did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped."

"Grasped" has the meaning of taking hold of something that one did not have before.

That means being equal with God was not something to be taken advantage of (grasp)

Philippians 2:5-8New International Version (NIV)

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

It clearly says He existed in the form of God and that He was equal yet did not exploit that.

"What do the words mean? The first important one is “form.� An English dictionary will not give us the meaning of this word. It comes from a Greek word which means that Jesus did not look like God on the outside but was God on the inside. We would say that Jesus possessed the attributes of God. The Greek sense of the word “existed� means that Jesus continued to exist as God. He did not cease to be God even when He came to earth."

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/q ... 25-8-mean/

I John 5:7 has been explained often. It was a corrupting verse, ADDED in more recent centuries....NOT in the earlier manuscripts.

There is a reason for that and it has to do with the circumstances of the times:

"During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.

The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles."

The "majority text" was only based on a small number of manuscripts.

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp

Then you referred to Jesus' "fear." Jesus was never afraid. He was in agony in the Garden of Gethsemane and cried and sweat blood because he didn't want to die as a blasphemer. It wasn't the dying that he was in trepidation over, it was being considered someone who said false things about Jehovah, his Father, and being accused of claiming to be equal to God. He couldn't bear bringing reproach on his Father.

What?? Have you never considered this verse?

http://biblehub.com/matthew/26-39.htm

Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

Jesus did not want to be exposed to all of the sin of the world because that would mean He would be forsaken by God and go to hell. And who wouldn't be afraid of a crucifixion?? He was human after all!

[ttruscott]

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

This clearly indicates the belief in a trinity.

I am a Trinitarian and I cannot accept this... 1 John 5:7 ACTUALLY SAYS: 6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ—not by water alone, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies to this, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement.…

It is the Spirit, the water and the blood that AGREE as one. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges contends: "It is very doubtful whether the Trinity is even remotely symbolized."

[onewithhim]

Just a couple more comments, though I have commented on these points several times before, and I'm a little chagrined that my comments, apparently, weren't considered valid.

Philippians 2:6 was quoted by you to show that Jesus was equal to God. Other versions translate that verse to mean something entirely different. For example, the New American Bible, New International Version, & the New American Standard Bible, to name just a few of many, render the verse as such:

"Who, although he existed in the form of God [spirit], did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped."

"Grasped" has the meaning of taking hold of something that one did not have before.

That means being equal with God was not something to be taken advantage of (grasp)

Philippians 2:5-8New International Version (NIV)

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

It clearly says He existed in the form of God and that He was equal yet did not exploit that.

I disagree. Jesus was in the SAME FORM as God----SPIRIT----which need not be equal to God. After all, the angels are spirits and they are not equal.

Most of the versions I have examined do NOT say that Jesus was "equal" to God. What version are YOU using?

The AB and LB are two examples of where the translators do not translate the Greek, but substitute interpretations of their own that are not based on Paul's language at all. Therefore they are inaccurate.

The word of particular interest in the verse at Phil.2:6 is the Greek "harpagmos." It is translated by some versions as "something to be grasped" (NAB, NIV), "a thing to be grasped" (NASB), and "a thing to be eagerly grasped." (AB) Translators have felt that the word "harpagmos" falls pretty clearly on one side or the other of two possible meanings---for equality or against it. The KJV uses "robbery" to translate "harpagmos, and the NWT uses "seizure." These two words suggest snatching at something one does not possess. This lines up with The Liddell & Scott Greek Dictionary which defines "harpagmos as "ROBBERY," "RAPE," & "PRIZE TO BE GRASPED."

The words related to that Greek word have to do with the seizure of something NOT YET ONE'S OWN. There is not a single word derived from "harpozo" or " harpagmos" that is used to suggest holding on to something already possessed. In the New Testament, these Greek words ALWAYS mean to snatch something away, to seize and TAKE it. (The KJV reverses the meaning of the Greek by reading Greek syntax as if it were English. So it reads: "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." All modern translations recognize that this is a misunderstanding of the Greek.

The meaning is clear, once we understand that to "grasp" is to seize something you did not already possess. So the far superior rendering of Philippians 2:6 is:

"Christ Jesus, who, although he existed in the form of God, did NOT regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." (NASB, NIV, NAB, 21st-Century N.T., Revised English Bible, Good News for Modern Man/TEV)


Having informed ourselves of the meaning of "harpagmos," we can see plainly that Jesus didn't want to forcefully grasp something that was NOT his---equality with God.

[Claire Evans]

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

This clearly indicates the belief in a trinity.

I am a Trinitarian and I cannot accept this... 1 John 5:7 ACTUALLY SAYS: 6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ—not by water alone, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies to this, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement.…

It is the Spirit, the water and the blood that AGREE as one. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges contends: "It is very doubtful whether the Trinity is even remotely symbolized."

1 John 5:6 is not referring to the trinity but 7 is. Some like to argue that 7 is not legitimate because it is a later addition but, as I explained to onewithhim, there is a reason why this verse did not appear in earlier traditions:

"During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.

The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles."

The "majority text" was only based on a small number of manuscripts.

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 228 by Claire Evans]

The "troubling passage" was removed from many versions because it was a corruption. It was not in the earlier manuscripts. It was inserted in there because the clergical arrangement that became the RCC wanted it in there to strengthen their LIE that God is a Trinity.

[Claire Evans]

To Claire Evans:

Just wanted to reply to a few of your comments.

(1) You wrote that the Trinity concept is in the Bible. Where?

2 Corinthians 3:17

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

So we see here that the Lord is the Holy Spirit.

1 Timothy 4:10New International Version (NIV)

10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

We know that Jesus is our saviour so Jesus and God are interchangeable.

Likewise...

Luke 1:47

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1


..the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ...gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity.. Titus 2:13-14


"...CHRIST JESUS...being in the FORM OF GOD, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."--Philippians 2:5-8


For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

1 John 5:7

(2) You say that we "won't find logic associated with faith." I disagree. Logic is always a good thing to appeal to.

What is logical about a relationship and faith in God? Please logically explain how that can be achieved? Faith and reason aren't mutually exclusive but logic is not the same as reason.

The primary difference between logic and reason is that reason is subject to personal opinion, whereas logic is an actual science that follows clearly defined rules and tests for critical thinking. Logic also seeks tangible, visible or audible proof of a sound thought process by reasoning.

If one wants to find God in a scientific manner, they will be disappointed.

(3) Regarding your statement about the number of atheists: I say that there are atheists in spite of logic that is indeed associated with the ways of the Lord. He gave us the ability to reason, and it's my opinion that He wants us to do that. He never does things that have no logic.

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 1:18, KJV)

Reason isn't logic.

(4) In response to your question of "how did Satan get his power before humans when he needs human suffering to be sustained?".....I ask how did you arrive at the conclusion that he needs human suffering to be sustained? Where did that come from? Satan, according to the Scriptures, was created as a good angel and, since he had free will, eventually decided to become independent of God and to run his own show. He convinced a part of the good angels to switch sides, if you will. Then we had demons---bad angels. That's not difficult to understand.

I am looking forward to your comments and answers to my questions.

Have you not experienced that for yourself? That the more Satan manages to torment a person, the stronger he gets? I know that from experience. Demons need negative energy to replenish their energy:

http://www.spiritdaily.net/emotionsspirits.htm

Satan's presence in the Garden of Gethsemane was strong because Jesus was tormented by fear. Satan was feeding off the negative energy of fear. Once God gave Jesus peace, Satan left because he can't feed off positive energy exuded by peace.

First of all, in 2 Corinthians 3:17 it says that the Spirit was OF the Lord; In fact, there are TWO implications of "spirit" in that verse. The first implication is that God IS Spirit---that means He is a spirit Person, not a physical one. ("God is a Spirit..." John 4:24) Then, afterward, it mentions the Spirit OF God, which means the force with which He does things. He creates, He anoints, He blesses, He relates in many ways to humans and the rest of His creation by way of His force, or, spirit.

Anyway, this does not show that the Spirit is a third member of a trinity of Gods.

Isn't God as a spirit also called the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is not physical. The Holy Spirit is considered our intermediary to God through Jesus Christ who is now a spirit. Why is it so hard to imagine that there are different facets to one entity? John 4:24 refers to people who must be filled with the Holy Spirit to worship Him.

Are we to say that God stopped dwelling in Jesus once Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit when He was baptized?

Furthermore, Corinthians goes on to say that Jesus is the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17-18). Jesus was a physical being.

Secondly, Jesus and God are NOT interchangeable. God says that he is Jehovah and there is no one else that is God. (Psalm 83:18, KJV; Isaiah 43:10,11; Psalm 36:9)

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the Most High over all the earth." (Psalm 83:18, KJV)

"Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am HE: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, I am Jehovah; and besides me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:10,11, Darby)

"For with you is the source of life; by light from you we can see light." (Psalm 36:9, NWT)

If God thought the Jews understood God, then why did Jesus come to witness for the truth if the Jews had the truth already? The OT Yahweh contradicts the Father so badly that one has to wonder why.

Jesus also said that his Father, Jehovah, was "the only true God." (John 17:3) He didn't say "we are God."

Jesus said He and the Father are one so we didn't have to say "we".

Now, if Jehovah is the only God, and He is the Savior, how can Jesus be the Savior? He can be the Savior because JEHOVAH CHOSE HIM to do the job of coming to Earth and giving up his human life for mankind. Jesus was ANOINTED to do these things and represent Jehovah on the earth. Jesus was God's MEANS of saving mankind. The SOURCE of that plan was Jehovah. It was Jehovah who instructed Jesus as to what to do.

God without Jesus cannot be the saviour. Was it believed in the OT that God could only save by sending His Son? And I mean generally accepted by the Jews. If animal sacrifices were enough to redeem sin, then what was Jesus for? Consider that Jesus was incarnate of God so that He could come to this earth in physical form. Jesus wasn't just a representative. He said He was one with God! Any messiah can say they represent God.

"The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on me [Jesus; Luke 4:16-21], because Jehovah did anoint me to proclaim tidings to the humble, he sent me to bind the broken of heart, to proclaim to captives liberty, and to bound ones an opening of bands. To proclaim the year of the good pleasure of Jehovah, and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all mourners." (Isaiah 61:1,2, Young's Literal Translation)

Did Jehovah anoint himself?

"Jesus therefore responded [to those who accused him of making himself equal to God] and said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say to you, The Son is not able to do anything of himself, if he may not see the Father doing anything; for whatever things He may do, these also the Son doeth in like manner; for the Father doth love the Son, and doth show to him all things that He himself doeth." (John 5:19, Young's) So....Jesus LEARNED from the Father. God does not have to learn from anybody.

Jesus said: "I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to speak....The things I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak." (John 12:49,50) It doesn't look like Jesus and the Father, Jehovah, are one and the same. Jesus took orders from the Father.

Let's look at the egg analogy. We see the egg as one unit. Taking out the yolk, albumen and peel off the shell doesn't make them suddenly separate not related to the same unit. You can't see yolk and think it never came from the egg. It is the same. You cannot think of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as separate beings when they were one with the Father in the form of an egg. The various parts that make up an egg have different functions as Jesus and the Holy Spirit have yet are still one with the Father.

You are being, inadvertently I'm sure, deceptive in your presentation of Titus 2:13 as showing that Jesus is God. Versions DIFFER in its rendering! For example, the New American Bible puts it this way: "As we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God [Jehovah] AND OF our savior Jesus Christ." Totally different meaning than what you presented. (That word "of" means a lot.)

Us who believe in the trinity also say God and the Holy Spirit and Jesus. Yet this doesn't mean we are viewing them as three separate entities but rather three aspects of the one God. We cannot see God and so we can only see God when He is the form of Jesus. Seeing Jesus is seeing God.

John 1:1---"and the word was God"---is a mess of a translation, and I imagine St. John, who is now in heaven, cringes at the meaning trying to be conveyed by most Bible translators. The King James translation committee was so extremely biased by their own religious up-bringing that they made out the words of John to mean something he never meant! He was trying to show a DISTINCTION between "the" God and the Word. In Greek, "the" god had the definite article in front of "god." That showed that it was the only God that was being referred to. In the phrase "and the word was God," there is no definite article in front of "god," so it is correctly rendered "a god." So the Word was NOT the God. It is difficult to understand if a person doesn't know that in the Apostle John's time "god" meant any powerful, important person; the people thought of judges and political figures as "gods."

http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... s-ago.html


.

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm


It was crucial you address all points which you tend not to do and that is why I'm reluctant to debate with you. So I post it again:

"...CHRIST JESUS...being in the FORM OF GOD, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."--Philippians 2:5-8


For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

This clearly indicates the belief in a trinity.

Why are people so reluctant to talk about evil and Satan? You are the second person I've come across that has glossed over the mention of Satan.

I would say No, God is not also called the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comes from God, it is not God. It is "force" emanating from Him, similar to the term "power."

There is some discussion out there that 2 Corinthians 3:17,18 refers to the Father, Jehovah, rather than Jesus. It says "the Lord." Which "Lord" is that? Since scribes refused to acknowledge the name of God in the Greek Scriptures, there has been great confusion. Even where "YHWH" is in the O.T. and is quoted in the N.T., copiers have declined to carry the Divine Name over in the quote. So how can we tell which Lord is being referred to? Some scholars would say it is "Jehovah" in 2 Corinthians and not Jesus.

There is a different meaning not related to the trinity. Jesus as the Spirit who enables true understanding of God not known through non believers belief in the OT.

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/2 ... /3-17.html

Jesus said that he and the Father are "one," meaning they were unified, they saw eye-to-eye, they were in agreement, not that they are the same Person or the same God. It was the same thing that Jesus said about his disciples at John 17:20-23. He prayed 'that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us.... Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one....."

Doesn't that show you what "one" means in these scriptures (even in John 10:30)?

That is not how the Jews saw it and Jesus did not correct it:

John 10:31

“The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.� Why? Blasphemy was a crime punishable by death according to the Jewish Law. When Jesus asked why they were planning to kill Him, they answered, “For blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God� (John 10:33)

Jesus referring to the disciples as being one means being one in one spiritual body.

1 Cor. 6:17. Let them all be stamped with the same image and superscription, and influenced by the same power.

John 11:52New International Version (NIV)

52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.


https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... John.17.23

God, Jehovah, is the Savior. He doesn't need anybody else, but He chose to include Jesus in His plan for salvation. Jesus is the means by which Jehovah saves, as has been explained.

By what other method do you think that God could have saved mankind? Would He not have chosen any other way other than for His Son to suffer death and hell? He clearly thought being in the form of the Son was the only way to reach out and save mankind. No Jesus, no salvation.

No, let's not look at the "egg analogy." It is a lame attempt to make God out to be THREE. He is not three, He is "one" and only one Person. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

If the OT writers had it right about God, why did Jesus come to make a new covenant? They didn't understand God so why use Deuteronomy as ammo to your argument?

You say that I don't usually address all of your points, but that is just not true. I have shown you that many Bible versions do not translate Phil.2:6 the way that the KJV translates it. You have chosen to IGNORE what I have, in a thorough manner, posted.

I have also commented on I John 5:7. Why do you keep ignoring that? I have commented on it now for the third time. (That verse is not accepted by most scholars today as authentic; it was added much later than when John wrote that first letter.)


How have I been "reluctant" to take about Satan? I have never been reluctant to talk about the number one opponent of God.

Sorry, I didn't see that you had continued your comment in a new comment section.

Do you agree that Satan feed off the agony of Christ?