If god created...

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:51 am

OK theists you reckon god did all the creating.

Did he set things in motion e.g. the Big Bang and then let evolution take over?

Or is he still creating as we trundle along?

Or did he stop his business of creating sometime between now and the Big Bang?

These would be the only three options as far as I can tell (other than him not existing at all)

So which is it?

InTheFlesh · Post by **InTheFlesh** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:56 pm

Heb.9
[22] And almost all things are by the law purged with blood;
and without shedding of blood is no remission.

QED · Post by **QED** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 4:04 pm

InTheFlesh wrote:Heb.9
[22] And almost all things are by the law purged with blood;
and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Is this meant to explain why God creates both sharper teeth and thicker hides at the same time? It simply doesn't. This passage, I'm pretty sure, refers to the salvation through the shedding of Christ's blood. That's a whole different can of worms: What possible sacrifice can there be when an immortal (with the documented power of miracles that can relieve pain and suffering) undergoes a "stage death"? I mean no disrespect by describing the crucifixion in these terms here, but if Christ had been 100% mortal human then I could appreciate the meaning of it all. But as some kind of immortal God, goodness only knows what it really means.

InTheFlesh · Post by **InTheFlesh** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:00 pm

but if Christ had been 100% mortal human then I could appreciate the meaning of it all

He was.
The son of man was born of woman
killed in the flesh
and raised from the dead by the power of God.

Why do you say he is not a mortal human being?

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:37 pm

InTheFlesh wrote: and raised from the dead by the power of God.
Why do you say he is not a mortal human being?

Do you see it?

Fallibleone · Post by **Fallibleone** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:08 pm

Yes, InTheFlesh, you appear to have contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences. He was raised from the dead, but have to ask why QED says he's not mortal.

Once again - raised from the dead is the opposite of mortal.

InTheFlesh · Post by **InTheFlesh** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:43 pm

How so?

1Cor.15
[53] For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

The fact that he died is what made him mortal.
Doesn't mortal mean subject to death?
Was Jesus not subject to death?

Are we not mortal?
Will we not be raised from the dead?

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:29 pm

InTheFlesh wrote: ...and this mortal must put on immortality.

This is what creates that kind of duality of thinking. Now is this dude a mortal because of the first part, or is he immortal because of the second part? If someone has become immortal, I would argue that negates any talk of their 'mortalness'. Of course my understanding is this was all part of God's plan anyway, so Jesus becoming immortal was a preordained deal. Any talk of His 'mortalness' would be meaningless in my first case, and wrong in this last case. If someone was planned to be immortal from the get go, then immortal they are.

InTheFlesh wrote: The fact that he died is what made him mortal.

Agreed, right up till he 'rose from the dead'.

InTheFlesh wrote: Doesn't mortal mean subject to death?

One would think so. But when we got a guy rising up from being dead, then we might as well toss the dictionary away.

InTheFlesh wrote: Was Jesus not subject to death?

'Parently not, if all them Bible's are to be believed.

InTheFlesh wrote: Are we not mortal?

Yes. It's this whole deal here that gives rise to tales of folks rising from the dead, and going on to live in some afterlife.

Will we not be raised from the dead?

No, but a little thing like facts ain't bothered folks from claiming it to be so.

InTheFlesh · Post by **InTheFlesh** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:50 pm

Joey,
I disagree with you. The dictionary definition fits the bible definition. Mortal means that we are subject to death. So was Christ. His death was predicted in the Old Testament. He was born to die! Mortal does not define what will happen to the body once it is dead. It is dead. It is mortal.

QED · Post by **QED** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:23 am

InTheFlesh wrote:
but if Christ had been 100% mortal human then I could appreciate the meaning of it all
He was.
The son of man was born of woman
killed in the flesh
and raised from the dead by the power of God.

Why do you say he is not a mortal human being?

InTheFlesh, I think the above argument about mortality is clouding the issue. Being 100% mortal is, to me, being unable to walk on water; unable to turn water into wine; unable to heal with the wave of a hand, and so on. These supernatural powers at least vector through Jesus if not originate. We would certainly not anticipate their being limited or restricted in any way (given their ultimate origin) -- the ability to heal others with supernatural powers jives with the ability to mitigate ones own injury or death (even if the concept of identity is a little confusing in the holy trinity).

In addition to the question of Jesus's susceptibility to the spectrum of mortal injury, the whole concept of sacrifice is one of permanently giving up something for something else. A life is usually considered as the ultimate sacrifice because it cannot be regained (sacrificing a goat isn't quite the same). But in Jesus we have even defeated this simple bargain -- as, for the crucifixion to be a genuine human sacrifice, we need a lifeless body thereafter. But the bible tells us that Jesus rose again and was witnessed walking, talking and finally ascending to heaven.

This criticism of a central axiom of the Christian faith welcomes a coherent explanation as it troubles me to think that such an obvious elephant goes unnoticed in the Christian room.

However, the subject of this topic was: If god created... So we should continue this off-topic subject in another thread. I have one already made for the purpose: Questioning the Crucifixion -- don't be put off by the fact that it's over twenty pages long already, if anyone thinks they have an explanation, just tack it on the end and we'll deal with it afresh.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:57 am

InTheFlesh wrote:Joey,
I disagree with you. The dictionary definition fits the bible definition. Mortal means that we are subject to death. So was Christ. His death was predicted in the Old Testament. He was born to die! Mortal does not define what will happen to the body once it is dead. It is dead. It is mortal.

Great, so we see what it means to be mortal. Now let's look at what it means to be immortal...
From : Dictionary.com
1. not mortal; not liable or subject to death; undying: our immortal souls.
2. remembered or celebrated through all time: the immortal words of Lincoln.
3. not liable to perish or decay; imperishable; everlasting.
4..........
------------------------------
Please, when discussing two words, do get the definitions of both.

To claim that Jesus rose from the dead is to claim he was never really dead to begin with, what with death being final and all. Jesus was only subject to death in the sense that he was comatose, immobile, or something other than death.