dont you remember? back in elementary school the teachers complained that "run-on" sentences are bad...
well look at how bad the bible is with those long wordy bad sentences which should be split with periods for example verse one has one verb but immediately the second one is bad.
we all were taught " The easiest way to fix a run-on is to split the sentence into smaller sentences using a period" each sentence is not complete unless it has a verb but why two verbs? i ate rice and walked home. bad split them. it is bad.
edit to fix because they read very badly and should be rooted out from your writing"
take the second verse in the bible, "and the land" STOP you just started a sentence with and.... until they edit the book and fix the quality we must recognize it is bad.
"the land WAS empty and darkness WAS on the water AND the spirit of elohim moved on the water.
this is not only bad but also refutes the jewish emphasis on numbers of verses because the sentences are bad and poorly divided it is truly more sentences.
split it with periods.
verse one [remove the word beginning which we know is false and claim the religious claim "elohim made the sky and the land." 2 the land was empty. 3 over the water was darkness. 4 the spirit of elohim moved on the water."
note the hebrew bible has both spirits of elohim and of jehova and since those are names we should preserve them like adam and isaac were preserved with sounds and not translated.
i think the spirit of jehova mentioned in book samuels is the christian holy spirit while even the rabbis interpret soirit of elohim as the spirit of messia which means christ so jesus before the body was spirit and he was reffered to as spirit of elohim and even rabbis say that is the christ only refusing to say it was jesus but admiitting in their boks it is the christ.
as a child i noticed the emphassis on the number of sentences which did not truly show the lenbgth of sections and in fact wer almost all bad "incorect" sentences.
so today i found the statistics for the number of words and letters in some of the books. i searched for number of word sin joshua and could not find any such stats but did find for other books so i share what i found
the number of letters in the hebrew book called genesis letters fill 78063 letters with many spaces.
the number of words in genesis in hebrew is 20,612 words and thousands of those letters should be removed and could be removed they only waste ink and luckily are narrow so only waste a bit of expensive cow skin relatively.
the number of bad sentences is stupid because they are bad and are more nearer the number of words. but if they would be small ho w would we find our way through a book with 4100 sentences? 100 chaopters each 41 sentences long... my solution have a summary. but most of the content is not needed anyway so why bother to fix the sentence and remove "and" as above when most of the sentencs do not deserve the efoort of preservation.
anyway stats exodus has 16,713 words composed of a volume of 63,527 hebrew kletters thoiusand s of those letters are only troublesome distratction and thopusamds of the words are repetitive or worse.
especialy bad exodus is too repetitive. a holy books said "he will make the teahing long" that was the excuse to add stupid wrods and distracting letters wjhile letter jews taught the corect method of education is "TO TEACH SHORTLY".
next book "leviticus" hebrew words 11,950 words composed with volume of 44,790 letters.
next book "numbers" hebrew words 16408 with 63,529 letters
and last known book "deuteronomy" hebrew words 16,408 with 63,529 letters and the one i want to know joshua i cannot find. the theme of the bible is the "sons of israel" so the roots of father are too far away and could be brief like book cronicles... and the important parts were already summarised in joshua 24 so both the needed part which is a lready preserved and the rest are also not needed... that saves 82,000 ety-tu thousand words. much ink and much paper could be saved if the existing summary in bnook joshua would replace the five books. but only a few million jews print ible the real large expense of ink and paper is christian which do not truly need the "former covenant' the few details worth repeating are al;ready contained in the new testament and in fact paul warned not to read moses... we should respect the apostle paul.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
books of holy bible
did you know? the list of books INCLUDED in the collection of the holy bible was decided after 300ad that is long after jesus.
the books of mark never said they refer to pentateuch... that word does not appear anywhere in the new testament.
suspicious to consider that "paul and mark" were buddies yet neither mentioned the TEXTS of each other paul never approved of gospel of mark but the opposite defined the gospel as specific details see first cor. 15.1-5. and mark never mentioned approval of any of pauls letters not even one...
at the time of acts paul had not yet written ten lettters epistles... and the first followers in the book of acts never approved even one gospel by name especialy paul never approved of mark in his letters only much later by 300 hundred years in 325 eusebius wrote a list after many books were added and if [aul was apostolic yet the deciders wht to include were not apostles nd worse to ;'inherit as is" the collectiion which rabbis decided christians know they cannot trust rabbis and jesyus never ever mentioned a pentateuch and only mentioned few prophets by name... not the collection of rabbis
even isaia was only mentioned in matthew 15 so deciding which prophets are "prophets" cannot be based on rabbis
search which... after you religious leaders offer us good we will check if it is good. trick each of us to do the work and then say you wasted we do not recognize distinction until they make a distinction lovers of truth will avoid such reigious leaders because eusebius was in 325 ad hundreds of years after jesus and paul.
amaritans have a bible with five boksof moses sometimes differs from rabbis who MADE CHANGES after the split in 400 bc when they left joshua and others had not yet been included so the TRADITION can be identified as less books.in fact samaritans were never mentioned even in the late bok nehemia and samaritans of that era did not include nehemia because it was not within the traditional collection of the jewish tradition at the split so those books were neither tradition nor original and if so moses should beat isaia except jesus mentioned isaia so not only "from your hands" will not take but even in past "i did not want blood" said iaia the only one TRUSTED by jesus in mat 15 so that should define anddetyermine faith not copying the collection decided by rabbis.
the books of mark never said they refer to pentateuch... that word does not appear anywhere in the new testament.
suspicious to consider that "paul and mark" were buddies yet neither mentioned the TEXTS of each other paul never approved of gospel of mark but the opposite defined the gospel as specific details see first cor. 15.1-5. and mark never mentioned approval of any of pauls letters not even one...
at the time of acts paul had not yet written ten lettters epistles... and the first followers in the book of acts never approved even one gospel by name especialy paul never approved of mark in his letters only much later by 300 hundred years in 325 eusebius wrote a list after many books were added and if [aul was apostolic yet the deciders wht to include were not apostles nd worse to ;'inherit as is" the collectiion which rabbis decided christians know they cannot trust rabbis and jesyus never ever mentioned a pentateuch and only mentioned few prophets by name... not the collection of rabbis
even isaia was only mentioned in matthew 15 so deciding which prophets are "prophets" cannot be based on rabbis
search which... after you religious leaders offer us good we will check if it is good. trick each of us to do the work and then say you wasted we do not recognize distinction until they make a distinction lovers of truth will avoid such reigious leaders because eusebius was in 325 ad hundreds of years after jesus and paul.
amaritans have a bible with five boksof moses sometimes differs from rabbis who MADE CHANGES after the split in 400 bc when they left joshua and others had not yet been included so the TRADITION can be identified as less books.in fact samaritans were never mentioned even in the late bok nehemia and samaritans of that era did not include nehemia because it was not within the traditional collection of the jewish tradition at the split so those books were neither tradition nor original and if so moses should beat isaia except jesus mentioned isaia so not only "from your hands" will not take but even in past "i did not want blood" said iaia the only one TRUSTED by jesus in mat 15 so that should define anddetyermine faith not copying the collection decided by rabbis.
annoying maps
the map shoed a picture of a river and said xi or xi jiang when that is so wrong not only do chinese call it a different nbame zhu but worse xi refers to the west part not the riverwhat is jiang if yangtze is chang jiang and this is badly named xi jiang maybe jiang is river so "zhu+jiang" is named zhu but it is a river. we should identify it by its name not by english aerations especialy when not naming the whole river so not xi as i was misled but zhu or pearl... and its region now governed by china is the zhu river zhu-jiang region. they canot choose between two choices if they truly loved communism then the leaders could "prove" it by allowing one capitalist group and then show if/that people choose ommunism the fact they do not shows they know people do not want them and are compelled similarly the name of korea government which is a permanent ruler no competition chosen by people has name democratic...
so the people who are pooor or suffering have a government responsible for them and countries with malaria either drained the swamps like israel did or the responsibility is ther local government.
so the people who are pooor or suffering have a government responsible for them and countries with malaria either drained the swamps like israel did or the responsibility is ther local government.
Monday, February 12, 2018
included in holy bible
we were born into a world which already has certain books already printed and prepared. our parents place into our hands a book which they tell us is holy it even said so on the cover of the volume which leads to the question, is that the same thing which happened=did jesus hand to mark or matthew a book containing sixty holy books? certainly not.
the gospels never claimed that jesus listed which of pauls letters were good. which old testament books were good.
even when jesus quotes "as written" he never said the book by name. did jesus ever say genesis was a good book? never only he quoted "as it was written grapho" no name of any book was ever approved. and only around ten verses were worth quoting from whatever written source.
people decided and flawed humans decided which books to include in the holy bible what if they included a bad book among the ones truly inspired by god.
the new believer is told that he should believe stuff "because the book said so" soon he reads and asks if the book determines our belief then what about this detail? and is told we lied the book does not determine the belief instead church leaders teach which words we should ignore.
when ephesians said "one god and one baptism" church leaders teach to ignore that part insisting two baptisms if " the books are inspired by god then they should determine our belief in one baptism not two... that would refute almost every church. well maybe it should start respecting god.
some documents were rejected and not included in the bible which leads to the question what if the ones included were bad decision to include among the good ones.
paul wrote leyyers the disciples were not handed a book volume the way we were handed a holy bible containing many books. people decided what to include
regarding the new testament church leaders decided to include certain gospels and pauls letters and "whichever" books the rabbis included... that is risky we know that we cannot trust rabbis who do you think selected and decided to INCLUDE books in the jewish part of the bible?
so the selection to include in the bible is the topic. which to include? the list of books is called canon a word used in pauls letter epistle for "measure" or boundary or rules . only these are good others are rejected which leads to the question the decision to inclde books which should be rejected too.
church leaders decided which to INCLUDE in the group of collection of texts.
later church leaders mention by name the gospel of mark we can compare this to jesus who never ever mentioned a book by name... when he quoted as it was written it seems to sometikes match the old testament yet there are differences between the wording of the jewish book and truly jesus never ever said he was quoting from genesis.
similarly in the writing of eusebius before he mentions the gospel of mark... which some are fooled is the first written gospel truly eusebius did quote from a written "the gospel" before mark wrote. that was a book which eusebius and he christians of his day thought was good adding marks which the bible today has not preserved replacing it with mark and 3 other gospels. which later christians decided to INCLUDE in the collection.
the early christians such as paul never listed a fixed number of gospels so later christians added and included many gospels and many letters attributed to paul just because pauls name is at the beginning.
any liar can write "paul an apostle" and silly ideas and they would include it because they see the name paul. people can make mistakes
which books are justly INCLUDED IN THE FORMER TESTAMENT?
if jesus said "the two will become one" is that evidence that all thirty books of the former testament is all good? it is truly not even evidence for the book we call genesis because he did not mention the name genesis... we do not know which book he quoted from with that idea in fact we can identify a difference in wording between the jewish part which has different words... so not relying on genesis but certainly a different book which was not preserved we cannot know what was in it. we do know that it differed from the jewish part and we cannot trust the rabis which to include in the collection.
we can test that the book of genesis said "your name will not be jacob" this is clearly false from internal comparison and a book of truth may not contain genesis.
if jeremia is good he brought a message from god "i did not command offerings therefore you eat the meat of the offerings" we certainly cannot INCLUDE both jeremia and exodus which claims that god did command if truly god sent a correction to "determine" the beliefs and fix the error of killing animals to burn them. we certainly cannot include both together that is silly rabbis and the book should determine what we believe so religious leaders say the "word no differs from the idea" of no... which words we can ignore... so "no other gods" differs from the word "no"...
the obvious solution is to only include the quote itself words jesus quoted "as written grapho" as the section of the "former covenant" on one page and proceed immediately to the gospels.
the gospels never claimed that jesus listed which of pauls letters were good. which old testament books were good.
even when jesus quotes "as written" he never said the book by name. did jesus ever say genesis was a good book? never only he quoted "as it was written grapho" no name of any book was ever approved. and only around ten verses were worth quoting from whatever written source.
people decided and flawed humans decided which books to include in the holy bible what if they included a bad book among the ones truly inspired by god.
the new believer is told that he should believe stuff "because the book said so" soon he reads and asks if the book determines our belief then what about this detail? and is told we lied the book does not determine the belief instead church leaders teach which words we should ignore.
when ephesians said "one god and one baptism" church leaders teach to ignore that part insisting two baptisms if " the books are inspired by god then they should determine our belief in one baptism not two... that would refute almost every church. well maybe it should start respecting god.
some documents were rejected and not included in the bible which leads to the question what if the ones included were bad decision to include among the good ones.
paul wrote leyyers the disciples were not handed a book volume the way we were handed a holy bible containing many books. people decided what to include
regarding the new testament church leaders decided to include certain gospels and pauls letters and "whichever" books the rabbis included... that is risky we know that we cannot trust rabbis who do you think selected and decided to INCLUDE books in the jewish part of the bible?
so the selection to include in the bible is the topic. which to include? the list of books is called canon a word used in pauls letter epistle for "measure" or boundary or rules . only these are good others are rejected which leads to the question the decision to inclde books which should be rejected too.
church leaders decided which to INCLUDE in the group of collection of texts.
later church leaders mention by name the gospel of mark we can compare this to jesus who never ever mentioned a book by name... when he quoted as it was written it seems to sometikes match the old testament yet there are differences between the wording of the jewish book and truly jesus never ever said he was quoting from genesis.
similarly in the writing of eusebius before he mentions the gospel of mark... which some are fooled is the first written gospel truly eusebius did quote from a written "the gospel" before mark wrote. that was a book which eusebius and he christians of his day thought was good adding marks which the bible today has not preserved replacing it with mark and 3 other gospels. which later christians decided to INCLUDE in the collection.
the early christians such as paul never listed a fixed number of gospels so later christians added and included many gospels and many letters attributed to paul just because pauls name is at the beginning.
any liar can write "paul an apostle" and silly ideas and they would include it because they see the name paul. people can make mistakes
which books are justly INCLUDED IN THE FORMER TESTAMENT?
if jesus said "the two will become one" is that evidence that all thirty books of the former testament is all good? it is truly not even evidence for the book we call genesis because he did not mention the name genesis... we do not know which book he quoted from with that idea in fact we can identify a difference in wording between the jewish part which has different words... so not relying on genesis but certainly a different book which was not preserved we cannot know what was in it. we do know that it differed from the jewish part and we cannot trust the rabis which to include in the collection.
we can test that the book of genesis said "your name will not be jacob" this is clearly false from internal comparison and a book of truth may not contain genesis.
if jeremia is good he brought a message from god "i did not command offerings therefore you eat the meat of the offerings" we certainly cannot INCLUDE both jeremia and exodus which claims that god did command if truly god sent a correction to "determine" the beliefs and fix the error of killing animals to burn them. we certainly cannot include both together that is silly rabbis and the book should determine what we believe so religious leaders say the "word no differs from the idea" of no... which words we can ignore... so "no other gods" differs from the word "no"...
the obvious solution is to only include the quote itself words jesus quoted "as written grapho" as the section of the "former covenant" on one page and proceed immediately to the gospels.
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
baptism but water??
christian missionaries are active on college campuses. the fact that they use tricks to mislead beginners is reason enuf to ignore everything they say even the true stuff. we simply cannot trust them.
everybody knows about christian water baptism. why? why is that so famous?
why is the baptism in the book of acts less famous??
Act 1:5: "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence" so many indications from the word "but" to the word baptised with holy spirit it is so clear that this is a different baptism ... yet i personally met two different LIARS who said "every baptism is water" every?? what about the book of acts? in fact knowing this quote in the book of acts defines the teaching at the end of matthew jesus said go out and baptise... the beginner is mesled by the famous water baptism... DID JESUS SAY WATER?? of course not. well what else could it be the beginner does not know the book of acts yet... that is how the missionaries use tricks and say do water baptism.
the fact that acts begins with baptism yes spirit and different from water with the word "but" not baptism of spirit when water but different maybe after the water or maybe without water... maybe independent of water...
the fact that spirit baptism exists generates a doubt which did jesus men when he said "baptise" did he mean water or spirit?
first corinthians reveals the answer " 1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."
they did baptise with water like john did before jesus but then people were misled what is important so paul corrected them in verse 17 NOT BAPTISM" this is emphasized again in ehesians there is one god and one baptism... if one is not literaly one then how many gods are there? if there would be no baptism of spirit there would be one baptism of water but that is the lie used on beginners... who only know of one... only later they hear about the spirit baptism... but then that would be two baptisms is that true? not according to the christian holy book one baptism. and which one jesus never said water... that was the jewish one.
until missionaries lead with acts 1.5 we need to challenge them and point at to them acts chapter 1 verse 5 and first cor. 1.17 not baptise in action. if they lie 2 baptisms we will say first which could be the spirit and also ephesians 4.5 one not more.
until they teach acts 1.5 first we cannot trus them
in fact the logical order is to teach the topic of baptism by teaching ephesians first. one baptism. next the definition in acts to distinguish from the jewish water dip which early christians repeated because they were jews jew first.
the trick is "not doing the things early christians did" but finding the direcftions in the book it is a perfect match for paul to say in cor. 1.17 not to batise because the water is jewish and the one baptism is the spirit which occurs the moent a person speaks confesses faith before god... as one theologian published... the spirit baptism cannot be any delay because of the word all, so all believers were already baptised...
evidence from first cor. 12.13 "1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. can that mean "limited only to those after water baptism" that would not be all believers. what if somebody believes at night are they not baptised because not yet water? that is not all and violates both sources in corinthians "not to baptise" that was the pre-jesus jewish custom. baptism is truly defined by acts chapter one.
everybody knows about christian water baptism. why? why is that so famous?
why is the baptism in the book of acts less famous??
Act 1:5: "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence" so many indications from the word "but" to the word baptised with holy spirit it is so clear that this is a different baptism ... yet i personally met two different LIARS who said "every baptism is water" every?? what about the book of acts? in fact knowing this quote in the book of acts defines the teaching at the end of matthew jesus said go out and baptise... the beginner is mesled by the famous water baptism... DID JESUS SAY WATER?? of course not. well what else could it be the beginner does not know the book of acts yet... that is how the missionaries use tricks and say do water baptism.
the fact that acts begins with baptism yes spirit and different from water with the word "but" not baptism of spirit when water but different maybe after the water or maybe without water... maybe independent of water...
the fact that spirit baptism exists generates a doubt which did jesus men when he said "baptise" did he mean water or spirit?
first corinthians reveals the answer " 1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."
they did baptise with water like john did before jesus but then people were misled what is important so paul corrected them in verse 17 NOT BAPTISM" this is emphasized again in ehesians there is one god and one baptism... if one is not literaly one then how many gods are there? if there would be no baptism of spirit there would be one baptism of water but that is the lie used on beginners... who only know of one... only later they hear about the spirit baptism... but then that would be two baptisms is that true? not according to the christian holy book one baptism. and which one jesus never said water... that was the jewish one.
until missionaries lead with acts 1.5 we need to challenge them and point at to them acts chapter 1 verse 5 and first cor. 1.17 not baptise in action. if they lie 2 baptisms we will say first which could be the spirit and also ephesians 4.5 one not more.
until they teach acts 1.5 first we cannot trus them
in fact the logical order is to teach the topic of baptism by teaching ephesians first. one baptism. next the definition in acts to distinguish from the jewish water dip which early christians repeated because they were jews jew first.
the trick is "not doing the things early christians did" but finding the direcftions in the book it is a perfect match for paul to say in cor. 1.17 not to batise because the water is jewish and the one baptism is the spirit which occurs the moent a person speaks confesses faith before god... as one theologian published... the spirit baptism cannot be any delay because of the word all, so all believers were already baptised...
evidence from first cor. 12.13 "1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. can that mean "limited only to those after water baptism" that would not be all believers. what if somebody believes at night are they not baptised because not yet water? that is not all and violates both sources in corinthians "not to baptise" that was the pre-jesus jewish custom. baptism is truly defined by acts chapter one.
Sunday, February 4, 2018
was jesus god
many challengers of christianity criticize the christian doctrine that jesus was god
first the quick answer
quote "He [=jesus] is omnipresent according to His divine nature because only deity is omnipresent. Likewise, the person of Christ died on the cross, but Jesus experienced death according to His human nature, for
the divine nature is not subject to death and decay." in other
words "purity" the divine nature of jesus does not blend nor mix with the human nature so the answer is "yes jesus was divine god and yes jesus died while god did not die" and a similar idea from another teacher of theology that believed god christ did not die wrote the word 'would' as follows, "if the divine nature acquired attributes of humanity then when christ died god would have died" only somebody who believes the christ god did not die would write that
there is also a great difference in context between these two sources the first source is from https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/communication-attributes/ defining a difference between reform [calvin] and lutheran that reform believe the natures "do not mix" yet are united inseparably in christas one unit with two natures which do not mix therefore the answer is yes jesus is divine in contrast to the lutheran approach which agrees that the jesus was god and divine but differs that accordiing to lutheran the natures do mix and the human is influenced by the divine nature bt "only in one direction" agreeing the humanity does not weaken the god part
this relates to the previous post can jesus sin if the human is influenced by god then the choice of sin would soil the god nature moved to the body the same problem of god dying hence the author believed god did not die but "would' while both agree that god did not die the difference is whether there is purity like reform or a one way mix like lutheran and the consequence when eating the bread of communion which part of jesus is "omnipresent" in the bread of all the eaters at the same time is it only the divine nature which is omnipresent or is the physical nature blended by influence with the divine if so the body can have the attribute of omnipresence and be as physical body omnipresent in each erson 's bread stoop laughing i am not laughing
this relates to the previous post and those who believe that the jesus body can be omnipresent with the divine attribute it would be consistent for them to say jesus could not sin and consistently that aoproach includes both consistent details consistently which leads to theproblem jesus hd no choice if god prevented him from sinning
now we can analyze the intracacies if jesus was god and also died on the cross... how because "purity" not blend the two natures and in the words of one theologist explaining the difference between lutheran and reform/calviinism "only" the divine nature is omnipresent while the other theologian agrees to several of these details except there is a mix blend in one direction as above
this is not critical to faith according to paul who wrote if you believe jesus is lord WITHOUT the word theo no need to believe in jesus divinity but among church goers that makes or breaks it they would say you are not a christian if you deny diety of christology that jesus was also god and that is the lesson of christology
we can compare with other "gods' zeus was a famous god yet he was born so which godly attribute or character was that? immortal he cannot die the fact that many greeks and romans said zeus was a god is not evidence that he was a god so many challenge if the book said "jesus was a god" then that is the same as greek mythology what if i would say each of you readers is god you know who you are and you never claimed you are god
so the question boils down to "did jesus ever teach he was god' i know the quick answer but lets follow the steps
in "christology" there are a list of places to look to see if jesus claimed he was god i bothered to check each one and two of them were "son of god" and what if they are not in red letters
some christians have responded the phrase "i am" proves jesus thought he was god like the word in exodus "i will be" often translated "i am what i am" [if he
would say "i be what i be" i can guess what his skin color is? just kidding] which is easily deflected by muslims who did a computer search for the phrase "i am" and found paul say "i am" so paul was not god was he... e
now the quick answer yes jesus claimed he was god teaching he and the father are the same one in gospel john 10.30 which generates the next major problem if jesus was divine and we know zeus is immortal and cannot die then what kind of god can die
i met two answers among christians
one answer is that god the father did not die only christ god died on the cross and the father is the one who revived the god jesus from the dead [romans 10] so since jesus had a soul and spirit those did not die any differently than the average human death only the human body died not human soul of jesus and still also the christ god died as some christians believe and as explained below leaving a living god in the appearance of the father and holy spirit not dead and which "of them" or which nature or which appearance revived the christ god? paul revealed in romans 10 "the father raised jesus the christ from the dead so god did not completely die but christ god did die with the human body how because "i have the authority to give my life" in john 6 and other sources
indeed i met christians who believe that christ god died however this related to the previous post can jesus sin if the body of christ is mixed with god and as above can be omnipresent because that is an attribute of divine then could jesus sin and if not then that is not choice
in summary the fact is an agreement in the detail that both lutheran teachers and reform agree that the "god nature did not die" and this agreement is convenient in defending a complaint of muslims if jesus died he cannot be god well we see two possibilities that jesus differed from immortal zeus whether the natures are united purely or mix one direction only.
first the quick answer
quote "He [=jesus] is omnipresent according to His divine nature because only deity is omnipresent. Likewise, the person of Christ died on the cross, but Jesus experienced death according to His human nature, for
the divine nature is not subject to death and decay." in other
words "purity" the divine nature of jesus does not blend nor mix with the human nature so the answer is "yes jesus was divine god and yes jesus died while god did not die" and a similar idea from another teacher of theology that believed god christ did not die wrote the word 'would' as follows, "if the divine nature acquired attributes of humanity then when christ died god would have died" only somebody who believes the christ god did not die would write that
there is also a great difference in context between these two sources the first source is from https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/communication-attributes/ defining a difference between reform [calvin] and lutheran that reform believe the natures "do not mix" yet are united inseparably in christas one unit with two natures which do not mix therefore the answer is yes jesus is divine in contrast to the lutheran approach which agrees that the jesus was god and divine but differs that accordiing to lutheran the natures do mix and the human is influenced by the divine nature bt "only in one direction" agreeing the humanity does not weaken the god part
this relates to the previous post can jesus sin if the human is influenced by god then the choice of sin would soil the god nature moved to the body the same problem of god dying hence the author believed god did not die but "would' while both agree that god did not die the difference is whether there is purity like reform or a one way mix like lutheran and the consequence when eating the bread of communion which part of jesus is "omnipresent" in the bread of all the eaters at the same time is it only the divine nature which is omnipresent or is the physical nature blended by influence with the divine if so the body can have the attribute of omnipresence and be as physical body omnipresent in each erson 's bread stoop laughing i am not laughing
this relates to the previous post and those who believe that the jesus body can be omnipresent with the divine attribute it would be consistent for them to say jesus could not sin and consistently that aoproach includes both consistent details consistently which leads to theproblem jesus hd no choice if god prevented him from sinning
now we can analyze the intracacies if jesus was god and also died on the cross... how because "purity" not blend the two natures and in the words of one theologist explaining the difference between lutheran and reform/calviinism "only" the divine nature is omnipresent while the other theologian agrees to several of these details except there is a mix blend in one direction as above
this is not critical to faith according to paul who wrote if you believe jesus is lord WITHOUT the word theo no need to believe in jesus divinity but among church goers that makes or breaks it they would say you are not a christian if you deny diety of christology that jesus was also god and that is the lesson of christology
we can compare with other "gods' zeus was a famous god yet he was born so which godly attribute or character was that? immortal he cannot die the fact that many greeks and romans said zeus was a god is not evidence that he was a god so many challenge if the book said "jesus was a god" then that is the same as greek mythology what if i would say each of you readers is god you know who you are and you never claimed you are god
so the question boils down to "did jesus ever teach he was god' i know the quick answer but lets follow the steps
in "christology" there are a list of places to look to see if jesus claimed he was god i bothered to check each one and two of them were "son of god" and what if they are not in red letters
some christians have responded the phrase "i am" proves jesus thought he was god like the word in exodus "i will be" often translated "i am what i am" [if he
would say "i be what i be" i can guess what his skin color is? just kidding] which is easily deflected by muslims who did a computer search for the phrase "i am" and found paul say "i am" so paul was not god was he... e
now the quick answer yes jesus claimed he was god teaching he and the father are the same one in gospel john 10.30 which generates the next major problem if jesus was divine and we know zeus is immortal and cannot die then what kind of god can die
i met two answers among christians
one answer is that god the father did not die only christ god died on the cross and the father is the one who revived the god jesus from the dead [romans 10] so since jesus had a soul and spirit those did not die any differently than the average human death only the human body died not human soul of jesus and still also the christ god died as some christians believe and as explained below leaving a living god in the appearance of the father and holy spirit not dead and which "of them" or which nature or which appearance revived the christ god? paul revealed in romans 10 "the father raised jesus the christ from the dead so god did not completely die but christ god did die with the human body how because "i have the authority to give my life" in john 6 and other sources
indeed i met christians who believe that christ god died however this related to the previous post can jesus sin if the body of christ is mixed with god and as above can be omnipresent because that is an attribute of divine then could jesus sin and if not then that is not choice
in summary the fact is an agreement in the detail that both lutheran teachers and reform agree that the "god nature did not die" and this agreement is convenient in defending a complaint of muslims if jesus died he cannot be god well we see two possibilities that jesus differed from immortal zeus whether the natures are united purely or mix one direction only.
Thursday, February 1, 2018
SUPER BOWL
the stereotype is women do not care about sports and do not follow sports. men usually follow their city team... until they move then men tend to follow the team they liked when they were younger even when in a new city. this idea was demonstrated in the comedy "modern family" when the neighbor followed his childhood team in the current city.
so people in boston probably follow and cheer all year for the patriots... once named boston patriots in the 1960's but now named new England patriots a name which is soaked with irony because originally boston was the idea of rebellion against the king of England... hence patriots of the new country... now team named "new England" the name relating to England... represented by the patriots who were loyal to the anti-england sweet !!
similarly any other city in the area near boston north and east of new York state probably cheer in support of the patriots.
the patriots had the most wins in the "conference" so in January they played the other team [nobody remembers second place] with the most wins in the conference [called pro-bowl] and won the "championship". now they face the eagles who won the championship of their conference so the best of nfc faces the best of afc... while the acronym shown on tv is the traditional nfl... when in fact the nfc champion plays the afc champion with most wins for their conference.
altho I find the qb=quarterback of the eagles more handsome, and neither of these teams is my city team, i still chose one and I am interested in the game because they are the best teams challenging each other. that is interesting and still from the two I hope brady leads the "pat's" to victory. go patriots.
the patriots qb has many years of experience and more than the eagles qb while the defensive important position called de=defensive end is the inverse... the eagles have more experienced de most with around 5-6 years experience, while the de of patriots are less experienced in the post college level... of course they have much experience in college football and perhaps have the advantage of being relatively younger.
so the best of afc challenges the best of the nfc.
I think it is surprising how they decided what is east and what is south Indianapolis is south while Baltimore is north while truly they are so near each other but that adds variety to each subsection.
the first super bowl was in 1965 so this will be the 52.
the afl was considered "weaker" and players rejected from nfl played for afl despite the fact that afl won two superbowl over the best nfl team in superbowl 3 and 4 in the late 1960's now the best of the afc faces the best of the nfc so that will be an exciting game even people from other cities not boston and not Philadelphia will be interested in...
so if your city is neither [not i before e? what the heck? stupid brits] who do you hope will win? i do not bet on winners and recommend to my readers not to bet but you can support one and feel excited at their success and angry at the opponents success!
so people in boston probably follow and cheer all year for the patriots... once named boston patriots in the 1960's but now named new England patriots a name which is soaked with irony because originally boston was the idea of rebellion against the king of England... hence patriots of the new country... now team named "new England" the name relating to England... represented by the patriots who were loyal to the anti-england sweet !!
similarly any other city in the area near boston north and east of new York state probably cheer in support of the patriots.
the patriots had the most wins in the "conference" so in January they played the other team [nobody remembers second place] with the most wins in the conference [called pro-bowl] and won the "championship". now they face the eagles who won the championship of their conference so the best of nfc faces the best of afc... while the acronym shown on tv is the traditional nfl... when in fact the nfc champion plays the afc champion with most wins for their conference.
altho I find the qb=quarterback of the eagles more handsome, and neither of these teams is my city team, i still chose one and I am interested in the game because they are the best teams challenging each other. that is interesting and still from the two I hope brady leads the "pat's" to victory. go patriots.
the patriots qb has many years of experience and more than the eagles qb while the defensive important position called de=defensive end is the inverse... the eagles have more experienced de most with around 5-6 years experience, while the de of patriots are less experienced in the post college level... of course they have much experience in college football and perhaps have the advantage of being relatively younger.
so the best of afc challenges the best of the nfc.
I think it is surprising how they decided what is east and what is south Indianapolis is south while Baltimore is north while truly they are so near each other but that adds variety to each subsection.
the first super bowl was in 1965 so this will be the 52.
the afl was considered "weaker" and players rejected from nfl played for afl despite the fact that afl won two superbowl over the best nfl team in superbowl 3 and 4 in the late 1960's now the best of the afc faces the best of the nfc so that will be an exciting game even people from other cities not boston and not Philadelphia will be interested in...
so if your city is neither [not i before e? what the heck? stupid brits] who do you hope will win? i do not bet on winners and recommend to my readers not to bet but you can support one and feel excited at their success and angry at the opponents success!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)