Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Flaws in Christian Salvation design


scotter

Recommended Posts

:thanks: Thank you Bruce. That was a mind-expanding response for me.  :wicked:  

 

Bruce, another question...

could it be possible,

IF all things were parts of "God",

but these parts not having co-consciousness of this...

would that then allow "God" to encompass those four characteristics

in regards to either individual components

and/or a totally collective aspect... in God 'being everything'? 

 

:thanks:

 

 

Amanda,

 

Perhaps it could be, but then again it would render Christianity, Judaism and Islam irrelevant as all three are predicated upon a very different definition of deity. The Tanakh, Qu'ran and Holy Bible specifically detail a deity that is not the one you propose. So the question Amanda, is why do you call yourself a Christian, when your beliefs are non-biblical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Amanda

    13

  • Ouroboros

    8

  • Celsus

    6

  • SkepticOfBible

    4

Men are sinners, in NEED of a savior -- this need of a savior is just that, a need.  Like we need water to survive, we need a savior.  All men are guilty, as all men have need for things to survive.  A man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."  Without water we will die, without Jesus, who is the Word become man, we will die.

 

All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved -- We have a role in our own salvation, in the same we we play a roll getting on a plane and taking a trip, all expenses paid.  We may have had no power to give ourselves the these gifts, but we had a roll in that we have freedom of choice.  If those that call upon the name of the Lord are saved, I would say those that do not... will not be saved.  This rules out universal salvation.

 

That savior is Jesus -- Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life, and none come to the father but by Him.  Jesus is the fine paid for us, though we can pay that fine outselves if we choose.

 

God knows how to save men, and He is not willing that anyone should perish -- Keep in mind the latter choice from above.  God is a gentleman, and offers us pardon... but He is a judge offering us a gift while not in the courtroom.  He is offering his gift, but if we do not receive... when we go back to court, He will judge us according to the law we have broken.

 

I simply believe that God knows how to save men from hell, He is not willing that any man perish... and where there is a will, there is a way.  We have a choice in this, God knows our hearts more than we can fathom, and all men who would allow God to save them, will be saved.  That is my belief.  Especially when that will is God's, there is a way.

 

Wow. Now, I AM SURE that God listens to this guy. Daniel - next time you talk to Jesus, tell him I WANT MY FUCKING MONEY BACK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest queen annie
This isn't talking about Jesus. This is god of the OT which is speaking. As the verse explains it

 

      And there is no God apart from me,

      a righteous God and a Savior;

      there is none but me.

 

There is no Jesus here. God alone is the saviour, note nor this mention that there is another person Jesus with him.

The person Yehoshua (not Jesus) did not yet exist as a person with the name of Yehoshua, in the days of Isaiah. It was reserved for the time of 'His visitation.'

 

He was 'Immanuel'---'God with us.'

 

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

--Isaiah 9:6 KJV

 

It plainly says that there is just one God, one Saviour, one LORD over all the earth--who is all things to all men. Creator, Saviour, Judge. --the Holy One of Israel.

 

The name Yehoshua is a derivation of Yod He Vav He. He was 'I AM' in the book of Exodus and He was 'I AM' in the gospel of John.

 

There's only one LORD in the whole bible--no one else beside Him, as He said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and where was he ever named Immanuel? or even Emmanuel. I hear people say this, but they never call him that. Don't they see the misconnection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The person Yehoshua (not Jesus) did not yet exist as a person with the name of Yehoshua, in the days of Isaiah.  It was reserved for the time of 'His visitation.' 

 

He was 'Immanuel'---'God with us.'

 

Oh please. The prophecy of 7-14 was long fulfilled before Jesus

 

Regarding Isiah 7:14 (Jewish Website)

 

If you still think this was prophecy that was fulfilled twice. Then please answer the questions what Jewish people are asking

 

Furthermore, if it is claimed that Isaiah 7:14 is a "dual prophecy", how could Isaiah 7:15-16 apply to Jesus when these verses continue to speak of this lad Immanu’el?

 

 

Isaiah 7:14-16 – (14) Therefore the L-rd, of His own, shall give you a sign, “Behold the young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and you [or, she] shall call his name Immanu’el.  (15) Cream and honey he [immanu'el] shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; (16) for, when the lad [immanu'el] does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”

 

 

If Isaiah’s words are the substance of a "dual prophecy", answers to the following questions need to be provided by the claimants: 

 

 

§        At what age did baby Jesus mature?

 

§        What are the implications that Jesus sinned up to this age?

 

§        Which two kingdoms were abandoned during the lifetime of Jesus?

 

§        How could the Kingdom of Israel be dreaded during the first century C.E., when there had not been a Kingdom of Israel in existence since the eighth century B.C.E.?

 

§        Where is the account of Jesus eating cream and honey recorded?

 

 

Does any of this make sense?  From the Jewish perspective, it does not, and from the Christian point of view, it is indefensible.  It appears that the argument of a "dual prophecy" was born out of desperation.

 

Another Website Refuting Isaiah 7:14 as prophecy for Jesus

 

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

--Isaiah 9:6 KJV

 

So this a prophecy about Jesus. When was Jesus ever called either of these during his lifetime.

 

As far Jewish Name goes. In 2 Kings 9:2 was prophet and a king of Israel.

 

2 Kings 9:2

2 When you get there, look for Jehu son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi. Go to him, get him away from his companions and take him into an inner room.

 

The meaning of Jehu is "YAHWEH is he". So does that make him a god?

 

Jehu-Meaning

 

Most of the Jewish names just signify the status of the person and is meant to glorify singular god of OT. It doesn't mean you take names as literal, which the author of Mattew does.

 

 

There's only one LORD in the whole bible--no one else beside Him, as He said.

It plainly says that there is just one God, one Saviour, one LORD over all the earth--who is all things to all men.  Creator, Saviour, Judge. --the Holy One of Israel. 

 

God is not a trinity in the OT. He is a singular being. There is no verse anywhere in the OT that shows that there is another being standing besides god. Even in the OT, the word trinity is never used. It was devised by the RCC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest queen annie
If you still think this was prophecy that was fulfilled twice. Then please answer the questions what Jewish people are asking

 

In order to be something I could possibly 'still' think, it's required that I actually had the thought in the first place...

 

I never said such a thing or thought it, either.

 

That is your idea of 'refuting?' It's more like one guy's view of the same old mountain--emotionally driven debate. I consider that 'internet pollution.'

 

So this a prophecy about Jesus. When was Jesus ever called either of these during his lifetime.
What's the timeline. then? Are we going to play official rules and stick only to our written resources--or is it 'anything goes', meaning we can substitute opinions for 'documentation?' If we do that, we could really make a mess and I'm not in the mood presently.

 

As far Jewish Name goes. In 2 Kings 9:2 was prophet and a king of Israel.
I'm sorry--I don't understand what you are saying, exactly?

 

The meaning of Jehu is "YAHWEH is he". So does that make him a god?
'YAHWEH' is a made up name and such a definition is meaningless--this is not even a Hebrew word--much less anything close to God's name.

 

-Skip that and let's just look at the name Jehu in Hebrew:

aleph.gifvav.gifhe.gifyod.gif

 

God's name can be either:

he.gifvav.gifhe.gifyod.gif

 

OR:

 

he.gifyod.gifhe.gifaleph.gif

 

Kind of like tacos and burritos, if you know what I mean.

 

 

Most of the Jewish names just signify the status of the person and is meant to glorify singular god of OT. It doesn't mean you take names as literal, which the author of Mattew does.
You're losing me here--I don't understand the relevance of all this. I don't think we're quite on the same page.

 

God is not a trinity in the OT. He is a singular being. There is no verse anywhere in the OT that shows that there is another being standing besides god. Even in the OT, the word trinity is never used. It was devised by the RCC
What--you think I don't know that? :shrug:

 

Please--give me a little more credit than that. What brings these trinitarian references into this discussion, anyway? Those types of things do not interest me in the least. If I wanted to get into that stuff I'd probably go to church--and just the thought of that makes my skin crawl. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tanakh, Qu'ran and Holy Bible all define the abrahamic deity with the omni-sttributes:

 

* Omniscient - all knowing perfectly

* Omnipotent - all powerful perfectly

* Omnibenevolent - all good

* Omnipresent - is everywhere at all times

 

Take just the first two attrubutes, they are mutually exclusive. A being cannot be omnisicent and simultaneously be omnipotent, for perfect knowledge of all (including the future) constrains the power to change. Thus like a square circle, an omniscient and omnipotent being cannot in fact exist.

 

Bruce

 

Look Bruce, can you break that down for me a little? I see something here I really need to grasp.

 

"A being cannot be omnisicent and simultaneously be omnipotent, for perfect knowledge of all (including the future) constrains the power to change."

 

If I'm omniscient, why does that hinder me from being 'all powerful'? I realize you just stated why but it went over my head. Maybe it's just too many years of Abrahamic Deity indoctrination on my part but wouldn't a Christian or Jew just answer, 'well sure God is constrained to change, he constrained himself when he supposedly said, "For I the Lord, do not change..."?

 

Maybe just amplify on the, "for perfect knowledge of all (including the future) constrains the power to change." aspect if you can please.

 

cheers,

cho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look Bruce, can you break that down for me a little? I see something here I really need to grasp.

 

"A being cannot be omnisicent and simultaneously be omnipotent, for perfect knowledge of all (including the future) constrains the power to change."

 

If I'm omniscient, why does that hinder me from being 'all powerful'? I realize you just stated why but it went over my head. Maybe it's just too many years of Abrahamic Deity indoctrination on my part but wouldn't a Christian or Jew just answer, 'well sure God is constrained to change, he constrained himself when he supposedly said, "For I the Lord, do not change..."?

 

Maybe just amplify on the, "for perfect knowledge of all (including the future) constrains the power to change." aspect if you can please.

 

cheers,

cho

 

 

The way I understand that is that God can't be omisicent and omnipotent at the same time because if he already knows what your going to do to before you do it then your choice has already been made...and that would mean you are not free. And if God could do anything (all powerful) then God would be able to do things that he could NOT do...which doesn't make sense really. I think I'm close but maybe not exactly what Bruce was trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look Bruce, can you break that down for me a little? I see something here I really need to grasp.

 

"A being cannot be omnisicent and simultaneously be omnipotent, for perfect knowledge of all (including the future) constrains the power to change."

 

If I'm omniscient, why does that hinder me from being 'all powerful'? I realize you just stated why but it went over my head. Maybe it's just too many years of Abrahamic Deity indoctrination on my part but wouldn't a Christian or Jew just answer, 'well sure God is constrained to change, he constrained himself when he supposedly said, "For I the Lord, do not change..."?

 

Maybe just amplify on the, "for perfect knowledge of all (including the future) constrains the power to change." aspect if you can please.

 

cheers,

cho

 

Chohan,

 

Let's presume that you claim you are omniscient and omnipotent for arguments sake:

 

You know everything perfectly, including the future where tomorrow you know perfectly that you will eat enchiladas for lunch. Since you claim to be omniscient, you cannot decide to eat a hamburger instead. If you do eat a hamburger, then you did not know the future perfectly. A simplistic explanation, but entirely accurate. Thus no being can be omnisicnet and omnipotent, as the qualities are mutually exclusive.

 

As for the "I the lord do not change quote"; the Bible in several places specifically says God did change his mind about something. Thus f you believe in Yahweh/Jesus, it leaves you with several choices:

 

* The Bible is in error concerning it's claims about God

* God is not all knowing (omniscient) (note that in several places God is suprised or clueless about something)

* God has lied to his prophets about decisions or actions (Ninevah for instance) and we are just toys being played with

 

Regardless, the Abrahamic deity as described by the abrahamic faiths is not what it claimed to be and from a axiomatic point of view, can only be an imaginary being.

 

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello chohan,

 

I will do my best to help you understand this contradiction.

 

* Omniscient - all knowing perfectly

* Omnipotent - all powerful perfectly

* Omnibenevolent - all good

* Omnipresent - is everywhere at all times

 

Ok.

 

So god is omniscient (OS), i.e. all knowing. God knows the past, present and future in absolutely excruciating detail.

 

God is also omnipotent (OP), i.e. all powerful. There is no action god can not take or put into action.

 

What makes these two attributes conflict?

If god knows its own future (OS), then it lacks the ability to change the future, making the god not OP because there is a limit to its power. The future must be set in stone or god would not know.

 

If god can change the future (OP), then god can not be OS because it would not know when it would act to change the future until it happens. A knowledge limit of any kind makes OS impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also do not forget that God will eventualy reveal himself to all, and every knee shall bend at the sound of the name of Jesus.

 

There will no longer be such a person as an unbeliever then.

Not possible, when confronted with the truth.

 

Peace

 

Razor,

 

Another verse along that thread could be

 

"...we will be like him for we will see him as he is."

 

It's strange to me how I would not consider Universalism when I was a Christian.

Too much incentive not to consider it, I suppose.

 

Peace,

GiantBear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If god knows its own future (OS), then it lacks the ability to change the future, making the god not OP because there is a limit to its power. The future must be set in stone or god would not know.

 

Thank you Bruce, Seeker and Doomguarder.

 

I feel like the last one to get the punch-line but yes, I see it now.

 

cheers,

cho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which way you ever try to resolve it, those traits are consistently contradictory.

Just the same way as saying a circle is square and a square is round.

The definitions repel each other.

Hi HanSolo!

 

Yes, but if God was Geometry... God would encompass the circle AND the square.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi HanSolo!

 

Yes, but if God was Geometry... God would encompass the circle AND the square.

And he would be neither. He would be the paper you draw the circle or the square on, but he wouldn't have the traits of the circle or the square. So again, he can't be omniscient and omnipotent simultaneous since those describe specific characters of God.

 

If God was Geometry, no one would claim that Geometry was a circle and a square. Because geometry is more than that, and is not the circle and the square. In geometry you have hexagons too, and parallel lines and so on.

 

So in that concept God is good and evil, and he is omnipotent and not impotent, omniscient and a nutcase. God would only be like the theory of physical events, but not the reality that actually exists. He would be the numbers on the speedometer, but he wouldn't be the car that are going in a certain speed.

 

In the end it would mean that God only is a description of what everything is, but nothing else but a name, or a word. No meaning. No purpose. Just a word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the question Amanda, is why do you call yourself a Christian, when your beliefs are non-biblical?

 

:HaHa:

 

Sincerely, thank you Bruce! I needed that!

 

Funny thing... these churches tell me that too... but I tell you, I've been into this 'book' without coming out for many years.

 

Having said that... this is the best site and best group of people I've encountered for years. I really appreciate the freedom without much sensorship, and lack of fear of the truth I've ever seen. Many here who engage in conversation without an agenda are truly remarkable. :17:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And he would be neither. He would be the paper you draw the circle or the square on, but he wouldn't have the traits of the circle or the square. So again, he can't be omniscient and omnipotent simultaneous since those describe specific characters of God.

C'mon HanSolo! It's late on the east coast here, not the west coast there! :grin: With all due respect, and you do know I respect you... geometry is NOT a piece of paper. :Hmm: The circle and the square would be a subset... and I KNOW you are much smarter in math than I... and I KNOW that!

If God was Geometry, no one would claim that Geometry was a circle and a square. Because geometry is more than that, and is not the circle and the square. In geometry you have hexagons too, and parallel lines and so on.

If I could borrow a famous quote from Mythra... 'now we're getting somewhere.'

So in that concept God is good and evil, and he is omnipotent and not impotent, omniscient and a nutcase. God would only be like the theory of physical events, but not the reality that actually exists. He would be the numbers on the speedometer, but he wouldn't be the car that are going in a certain speed.

Hello? HanSolo, do you have a lot of stuff going on there? If I'm interrupting a party... let me know, or invite me over! :wicked:

In the end it would mean that God only is a description of what everything is, but nothing else but a name, or a word. No meaning. No purpose. Just a word.

My dear, dear friend... I have hands, ears, eyes, nose, hair, and a few other things. These are my parts. They make Amanda. Are you saying that Amanda is just a word, no meaning, no purpose... just a word?

 

Hey, wait a minute... don't answer that!!! Did you set me up for that one? :phew:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amanda,

 

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. Geometry is just a name of a set of rules for how objects works and have as attributes. A circle is a defined entity in geometry, and so is a square. Geometry in itself is not an object, while a circle and a square are certain attributes in real objects.

 

You basically are saying that God is not a defined object or a define being, and he doesn't have the attributes or the properties, but is just the rules that apply to other beings that would have these properties.

 

Geometry doesn't exist as a real, physical object. It's only the constituted set of rules that apply to real physical object. Geometry is just a word. There are even different kinds of geometry besides the Euclidian geometry. For instance the kind where two parallel lines do cross. So which kind of Geometry is God?

 

On the other hand, geometry plainly proves that a circle is NOT a square. So if God is geometry, then an omnipotent can't be omniscient at the same time. It would be the law of God! Do you see the resemblance here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dear, dear friend... I have hands, ears, eyes, nose, hair, and a few other things. These are my parts. They make Amanda. Are you saying that Amanda is just a word, no meaning, no purpose... just a word?

 

If Amanda included everyone's hands, everyone's eyes, everyone's noses, and everyone's hair, than it would be just a word, meaningless.

 

Meaning is given to things when they are defined by what they aren't. When we say "chair" we are really saying, in our minds, not a table, not a book, not a pencil. When I say Amanda I am saying not Han, not woody, not Amythest.

 

If "chair" encompassed all qualities, if by saying chair you also reffered to all furniture, all materials, all the things in the universe, than "chair" becomes meaningless. A chair with no difference to measure against means nothing.

 

So when you say that god encompasses everything, you make the word "god" a meaningless descriptor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when you say that god encompasses everything, you make the word "god" a meaningless descriptor.

Yeah. And God then encompasses evil, bad, infinity but also the finite, the limited, God becomes death too, Hell is him, the Devil is him. God would be omnipresent and missing. He would be omnipotent and impotent. He would be pansophic and ignorant. Very conflicting attributes indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amanda,

 

The Tanakh, Qu'ran and Holy Bible all define the abrahamic deity with the omni-sttributes:

 

* Omniscient - all knowing perfectly

* Omnipotent - all powerful perfectly

* Omnibenevolent - all good

* Omnipresent - is everywhere at all times

 

Take just the first two attrubutes, they are mutually exclusive. A being cannot be omnisicent and simultaneously be omnipotent, for perfect knowledge of all (including the future) constrains the power to change. Thus like a square circle, an omniscient and omnipotent being cannot in fact exist.

 

Bruce

 

 

Well I dont know Bruce.

Sounds like all that religiouse Dogma and Idoltary Satan has promoted, to confuse people, and put them off the Gospel, after he failed to Talk Jesus into accepting all the kingdoms of the World, instead of completing Gods plan for him.

When I discovered the Bible Phropecy of the rebirth of Israel as a Nation, I thought.. well it does seem Gods plan is unfolding.

 

Already in Israel there are those who wait on the return of the King.

The King of the Jews,

Lord of Lords.. King of Kings!

 

Ironic is it not how truth has turned out to be stranger than Fiction.

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironic is it not how truth has turned out to be stranger than Fiction

 

No, your "truth" is fiction. Get that through your thick brainwashed skull, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I dont know Bruce.

Sounds like all that religiouse Dogma and Idoltary Satan has promoted, to confuse people, and put them off the Gospel, after he failed to Talk Jesus into accepting all the kingdoms of the World, instead of completing Gods plan for him.

 

He failed to talk Jesus into it, but he succeeded faking out Paul. And now we have Paulianity as the world's largest religion and Satan is laughing all the way to the bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I dont know Bruce.

Sounds like all that religiouse Dogma and Idoltary Satan has promoted, to confuse people, and put them off the Gospel, after he failed to Talk Jesus into accepting all the kingdoms of the World, instead of completing Gods plan for him.

When I discovered the Bible Phropecy of the rebirth of Israel as a Nation, I thought.. well it does seem Gods plan is unfolding.

 

Already in Israel there are those who wait on the return of the King.

The King of the Jews,

Lord of Lords.. King of Kings!

 

Ironic is it not how truth has turned out to be stranger than Fiction.

 

Peace

 

 

Razor,

 

Your little sermon has absolutely nothing to do with the issue being discussed. Your deity (Yahweh/Jesus) cannot exist due to having mutually exclusive attributes. Logically rectify the paradox in a coherent manner and I might consider your invisible friend and invisible bad guys to possibly exist. Until then, they occupy the same place as the Tooth Fairy and Darth Vader, interesting fictional characters of culture.

 

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.