• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

God Evolved

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No, HE didn’t
I've already explained to you that sexual dimorphism only exists because of evolution. If your god has always existed, there is absolutely no reason to use gender specific pronouns. Being a "HE" is only ever a result of sexual processes.
 
Upvote 0

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,728
2,819
USA
✟109,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I've already explained to you that sexual dimorphism only exists because of evolution. If your god has always existed, there is absolutely no reason to use gender specific pronouns. Being a "HE" is only ever a result of sexual processes.
I’m going to refer to JESUS CHRIST as THE SON of GOD. The visible image of the invisible GOD

A son is always a he
 
Upvote 0

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,728
2,819
USA
✟109,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Please (and I know you’ll just say
My point exactly.
this is actually the point:


John 1:18

Many do not believe the testimony of not only John but of men even today who testify
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,379
10,242
✟293,179.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
That is what the term meant when it first came out. The Evolutionist did not like it, so they changed the meaning. The first use is the correct understanding, because life forms came to be at the same time; then when many of those died out, many others suddenly sprang into being. That is not proof of Evolution, but creation.
You seem to be confused. As Frumious Bandersnatch has pointed out, spontaneous generation was a concept in vogue before we appreciated the complexity of even the simplest life forms. According to that idea new life forms could and did arise spontaneously in the right conditions. The concept was shown to be incorrect and based upon profound ignorance. Spontaneous generation has not been part of biological perspective since.

Abiogenesis, the initiation of the first life, is a wholly different hypothesis.
  1. It does not generate advanced forms of life.
  2. It does not occur repeatedly.
  3. It is most assuredly not spontaneous.
  4. Emphasising point 3, it is a process, not an event.
Evolutionists did not like the concept, because it had been shown to be incorrect.
They did not change its meaning, but eliminated it from their vocabulary, except as an idea that had been found wanting.
Life forms did not "come to be at the same time". (If you insist this is so, then provide evidence.)
Extinct life forms were not replaced by others that "suddenly sprang into being". (If you insist this is so, then provide the evidence.)

In brief, you cannot make wild assertions that are contradicted by the evidence and lay claim to meaning that is intrinsically silly, and be accorded any respect for your views.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,840
78
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,362.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Jesus said 'I AM'.

That debunks your belief. Simples.
Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am." Moses asked God His name, and God replied, "I Am, Who I Am. Tell them I AM has sent me."

It is good to read the whole context of Jesus quoting Isaiah, saying "The Law says you are gods", the context was, and it is in the verse before, the Jews wanted to stone Him because He asserted Himself as being God. His disciples said, "Show us the Father", and Jesus replied, "If you see Me, you have seen the Father", and, "I and my Father are one."

Jesus made it quite clear that He was God, and the Jews knew that He was asserting Himself as God, that is why they were angry at Him and accusing Him of blasphemy.

At the baptism of Jesus, who has been proved here that He is God, there was the voice of the Father, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased", and the Holy Spirit, in a form like a dove (not an actual dove), descended and rested upon Jesus. There you have the Father, Son and Holy Spirit right there.

In John 1:1, it says, "In the beginning, there was the Word (Jesus), the Word was with God and the Word was God."

If someone does not believe that Jesus is God, and that as God He died for us on the cross, true conversion to Christianity is impossible. This is because no person can call Jesus Lord, in the same way that Thomas called Jesus, "My Lord and my God", except by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if a person cannot call Jesus, "My Lord and my God" then he cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit, and because a true convert is born of the Holy Spirit, the "convert" cannot be born of God until he or she is able to confess Jesus as Lord and God.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God Evolved
Alpha First Beginning


Isaiah 44:6
“This is what the Lord says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Isaiah 48:12
“Listen to me, Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last.

Revelation 1:8
I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Revelation 21:6
He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life.

Revelation 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

The proof that God exist is in the fact that spontaneous evolution of life is not possible in this universe. God evolved, then He created. From the Subatomic and the primordial Dark Matter. A type of nothing, because it has no atomic bonds to form anything. God created gravity and gravitons to form the atomic elements of this Universe.

Dark Matter is undifferentiated material which has no atomic bonds, this would make it of no particular substance. In other words, it is Nothing. And if you are willing to accept it, it is primordial, and God's store house for creating the universe from "Nothing."

Dark Matter is accepted by the mainstream scientific community. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. The presence of dark matter in the universe, including gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies and, more recently, the pattern of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background.

According to cosmologists, dark matter is composed primarily of a not yet characterized type of subatomic particle.

The belief that God created from nothing comes from the Ramban comments on Genesis: www.sefaria.org/Ramban_on_Genesis.1.1?lang=en&layout=lines&sidebarLang=all

Dark Matter: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter


The missing links are missing because life did not evolve in this Universe.

Isaiah 43:10. "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD (Yahwah), "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god formed, nor will there be one after me.
None of the verses cited support your OP claim.
 
Upvote 0

CherubRam

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2012
6,777
781
✟103,730.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Oneness
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am." Moses asked God His name, and God replied, "I Am, Who I Am. Tell them I AM has sent me."

It is good to read the whole context of Jesus quoting Isaiah, saying "The Law says you are gods", the context was, and it is in the verse before, the Jews wanted to stone Him because He asserted Himself as being God. His disciples said, "Show us the Father", and Jesus replied, "If you see Me, you have seen the Father", and, "I and my Father are one."

Jesus made it quite clear that He was God, and the Jews knew that He was asserting Himself as God, that is why they were angry at Him and accusing Him of blasphemy.

At the baptism of Jesus, who has been proved here that He is God, there was the voice of the Father, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased", and the Holy Spirit, in a form like a dove (not an actual dove), descended and rested upon Jesus. There you have the Father, Son and Holy Spirit right there.

In John 1:1, it says, "In the beginning, there was the Word (Jesus), the Word was with God and the Word was God."

If someone does not believe that Jesus is God, and that as God He died for us on the cross, true conversion to Christianity is impossible. This is because no person can call Jesus Lord, in the same way that Thomas called Jesus, "My Lord and my God", except by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if a person cannot call Jesus, "My Lord and my God" then he cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit, and because a true convert is born of the Holy Spirit, the "convert" cannot be born of God until he or she is able to confess Jesus as Lord and God.
The things you say are your words, because they are not in the bible.
 
Upvote 0

CherubRam

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2012
6,777
781
✟103,730.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Oneness
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
You seem to be confused. As Frumious Bandersnatch has pointed out, spontaneous generation was a concept in vogue before we appreciated the complexity of even the simplest life forms. According to that idea new life forms could and did arise spontaneously in the right conditions. The concept was shown to be incorrect and based upon profound ignorance. Spontaneous generation has not been part of biological perspective since.

Abiogenesis, the initiation of the first life, is a wholly different hypothesis.
  1. It does not generate advanced forms of life.
  2. It does not occur repeatedly.
  3. It is most assuredly not spontaneous.
  4. Emphasising point 3, it is a process, not an event.
Evolutionists did not like the concept, because it had been shown to be incorrect.
They did not change its meaning, but eliminated it from their vocabulary, except as an idea that had been found wanting.
Life forms did not "come to be at the same time". (If you insist this is so, then provide evidence.)
Extinct life forms were not replaced by others that "suddenly sprang into being". (If you insist this is so, then provide the evidence.)

In brief, you cannot make wild assertions that are contradicted by the evidence and lay claim to meaning that is intrinsically silly, and be accorded any respect for your views.
I see no evidence of Evolution, yesterday, or today. Artist depictions do not count as scientific evidence. I was alive when spontaneous generation was being discussed. It was a joke among creationist.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,840
78
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,362.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
The things you say are your words, because they are not in the bible.
Not in the Bible?
Read John 8:58: Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Exodus 3:14: "God said to Moses, “ I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘ I AM has sent me to you.’”
John 10:33-35: "…33“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.” 34Jesus replied, “Is it notwritten in your Law: ‘I have said you aregods’? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—"
John 20:28: "Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
1 Corinthians 12:3: "Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit."
I have already quoted John 1:1.

I don't know what version of the Bible you have that these references are not in there, but they sure are there in mine!
 
Upvote 0

CherubRam

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2012
6,777
781
✟103,730.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Oneness
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Not in the Bible?
Read John 8:58: Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Exodus 3:14: "God said to Moses, “ I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘ I AM has sent me to you.’”
John 10:33-35: "…33“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.” 34Jesus replied, “Is it notwritten in your Law: ‘I have said you aregods’? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—"
John 20:28: "Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
1 Corinthians 12:3: "Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit."
I have already quoted John 1:1.

I don't know what version of the Bible you have that these references are not in there, but they sure are there in mine!
Where in scriptures does Christ say he is Yahwah the Father?

John 1:1

Greek:
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos

Interlinear:
en (in) arche (beginning) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word) kai (and) ho (the) logos (Word) en (was) pos (toward or with) ton (TON is a special definite article "the" meaning the one and only, it appears as TON instead of O in the Greek) theon (Divine Eternal) kai (and) theos (Divine) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word)

In English we have:
In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the (one or only) Divine Eternal, and Divine was the Word.

The defining article "a" must be supplied for the English language, to define that there is another Divine that is not the "Divine Eternal."

Why do translators drop off the definite article TON (the one or only) before Divine Eternal?


Theon and Theos
They both mean Divine, but in different cases. Theos is the nominative, Theon is accusative. Another form is Theou, which is genitive.

John 1:1 reads: “In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [τὸν θεὸν, (TON THEON) literally, the only Divine Eternal], and the Word was divine. [θεὸς].”

In the first instance (“the Word was with the only Divine Eternal”) it is in the accusative case and thus is spelled θεὸν [theon] But in the second occurrence it is in the nominative case, and so it is spelled θεὸς [theos]
Ton Theon was also applied to Zeus, meaning "The Only Divine Eternal."

Eon or Aeon; a very long time.
The word aeon, also spelled eon or æon, originally means "life", and / or "being", though it then tended to mean "age", "forever" or "for eternity". It is a Latin transliteration from the koine Greek word ὁ αἰών (ho aion), from the archaic αἰϝών (aiwon).
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,840
78
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,362.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Where in scriptures does Christ say he is Yahwah the Father?

John 1:1

Greek:
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos

Interlinear:
en (in) arche (beginning) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word) kai (and) ho (the) logos (Word) en (was) pos (toward or with) ton (TON is a special definite article "the" meaning the one and only, it appears as TON instead of O in the Greek) theon (Divine Eternal) kai (and) theos (Divine) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word)

In English we have:
In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the (one or only) Divine Eternal, and Divine was the Word.

The defining article "a" must be supplied for the English language, to define that there is another Divine that is not the "Divine Eternal."

Why do translators drop off the definite article TON (the one or only) before Divine Eternal?


Theon and Theos
They both mean Divine, but in different cases. Theos is the nominative, Theon is accusative. Another form is Theou, which is genitive.

John 1:1 reads: “In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [τὸν θεὸν, (TON THEON) literally, the only Divine Eternal], and the Word was divine. [θεὸς].”

In the first instance (“the Word was with the only Divine Eternal”) it is in the accusative case and thus is spelled θεὸν [theon] But in the second occurrence it is in the nominative case, and so it is spelled θεὸς [theos]
Ton Theon was also applied to Zeus, meaning "The Only Divine Eternal."

Eon or Aeon; a very long time.
The word aeon, also spelled eon or æon, originally means "life", and / or "being", though it then tended to mean "age", "forever" or "for eternity". It is a Latin transliteration from the koine Greek word ὁ αἰών (ho aion), from the archaic αἰϝών (aiwon).

John 10:29-31: "…My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” At this, the Jews again picked up stones to stone Him.…"

All you are achieving is showing me that you are trying to fit the Scripture into your view of the Godhead, instead of basing your view of the Godhead on the Scripture. There is a difference. You don't believe in the Trinity, and you are trying to use a shoehorn to fit the Scripture into your belief. Doesn't wash with me.
 
Upvote 0

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,728
2,819
USA
✟109,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yahwah was the first to form, and He is the last, because none will come after him.
The things you just said aware also your words. Plrase
Where in scriptures does Christ say he is Yahwah the Father?

John 1:1

Greek:
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos

Interlinear:
en (in) arche (beginning) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word) kai (and) ho (the) logos (Word) en (was) pos (toward or with) ton (TON is a special definite article "the" meaning the one and only, it appears as TON instead of O in the Greek) theon (Divine Eternal) kai (and) theos (Divine) en (was) ho (the) logos (Word)

In English we have:
In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the (one or only) Divine Eternal, and Divine was the Word.

The defining article "a" must be supplied for the English language, to define that there is another Divine that is not the "Divine Eternal."

Why do translators drop off the definite article TON (the one or only) before Divine Eternal?


Theon and Theos
They both mean Divine, but in different cases. Theos is the nominative, Theon is accusative. Another form is Theou, which is genitive.

John 1:1 reads: “In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [τὸν θεὸν, (TON THEON) literally, the only Divine Eternal], and the Word was divine. [θεὸς].”

In the first instance (“the Word was with the only Divine Eternal”) it is in the accusative case and thus is spelled θεὸν [theon] But in the second occurrence it is in the nominative case, and so it is spelled θεὸς [theos]
Ton Theon was also applied to Zeus, meaning "The Only Divine Eternal."

Eon or Aeon; a very long time.
The word aeon, also spelled eon or æon, originally means "life", and / or "being", though it then tended to mean "age", "forever" or "for eternity". It is a Latin transliteration from the koine Greek word ὁ αἰών (ho aion), from the archaic αἰϝών (aiwon).
are you one with your father?
If one asked to see your father would you...could you say “don’t you know me? Anyone who has seen me has seen my father so how do you say “show me the father?” I and my father are one



Can you say that if someone asked to see your father?

John 14
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,379
10,242
✟293,179.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
  • I see no evidence of Evolution, yesterday, or today.
    It is strange that tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of researchers have gathered such evidence yesterday and today.
  • It is strange that millions, probably tens of millions of undergraduates have critically examined such evidence and found it convincing.
  • It is strange that hundreds of thousands of research projects have tested and successfully validated the evidence for evolution.
And yet you see no evidence for evolution. It is rather clear where the problem lies. If you see no evidence it is because you have chosen not to look. This is a choice you are free to make, but please do not use your own blindness as a justificaiton for rejecting an immensely successful theory.

Artist depictions do not count as scientific evidence.
No biologist, palaeontologist, or any kind of evolutionists has ever claimed that an artist's depiction counts as scientific evidence. It is immensely silly to suggest such is the case. Obviously artists depictions do not count as scientific evidence! Neither do personal ads for lawnmowers, or video recordings of the Super Bowl. If this is the sort of thing you have been looking at for evidence of evolution it is hardly surprising you see none.

If you wish to honestly reject actual evidence I shall be happy to recommend a handful of books that present that evidence for you study properly. Just let me know in this thread, or via pm.


I was alive when spontaneous generation was being discussed. It was a joke among creationist.
Please provide citations from peer reviewed journals that discuss spontaneous generation in the manner you claim. Otherwise acknowledge your error.
 
Upvote 0

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,728
2,819
USA
✟109,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
  • It is strange that tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of researchers have gathered such evidence yesterday and today.
  • It is strange that millions, probably tens of millions of undergraduates have critically examined such evidence and found it convincing.
  • It is strange that hundreds of thousands of research projects have tested and successfully validated the evidence for evolution.
And yet you see no evidence for evolution. It is rather clear where the problem lies. If you see no evidence it is because you have chosen not to look. This is a choice you are free to make, but please do not use your own blindness as a justificaiton for rejecting an immensely successful theory.

No biologist, palaeontologist, or any kind of evolutionists has ever claimed that an artist's depiction counts as scientific evidence. It is immensely silly to suggest such is the case. Obviously artists depictions do not count as scientific evidence! Neither do personal ads for lawnmowers, or video recordings of the Super Bowl. If this is the sort of thing you have been looking at for evidence of evolution it is hardly surprising you see none.

If you wish to honestly reject actual evidence I shall be happy to recommend a handful of books that present that evidence for you study properly. Just let me know in this thread, or via pm.


Please provide citations from peer reviewed journals that discuss spontaneous generation in the manner you claim. Otherwise acknowledge your error.
Do you agree with this thread title?
 
Upvote 0