If Jesus Is God

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, End3, if I am understanding what you are saying, the analogy of water does describe the trinity given that at a certain point, with perfect conditions, we can no longer tell in which state any given molecule, or collection of molecules, exist.  Is this an accurate assessment of your position?

[Guest end3]

So, End3, if I am understanding what you are saying, the analogy of water does describe the trinity given that at a certain point, with perfect conditions, we can no longer tell in which state any given molecule, or collection of molecules, exist.  Is this an accurate assessment of your position?

Yes, it's my belief that the dynamic interaction is the reason it won't remain in an equilibrium.  Just thinking if we could "overwhelm" the interactive states, the equilibrium could be seed for what it is.

[mymistake]

 

 

Not a problem MM, you can label me with gapping, but I prefer "gapping" over "yeah, dumb Christian" especially when we can't make define definite.

 

 

 

Chris didn't say "dumb Christian".  He talked about what Christians do.  He talked about an activity.  His exact words:

 

 

It's what all christians do, bend, distort and force ancient mythological ideas to fit the scientific facts of our day, and they do it without adhering to any scientific method scientists uses today to test their theories

 

(Blue added)

 

Now if you want to nail him for using the word all instead of most then maybe their are Christians who don't do this.  However most of the vocal ones do.  If there is some silent Christian somewhere who doesn't they should speak up and call their brothers to be more scientific or stay out of science.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

So, End3, if I am understanding what you are saying, the analogy of water does describe the trinity given that at a certain point, with perfect conditions, we can no longer tell in which state any given molecule, or collection of molecules, exist.  Is this an accurate assessment of your position?

Yes, it's my belief that the dynamic interaction is the reason it won't remain in an equilibrium.  Just thinking if we could "overwhelm" the interactive states, the equilibrium could be seed for what it is.

 

 

And I'm also assuming that the dynamic interaction is meant to describe the three distinctive "persons" of the godhead working in harmony, though I admit I still don't understand how three "equal" "persons" can't remain in equilibrium.  This leads me to the question, based on "overwhelming the states", what would happen to the trinity if we could achieve a perfect understanding of it by examining it in the perfect conditions?  Would we then find jesus indistinguishable from the father?  Would the holy spirit appear to have nail scars in his hands and feet?

[Guest end3]

 

 

So, End3, if I am understanding what you are saying, the analogy of water does describe the trinity given that at a certain point, with perfect conditions, we can no longer tell in which state any given molecule, or collection of molecules, exist.  Is this an accurate assessment of your position?

Yes, it's my belief that the dynamic interaction is the reason it won't remain in an equilibrium.  Just thinking if we could "overwhelm" the interactive states, the equilibrium could be seed for what it is.

 

 

And I'm also assuming that the dynamic interaction is meant to describe the three distinctive "persons" of the godhead working in harmony, though I admit I still don't understand how three "equal" "persons" can't remain in equilibrium.  This leads me to the question, based on "overwhelming the states", what would happen to the trinity if we could achieve a perfect understanding of it by examining it in the perfect conditions?  Would we then find jesus indistinguishable from the father?  Would the holy spirit appear to have nail scars in his hands and feet?

 

Can't help but connect the "stateless" with the "nothingness" of Eastern religions....and I know nothing of those.....just the two cross my mind.  I have always gathered that Heaven would be the equilibrium.  Haven't read the Bible in a long time, but am remembering that we will see more.  

 

What is water without a state?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

  

What is water without a state?

 

 

In order for something to exist, it must exist in a state.  It therefore exists in relation to all of the things it is not.  Water can exist in three states, but it cannot exist as tree bark.  It can exist in tree bark, but it is still singular in its existence.  In other words, one of the things that makes water, water, is that water is not tree bark.  One of the things that give meaning to the existence of any given object is what that object is not, as well as what that object is in relation to all of the things it is not.  Follow?

 

Before god "created" everything, what did it exist in relation to?

[Guest end3]

 

  

What is water without a state?

 

 

In order for something to exist, it must exist in a state.  It therefore exists in relation to all of the things it is not.  Water can exist in three states, but it cannot exist as tree bark.  It can exist in tree bark, but it is still singular in its existence.  In other words, one of the things that makes water, water, is that water is not tree bark.  One of the things that give meaning to the existence of any given object is what that object is not, as well as what that object is in relation to all of the things it is not.  Follow?

 

Before god "created" everything, what did it exist in relation to?

 

Sorry, I can't help but ask do the words formless and void ring a bell?...lol.  I'm teasing, but not really, I need to have time to look up the words and re-read a bit.  Will return.

 

I'm sorry, I don't know that these conversations do anything for anyone, but I enjoy the mental workout nonetheless.  Thanks Prof.

[bornagainathiest]

"In order for something to exist, it must exist in a state."

 

It seems that there are 15 known solid phases of water (aka, Ice.)

.

.

.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice

 

Pressure dependence of ice melting.

 

 

Ice may be any one of the 15 known solid phases of water.

 

Most liquids under increased pressure freeze at higher temperatures because the pressure helps to hold the molecules together. However, the strong hydrogen bonds in water make it different: For some pressures higher than 1 atm (0.10 MPa), water freezes at a temperature below 0 °C, as shown in the phase diagram below. The melting of ice under high pressures is thought to contribute to the movement of glaciers.

Ice, water, and water vapour can coexist at the triple point, which is exactly 0.01 °C (273.16 K) at a pressure of 611.73 Pa (the Kelvin is in fact defined as 1/273.16 of the difference between this triple point and absolute zero).^[37] Unlike most other solids, ice is difficult to superheat. In an experiment, ice at −3 °C was superheated to about 17 °C for about 250 picoseconds.^[38]

Subjected to higher pressures and varying temperatures, ice can form in fifteen separate known phases. With care all these phases except ice X can be recovered at ambient pressure and low temperature. The types are differentiated by their crystalline structure, ordering and density. There are also two metastable phases of ice under pressure, both fully hydrogen-disordered; these are IV and XII. Ice XII was discovered in 1996. In 2006, XIII and XIV were discovered.^[39] Ices XI, XIII, and XIV are hydrogen-ordered forms of ices I_h, V, and XII respectively. In 2009, ice XV was found at extremely high pressures and −143 °C.^[40] At even higher pressures, ice is predicted to become a metal; this has been variously estimated to occur at 1.55 TPa^[41] or 5.62 TPa.^[42]

As well as crystalline forms, solid water can exist in amorphous states as amorphous ice (ASW) of varying densities. Water in the interstellar medium is dominated by amorphous ice, making it likely the most common form of water in the universe. Low-density ASW (LDA), also known as hyperquenched glassy water, may be responsible for noctilucent clouds on earth and is usually formed by deposition of water vapor in cold or vacuum conditions. High density ASW (HDA) is formed by compression of ordinary ice I_h or LDA at GPa pressures. Very-high density ASW (VHDA) is HDA slightly warmed to 160K under 1-2 GPa pressures.

In outer space, hexagonal crystalline ice (the predominant form found on Earth) is extremely rare. Amorphous ice is more common; however, hexagonal crystalline ice can be formed via volcanic action.^[43]

Log-lin pressure-temperature phase diagram of water. The Roman numerals correspond to some ice phases listed below.

 

Phase Characteristics Amorphous ice Amorphous ice is an ice lacking crystal structure. Amorphous ice exists in three forms: low-density (LDA) formed at atmospheric pressure, or below, high density (HDA) and very high density amorphous ice (VHDA), forming at higher pressures. LDA forms by extremely quick cooling of liquid water ("hyperquenched glassy water", HGW), by depositing water vapour on very cold substrates ("amorphous solid water", ASW) or by heating high density forms of ice at ambient pressure ("LDA"). Ice I_h Normal hexagonal crystalline ice. Virtually all ice in the biosphere is ice I_h, with the exception only of a small amount of ice I_c. Ice I_c A metastable cubic crystalline variant of ice. The oxygen atoms are arranged in a diamond structure. It is produced at temperatures between 130 and 220 K, and can exist up to 240 K,^[44][45] when it transforms into ice I_h. It may occasionally be present in the upper atmosphere.^[46]Ice II A rhombohedral crystalline form with highly ordered structure. Formed from ice I_h by compressing it at temperature of 190–210 K. When heated, it undergoes transformation to ice III. Ice III A tetragonal crystalline ice, formed by cooling water down to 250 K at 300 MPa. Least dense of the high-pressure phases. Denser than water. Ice IV A metastable rhombohedral phase. It can be formed by heating high-density amorphous ice slowly at a pressure of 810 MPa. It doesn't form easily without a nucleating agent.^[47]Ice V A monoclinic crystalline phase. Formed by cooling water to 253 K at 500 MPa. Most complicated structure of all the phases.^[48]Ice VI A tetragonal crystalline phase. Formed by cooling water to 270 K at 1.1 GPa. Exhibits Debye relaxation.^[49]Ice VII A cubic phase. The hydrogen atoms' positions are disordered. Exhibits Debye relaxation. The hydrogen bonds form two interpenetrating lattices. Ice VIII A more ordered version of ice VII, where the hydrogen atoms assume fixed positions. It is formed from ice VII, by cooling it below 5 °C (278 K). Ice IX A tetragonal phase. Formed gradually from ice III by cooling it from 208 K to 165 K, stable below 140 K and pressures between 200 MPa and 400 MPa. It has density of 1.16 g/cm³, slightly higher than ordinary ice. Ice X Proton-ordered symmetric ice. Forms at about 70 GPa.^[50]Ice XI An orthorhombic, low-temperature equilibrium form of hexagonal ice. It is ferroelectric. Ice XI is considered the most stable configuration of ice I_h. The natural transformation process is very slow and ice XI has been found in Antarctic ice 100 to 10,000 years old. That study indicated that the temperature below which ice XI forms is −36 °C (240 K).^[51]Ice XII A tetragonal, metastable, dense crystalline phase. It is observed in the phase space of ice V and ice VI. It can be prepared by heating high-density amorphous ice from 77 K to about 183 K at 810 MPa. It has a density of 1.3 g cm⁻³ at 127 K (i.e., approximately 1.3 times more dense than water). Ice XIII A monoclinic crystalline phase. Formed by cooling water to below 130 K at 500 MPa. The proton-ordered form of ice V.^[52]Ice XIV An orthorhombic crystalline phase. Formed below 118 K at 1.2 GPa. The proton-ordered form of ice XII.^[52]Ice XV The proton-ordered form of ice VI formed by cooling water to around 80–108 K at 1.1 GPa.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Ravenstar]

Wow, very cool

 

All I knew was that under certain conditions glacial ice flows like a river (acts more like a liquid), and that there might be plasma state water somewhere. So at least 15 states...

 

Thanks BAA

[TheRedneckProfessor]

No disrespect intended funguyrye, but just because the bible says things about itself and about god doesn't make those things true.

[Guest end3]

tohuw

 

formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

1. formlessness (of primeval earth)

   1. nothingness, empty space

2. that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig)

3. wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)

4. place of chaos

5. vanity

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

No disrespect intended funguyrye, but just because the bible says things about itself and about god doesn't make those things true.

Hey, no disrespect taken.  I was just pointing out that not only there, but in many, many more verses, does it say Jesus is God. 

 

I understand you won't take the bible as authority or truth, but you had an argument about the Word made flesh, and I provided a response.  Do with it what you may.

 

 

The bit about the word becoming flesh was not an argument.  It was part of the introduction.  Responses to introductions are usually unnecessary, as introductions typically do not contain the main flesh of the arguments to be presented.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

tohuw

 

formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

1. formlessness (of primeval earth)

   1. nothingness, empty space

2. that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig)

3. wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)

4. place of chaos

5. vanity

 

 

So god existed in relation to nothing.  Did god's existence have any meaning?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

No disrespect intended funguyrye, but just because the bible says things about itself and about god doesn't make those things true.

Hey, no disrespect taken.  I was just pointing out that not only there, but in many, many more verses, does it say Jesus is God. 

 

I understand you won't take the bible as authority or truth, but you had an argument about the Word made flesh, and I provided a response.  Do with it what you may.

 

 

The bit about the word becoming flesh was not an argument.  It was part of the introduction.  Responses to introductions are usually unnecessary, as introductions typically do not contain the main flesh of the arguments to be presented.

 

Sure.  In your next paragraph you asked about the genealogy about Jesus.  The OT was clear about who the Messiah would come through.  It would be through the line of David. 

 

The genealogies presented in Matthew and Luke present numerous difficulties. There are a number of issues that critics raise including:

1. The problem with Yeshua not being Joseph's actual son
2. The lineage in Luke's account passing through David's son Nathan, and not Solomon as Scripture said it had to (for the Kingship of Messiah)
3. The inclusion of a lineage through Jehoiachin being invalid, as he was cursed by God
4. The last segment of "14 generations" only having 13 generations listed
5. Verse 11 stating that Josiah begat Jeconiah, which he did not.

Regarding #1, According to Jewish law, Yeshua was Joseph’s son if Joseph claimed him as such which he did. This however does not solve what many view to be a major problem - the brak in the physical lineage back to king David.

 

Regarding #2, many commentaries try to get around the problem of the cursed Jehoiachin (see #3, below) by simply using Luke's genealogy as the one for the Messianic lineage. There are two problems with this.

• First is the issue of the genealogy passing through Nathan rather than Solomon (in Luke's genealogy). The promise of Messiah being a "son of David" went specifically through Solomon and not Nathan.
• Second, lineage was passed through the father's side in first century Judaism (and before). The idea of tracing Jewishness through the mother's side developed later. Matthew's genealogy is that of Joseph, and Luke's genealogy is that of Miriam's. Matthew's is the one that "counts" however as it passes through Solomon.

Regarding #3, the curse on Jehoachin was reversed by God Himself in Haggai 2:20-23, when He chose Zerubbabel as His signet ring.

 

Regarding #4, this is an error in transcribing (more evidence of someone translating the book from an original Hebrew into the Greek). There is a version of Matthew that does not include this error and shows the (missing) 14th generation. The "DuTillet" Hebrew Matthew corrects "Abiud begat Eliakim," showing that Abiud actually begat Av'ner (Abner), who in turn begat Eliakim. The mention of 42 generations (3 x 14) is also of interest, as 14 is the numerical value of "David," and 42 is the numerical value of God (Eloah) in the Hebrew.

 

Regarding #5, this is evidently another error due to translation, as 1 Chronicles 3:15-16 says that Josiah was the father of Jehoiakim, who in turn was the father of Jeconiah. However, if we were to simply include the missing Jehoiakim, we would then have fifteen generations, which would cause verse 17 to be in error. The most reasonable explanation may be that although the curse was lifted on Jeconiah's lineage, his name was still to be "blotted out," but a careless scribe deleted Jehoiakim by mistake. By replacing the reference to Jeconiah with one to Jehoiakim, we would correct the error, offer an explanation for Jeconiah's ommission, and maintain the number of generations at fourteen.

 

Source:  http://www.yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat5a.htm

 

 

Very nicely written. 

 

By the way, if jesus is god, why bother with a genealogy at all?  Why not simply state that jesus is god, born of a virgin, and get on with the rest of the story?  If memory serves, that was the point I was making in the paragraph to which you refer.

[Guest end3]

 

 

tohuw

 

formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

1. formlessness (of primeval earth)

   1. nothingness, empty space

2. that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig)

3. wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)

4. place of chaos

5. vanity

 

 

So god existed in relation to nothing.  Did god's existence have any meaning?

 

We would gather maybe that's the point.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

tohuw

 

formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

1. formlessness (of primeval earth)

   1. nothingness, empty space

2. that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig)

3. wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)

4. place of chaos

5. vanity

 

 

So god existed in relation to nothing.  Did god's existence have any meaning?

 

We would gather maybe that's the point.

 

 

I would be inclined to gather that no one could know if god existed before anything else, considering there was nothing else for god to exist in relation to.

[mymistake]

Wait, does that mean the Biblical Jesus was born from a cursed lineage?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Wait, does that mean the Biblical Jesus was born from a cursed lineage?

 

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out--kind of a "shot yerself in thuh foot" moment, no?

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

tohuw

 

formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

1. formlessness (of primeval earth)

   1. nothingness, empty space

2. that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig)

3. wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)

4. place of chaos

5. vanity

 

 

So god existed in relation to nothing.  Did god's existence have any meaning?

 

We would gather maybe that's the point.

 

 

I would be inclined to gather that no one could know if god existed before anything else, considering there was nothing else for god to exist in relation to.

 

I expected nothing less.  Kudos for not breaking form.  You might consider watching the Grinch in your spare time.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The point was to prove that Jesus came from the line of David.  The Son of Abraham and the Son of David are Messianic titles and they are connected like dots throughout the bible.  It was prophecied in Genesis 49:10 the scepter would not depart from the tribe of Judah.  Hence, the promised Messiah had to come from the tribe of Judah.  Hence the need for the genealogies. 

 

And the above was not my thoughts, just a source I found that explains things clearer then what I could.

 

Isn't it interesting that jesus fulfills so many of the old testament prophecies?  One would almost suspect that the writers of the christ myth had access to the writings of the ancient Hebrews and could fashion the story of jesus to fit the "word" perfectly.  But, of course, that would suggest that they weren't divinely inspired, now wouldn't it?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

 

tohuw

 

formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

1. formlessness (of primeval earth)

   1. nothingness, empty space

2. that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig)

3. wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)

4. place of chaos

5. vanity

 

 

So god existed in relation to nothing.  Did god's existence have any meaning?

 

We would gather maybe that's the point.

 

 

I would be inclined to gather that no one could know if god existed before anything else, considering there was nothing else for god to exist in relation to.

 

I expected nothing less.  Kudos for not breaking form.  You might consider watching the Grinch in your spare time.

 

 

Another brilliant conversation!  My thanks to you, End3.

[mymistake]

The point was to prove that Jesus came from the line of David.  The Son of Abraham and the Son of David are Messianic titles and they are connected like dots throughout the bible.  It was prophecied in Genesis 49:10 the scepter would not depart from the tribe of Judah.  Hence, the promised Messiah had to come from the tribe of Judah.  Hence the need for the genealogies. 

 

And the above was not my thoughts, just a source I found that explains things clearer then what I could.

 

Maybe the original intent was to make Jesus of the line of David.  That worked back when Jesus was just a son of God because we could all become sons of God despite having human fathers.  But later on Jesus became the only begotten son of God.  Then later on Jesus became God the Son.  Since women were an empty vessel for a man to place his seed Jesus could not be of the line of David if Jesus was not the actual son of Joseph.

 

This is a consequence of taking fast changing theology from several religious sects and combining it into orthodox theology.  Those who questioned it could be put on trial for heresy and exterminated if they didn't get the message.

[mymistake]

 

Wait, does that mean the Biblical Jesus was born from a cursed lineage?

No, because the curse of Jeconiah from Jeremiah 22:24 was reversed in Haggai 2:23

 

". . . O Zerubbabel, my servant, and will make thee as a signet ring (chotahm, חֹותָם): for I have chosen you, says HaShem Tzva’ot.”

 

This is a stumbling block for Jews who don't believe in Jesus because of this curse.  Yet they don't mention rabbinical commentary that Jeconiah repented in exile in Babylon

 

The Jewish Encyclopedia says, not only was the curse revoked, but that Jeconiah was the ancestor of the Messiah!

“Jehoiachin’s sad experiences changed his nature entirely, and as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by G-d, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king (Jer. xxii. 30; Pesi., ed. Buber, xxv. 163a, ; he even became the ancestor of the Messiah (Tan., Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, i. 140])”

Jewish Encyclopedia, Entry on Jehoiachin [1]

 

 

You might be right about Haggai.  But that isn't the reason Jews do not believe in Jesus.  There is no original sin to them and being crucified is a curse.  Plus they don't go for human sacrifice.  The way they see it is the Christians do not understand the Torah.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Wait, does that mean the Biblical Jesus was born from a cursed lineage?

No, because the curse of Jeconiah from Jeremiah 22:24 was reversed in Haggai 2:23

 

". . . O Zerubbabel, my servant, and will make thee as a signet ring (chotahm, חֹותָם): for I have chosen you, says HaShem Tzva’ot.”

 

 

The god who is the same today, yesterday, and forevermore sure does change his mind a lot, doesn't he?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

The point was to prove that Jesus came from the line of David.  The Son of Abraham and the Son of David are Messianic titles and they are connected like dots throughout the bible.  It was prophecied in Genesis 49:10 the scepter would not depart from the tribe of Judah.  Hence, the promised Messiah had to come from the tribe of Judah.  Hence the need for the genealogies. 

 

And the above was not my thoughts, just a source I found that explains things clearer then what I could.

 

Isn't it interesting that jesus fulfills so many of the old testament prophecies?  One would almost suspect that the writers of the christ myth had access to the writings of the ancient Hebrews and could fashion the story of jesus to fit the "word" perfectly.  But, of course, that would suggest that they weren't divinely inspired, now wouldn't it?

 

Well the Gospel writers were all Jews, so yes, they had access to the Tanakh.  But Jesus is throughout the OT, yet the Jews still reject him.  That was prophecied as well.  Christianity has presented a false image of the Messiah to the Jews for many, many centuries.  So based on the bible, they have to reject him.  A Messiah that did away with Torah?  That is blasphemous.  Going back to the original language (Hebrew), Jesus or Yeshua, is all over the OT.  That was what Jesus was telling his disciples that he opened their mind so they would understand the scriptures speaking of him.  Which in essence, is all of it. 

 

So, if you believe a scenario could include a bunch of Jews came together to develop this Christ myth.  Then so be it.  But the odds of the OT prophecies being fulfilled and written down in the NT which harmonize completely with the OT, well I am no mathematician, but the odds would be astronomical.

 

 

No, the odds would actually be pretty good for jesus to fulfill all the prophecies if the inventors of the christ myth had access to the OT which contained said prophecies.  All it would require would be for the writers to write that jesus did the things the prophecies said he would.  You are aware that the gospels are not first hand accounts, right?  They were written several decades after jesus was supposed to have lived.

 

And, yes, I believe a bunch of people came together to develop the christ myth.