Is God a liar?

[BobRyan]

The work if maintaining the faith of the Israelites who were then devastated after the loss of their national pride.

Urantia "again"? or just making stuff up??

 

[SkyWriting]

"Legal code" is pretty hard to "mess up " to the level of confusion you require for that statement.

Where can I learn more about legal code?

 

[BobRyan]

Maybe. Maybe that's not the intended message.

"Legal code" is pretty hard to "mess up " to the level of confusion you require for that statement.


Originally Posted by BobRyan =========================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

=====================

"Six days you shall labor... for in SIX days the LORD Made..." Ex 20:8-11

Spoken by God and written in "legal code" not in "parable"

Where can I learn more about legal code?

Ex 20:8-11 the 4th commandment is legal code - not parable. What part of this is confusing to a Christian??

Even Darwin figured out that blind-faith evolutionism is a flat-out contradiction to the Bible.

 

[SkyWriting]

Ex 20:8-11 the 4th commandment is legal code - not parable. What part of this is confusing to a Christian??

Perhaps I am Wiccan.
Where can I learn more about the concept of "legal code" in scripture?
Not being familiar with the idea, your sentence is confusing.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Hebrews who created the creation story for a scattered Israelite audience were motivated by the desire to hold the faith and traditions of their people. It worked but it's outdated and doesn't work anymore for wise, critical thinkers in this age.

They saw God's miracles but in their hearts turned back to Egypt. At the foot of Sinai they received the revelation from the Creator of the heavens and earth and all that is with in them, yet they turned to idols. In their hearts they always went astray and set up idols saying these are the gods who delivered you out of Egypt. Modernism is systematic unbelief, there is nothing new about that. Christian conviction requires faith in the God of the Bible who is a God of miracles. You might think categorically rejecting the God of the ancient Hebrews makes you wise but the Scriptures teach otherwise.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. (Rom. 1:21-23)​

The essence of idolatry is to give credit to the creature, what rightfully belongs to God alone. The same God who at the very beginning was Creator of the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, who was, is and is to come, the Almighty.

Have a nice day

 

[Colter]

Maybe. Maybe that's not the intended message.

Message and motive are two different things.

 

[Colter]

OK, What led you to decide that was the purpose?

Several factors. Growing up in Christianity I could tell that some of the early

OK, What led you to decide that was the purpose?

I think a number of factors. I grew up in Christianity and didn't believe many of the silly claims about how and when the world was made, the absurd accusations made against God, atrocities that were in reality committed by ordinary military conquest but accredited to Gods directives.

Higher criticism has been around for a while but picked up steam as the church could no longer murder people who uncovered the work of a long line of the priestly elite. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Higher_criticism

Also the Urantia Book revelation has been a great source of information and understanding of the evolution of life and religion on out planet.

 

[SkyWriting]

Also the Urantia Book revelation has been a great source of information and understanding of the evolution of life and religion on out planet.

I cover "Answered Prayer" in my sig file.
Reading Urantia, I see it misses the boat
on how prayer actually functions for people.

 

[Colter]

I cover "Answered Prayer" in my sig file.
Reading Urantia, I see it misses the boat
on how prayer actually functions for people.

You read the Urantia Book? All of it?

 

[SkyWriting]

You read the Urantia Book? All of it?

I read the Prayer section. If it's wrong on that, it is, then the rest is bound to
be wrong as well. I'll go read another section....

OK I just read
Paper 71
Development of the State

Again, besides not being written any more profound than a blog post,
it mostly just complains about stuff and offers no insights. It does cover
the most obvious but fails to explain what is fundamental about why
things are working well where they are working well. Any why things
fail. Instead it just points to the failure, just as anyone could do with
a newspaper in front of them. It fails on any insights.

 

[Colter]

I read the Prayer section. If it's wrong on that, it is, then the rest is bound to
be wrong as well. I'll go read another section....

OK I just read
Paper 71
Development of the State

Again, besides not being written any more profound than a blog post,
it mostly just complains about stuff and offers no insights. It does cover
the most obvious but fails to explain what is fundamental about why
things are working well where they are working well. Any why things
fail. Instead it just points to the failure, just as anyone could do with
a newspaper in front of them. It fails on any insights.

Paper 97 covers what you had asked me about.

 

[BobRyan]

There are two contradictory chronologies in Gen. 1 and 2, .

Not in real life.

in real life only Gen 1:2-2:4 has a time-boxed chronological sequence. There is no timeline at all in Genesis 2 beyond that - and no creation of air, or land, or water, or fish or light, or the sun... because the Bible does not 'delete every page' after it is written and start over "on the next page".

Atheists struggle with that concept - but Christians get the point.

 

[mark kennedy]

Several factors. Growing up in Christianity I could tell that some of the early

I think a number of factors. I grew up in Christianity and didn't believe many of the silly claims about how and when the world was made, the absurd accusations made against God, atrocities that were in reality committed by ordinary military conquest but accredited to Gods directives.

Higher criticism has been around for a while but picked up steam as the church could no longer murder people who uncovered the work of a long line of the priestly elite. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Higher_criticism

Also the Urantia Book revelation has been a great source of information and understanding of the evolution of life and religion on out planet.

Let's see this super enlightened, mystical revision of the traditional Christian faith and where it stands on doctrine shall we?

Some differences with Christianity include:

• Jesus' crucifixion is not considered an atonement for the sins of humanity.[68] The crucifixion is taught to be an outcome of the fears of religious leaders of the day, who regarded his teachings as a threat to their positions of authority.
• Jesus is considered the human incarnation of "Michael of Nebadon," one of more than 700,000 "Paradise Sons" of God, or "Creator Sons." Jesus is not considered the second person of the Trinity as he is in Christianity. The book refers to the Eternal Son as the second person of the Trinity.[86]
• Jesus was born on earth through natural means of conception instead of a virgin birth.[87]
• Jesus did not walk on water or perform some of the miracles that are attributed to him in the Bible.[88]

The Urantia Book, Wikipedia

This is a Christians only forum, this kind of mystical cult literature belongs in another forum.

"The barbarous idea of appeasing an angry God, of propitiating an offended Lord, of winning the favor of Deity through sacrifices and penance and even by the shedding of blood, represents a religion wholly puerile and primitive. . . .It is an affront to God to believe, hold, or teach that innocent blood must be shed in order to win his favor or to divert the fictitious divine wrath" (Paper 4: Erroneous Ideas About God. The Urantia Book).​

This is a categorical rejection of the Gospel at the heart of the message:

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:21-23)​

Of course they reject original sin and distort other essential doctrine. The denial of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ is the clearest denial of the Gospel. It should be shunned as apostate, cultic and anathema.

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished (Rom. 3:25)
​

What Paul would say concerning such a grievous false doctrine is simply this:

But even if we or an Angel from Heaven should evangelize you outside of that which we have evangelized you, we or he would be damned. (Gal. 1:8 Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
​

It's not supersizing that you like Hoghead, your both propagandizing false doctrine. You and Hoghead should go and post in the Non-Nicene forums, these forums are for Christian only.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Colter]

Let's see this super enlightened, mystical revision of the traditional Christian faith and where it stands on doctrine shall we?

Some differences with Christianity include:

• Jesus' crucifixion is not considered an atonement for the sins of humanity.[68] The crucifixion is taught to be an outcome of the fears of religious leaders of the day, who regarded his teachings as a threat to their positions of authority.
• Jesus is considered the human incarnation of "Michael of Nebadon," one of more than 700,000 "Paradise Sons" of God, or "Creator Sons." Jesus is not considered the second person of the Trinity as he is in Christianity. The book refers to the Eternal Son as the second person of the Trinity.[86]
• Jesus was born on earth through natural means of conception instead of a virgin birth.[87]
• Jesus did not walk on water or perform some of the miracles that are attributed to him in the Bible.[88]

The Urantia Book, Wikipedia

This is a Christians only forum, this kind of mystical cult literature belongs in another forum.

"The barbarous idea of appeasing an angry God, of propitiating an offended Lord, of winning the favor of Deity through sacrifices and penance and even by the shedding of blood, represents a religion wholly puerile and primitive. . . .It is an affront to God to believe, hold, or teach that innocent blood must be shed in order to win his favor or to divert the fictitious divine wrath" (Paper 4: Erroneous Ideas About God. The Urantia Book).​

This is a categorical rejection of the Gospel at the heart of the message:

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:21-23)​

Of course they reject original sin and distort other essential doctrine. This one is the clearest denial of the Gospel and should be shunned as apostate, cultic and anathema.

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished (Rom. 3:25)
​

What Paul would say concerning such a grievous false doctrine is simply this:

But even if we or an Angel from Heaven should evangelize you outside of that which we have evangelized you, we or he would be damned. (Gal. 1:8 Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
​

It's not supersizing that you like Hoghead, your both propagandizing false doctrine. You and Hoghead should go and post in the Non-Nicene forums, these forums are for Christian only.

Have a nice day
Mark

Im a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, I believe in and practice his original gospel. If his people had allowed the good news into their hearts and taken up their calling, then the Jews would be preaching the gospel today from Jerusalem. I don't have an issue with the Nicene creed.

 

[mark kennedy]

Im a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, I believe in and practice his original gospel. If his people had allowed the good news into their hearts and taken up their calling, then the Jews would be preaching the gospel today from Jerusalem. I don't have an issue with the Nicene creed.

Jesus of Nazareth or Michael of Nebadon? It's rather odd to hear you say you have no problem with the Nicene Creed when it affirms the virgin birth and the sacrificial death of Christ. I sense a profound duplicity emerging.

Do you recognize this statement as the Gospel:

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished (Rom. 3:25)
​

Because if you do, you must reject this one as reprobate:

"The barbarous idea of appeasing an angry God, of propitiating an offended Lord, of winning the favor of Deity through sacrifices and penance and even by the shedding of blood, represents a religion wholly puerile and primitive. . . .It is an affront to God to believe, hold, or teach that innocent blood must be shed in order to win his favor or to divert the fictitious divine wrath" (Paper 4: Erroneous Ideas About God. The Urantia Book).
​

The Urantia while having some superficial resemblance to Christian theism, ultimately rejects the Gospel at the heart of the New Testament doctrine of atonement. You want to call Bible believing Christians idolaters and promote heretical writings as if they were synonymous with the Gospel. Nothing could be further from the truth. You may be many things but the Jesus you follow is a mythical fabrication, not the New Testament Jesus Christ Christians worship.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[BobRyan]

I do believe Mary and Joseph were married when Jesus was conceived the natural way, but the miracle of the Son arriving at conception is truly amazing!

So you too would deny this --

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven

========================

You have stated previously that you are in agreement with Hoghead1 in his own denial of basic Bible doctrine - it appears this is yet another point of agreement that the two of you have.

 

[Colter]

So you too would deny this --

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven

========================

You have stated previously that you are in agreement with Hoghead1 in his own denial of basic Bible doctrine - it appears this is yet another point of agreement that the two of you have.

You mean BobRyan's Bible doctrine.

This is exactly what the Sanhedrin did to Jesus, they followed him around desperately seeking any technicality to use against Jesus for their trumped up trial! They sent out spies and theology lawyers to pepper Jesus with entrapping questions.

Nowhere ever did Jesus preach or discuss his conception or his mothers virginity! I personally affirm and believe it to be a miracle of all miracles because he is the Son of God, having preexisted with the Father before this world was. I suspect Jesus looked like Joseph and Mary, as did his other siblings who came later.

BTW, there were other creeds over the centuries since Christ left leeding up to the First Council. The creed finalized and adopted by the First Council of Nicea (325) did not include "virgin Mary".

"Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man"

It wasn't until First Council of Constantinople (381) that the virgin Mary appears with additional professions of faith in the wake of the settlement of the great Athanasius-Arius controversy regarding the divinity of Jesus.


"Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man"

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This thread has gone through a clean up and it's quite possible a further cleaning will take place. Please stay on topic and remember the following rules when posting:

Blasphemy and Contempt of Christianity
It is considered blasphemy to insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father (God), Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Honest debate about the nature of God and Christian Theology is allowed, but derogatory remarks are not. Contemptuous remarks regarding Christianity or Christian practices are not allowed.

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not personally attack other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.
● Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.

If you continue to post against the rules this thread can and will be closed permanently and those involved may find themselves with staff actions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[BobRyan]

I do believe Mary and Joseph were married when Jesus was conceived the natural way, but the miracle of the Son arriving at conception is truly amazing!

So you too would deny this --

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven

========================

You have stated previously that you are in agreement with Hoghead1 in his own denial of basic Bible doctrine - it appears this is yet another point of agreement that the two of you have.

You mean BobRyan's Bible doctrine.

You don't have to agree with me -- I am just asking you to state your opinion. So far you seem to argue that you do not agree with my statement about Christian beliefs.

This is exactly what the Sanhedrin did to Jesus, they followed him around desperately seeking any technicality to use against Jesus for their trumped up trial! They sent out spies and theology lawyers to pepper Jesus with entrapping questions.

In this case - I am making the argument that the Bible can be trusted and blind-faith evolutionism cannot. In this "is God a liar" thread both you and Hoghead1 appear to agree in your condemnation of various parts of the Bible. OH has chimed in agreeing with you about the Genesis account.

I find that "interesting" given that Darwin and Dawkins also condemn the Genesis account.

Nowhere ever did Jesus preach or discuss his conception or his mothers virginity!

According to what? -- the Bible?

Are you saying that you now believe the Bible???

I personally affirm and believe it to be a miracle of all miracles because he is the Son of God, having preexisted with the Father before this world was. I suspect Jesus looked like Joseph and Mary, as did his other siblings who came later.

Is it your claim that all humans are "incarnated" from some prior existence and so this "mother + father ==> incarnated children" idea is just the way that evolutionism says humans are procreated??

Really?

BTW, there were other creeds over the centuries since Christ left leeding up to the First Council. The creed finalized and adopted by the First Council of Nicea (325) did not include "virgin Mary".

"Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man"

Do you believe in "some other incarnation" doctrine - that is not the one in the actual Bible?

do you imagine that the 325 council rejected the "born of a virgin" Bible fact?

It wasn't until First Council of Constantinople (381) that the virgin Mary appears with additional professions of faith in the wake of the settlement of the great Athanasius-Arius controversy regarding the divinity of Jesus.

"Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man"

Do you have some AD 325 faction that denied the virgin birth of Christ that you think is affirmed by the Council of Nicea??

 

[BobRyan]

Might you agree with this statement ---

============================================

If someone claims that this following doctrine defines what is a "Christian" to some extent then if someone else rejects the following statement preferring evolutionism instead of the Bible - ... then it might be fair to argue that they have rejected Christianity and chosen faith in evolutionism instead.

"The Nicene Creed (with scriptural references)

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)v
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

**May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.

Faith groups that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians Posts that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation are considered non-Christian theology"