Is Yahweh A Liar? Yes, He Is. I Can Prove It.

Subduction Zone · Mar 21, 2021

Redemptionsong said:
Did you read the evidence supplied by Scroggie? It doesn't matter whether it's a few years either way, only that the Gospel of Luke was probably written before 60 CE and most definitely before 70 CE!

P.S. Sorry, I supplied this information in the post to Subduction Zone.

Scroggie is just one source, and apparently a biased one. Your reasoning for why it was earlier was rather poor. Or is that Scroggie's reasoning?

SeekingAllTruth · Mar 21, 2021

Redemptionsong said:
Did you read the evidence supplied by Scroggie? It doesn't matter whether it's a few years either way, only that the Gospel of Luke was probably written before 60 CE and most definitely before 70 CE!

P.S. My apologies, I supplied this information in the post to Subduction Zone.

It's okay. You are aware, I hope that mainstream Bible scholars don't date Mark any earlier than 70 CE. Christians try to push the gospels, even John to before 70 CE because they want to try to prove that Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple proves that he was divine, and Christians have to get the prediction to before it happened in 70 CE. Mainstream scholars don't accept that there was any knowledge of the Romans destroying the temple until it happened i.e. they don't accept the presence of anything divine in any of this. The conservative dating of the gospels is Mark 70-75 CE, Matthew 80 CE, Luke 85-90 CE and John 95 CE. Liberal scholars like Carrier and Price date them to 80-130 CE. So Song, I'm aware why you want to get Luke to 55 CE but there's simply no evidence for that date, or any dates before 125-175 CE because of Ryland's P52 fragment--it can't be dated earlier than that. There's nothing. The historical record is blank for everything. That's why you have no solid ground for dating Luke so early. You have nothing to base it on except what your pastor might have told you.

leroy · Mar 21, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
No, it does not. This has been explained to you. When the books of the Bible were selected they went through a filter of a sort. Books that clearly did not support the agreed upon dogma were rejected. That means that you cannot claim that they are independent. If we had all, or a t least a fair number, of the various different books ever written then you would have a legitimate claim. But part of the process was to often destroy competing works.

None was needed since it was an observation. You still do not know when claims need to be supported. And I explained this to you. Damascus was part of Syria. A separate country. Judea may have been a theocracy, Syria was not. Any authority that held in Judea would not hold in Syria. This is not that hard of an idea to understand.

That you have a much higher burden of proof to show that an author is reliable than you would if a work did not have obvious errors in it.

It explains what I just said in more depth than my explanation in this post. You have not watched it yet, or if you did you did not let yourself understand it.

Here is a quick analogy for you. If a Mexican said things that his government did not like about him, but he said them from the U.S. how much luck do you think that a group of Mexicans coming into the U.S. would have when they came to arrest him? We would not tolerate that, that is for sure. The Damascans, who had no problem with Christianity, would not allow members of their community to be arrested by a foreign power.

it seems to me that you are making random shots here and there.

can you please explain to me exactly whats the claim that you are supporting?

leroy · Mar 21, 2021

SeekingAllTruth said:
It's okay. You are aware, I hope that mainstream Bible scholars don't date Mark any earlier than 70 CE. Christians try to push the gospels, even John to before 70 CE because they want to try to prove that Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple proves that he was divine, and Christians have to get the prediction to before it happened in 70 CE. Mainstream scholars don't accept that there was any knowledge of the Romans destroying the temple until it happened i.e. they don't accept the presence of anything divine in any of this. The conservative dating of the gospels is Mark 70-75 CE, Matthew 80 CE, Luke 85-90 CE and John 95 CE. Liberal scholars like Carrier and Price date them to 80-130 CE. So Song, I'm aware why you want to get Luke to 55 CE but there's simply no evidence for that date, or any dates before 125-175 CE because of Ryland's P52 fragment--it can't be dated earlier than that. There's nothing. The historical record is blank for everything. That's why you have no solid ground for dating Luke so early. You have nothing to base it on except what your pastor might have told you.

1 Paul died in the year 64

2 Acts was probably written before the death of Paul

3 the gospel of luke was written before acts

this is how we arrive at the conclusion that luke was written before the 60s...... this has nothing to do with religious agendas. its simply good historical methodology

Subduction Zone · Mar 21, 2021

leroy said:
it seems to me that you are making random shots here and there.

can you please explain to me exactly whats the claim that you are supporting?

The general claim is that the Bible is not a reliable source and Paul as an author has never shown himself to be reliable either. You start with an assumption that he is supposedly reliable, but are unable to support that claim.

Subduction Zone · Mar 21, 2021

leroy said:
1 Paul died in the year 64

Where do you get that claim from? I am unaware of a known date of his death.

2 Acts was probably written before the death of Paul

Why?

3 the gospel of luke was written before acts

Again, why?

this is how we arrive at the conclusion that luke was written before the 60s...... this has nothing to do with religious agendas. its simply good historical methodology

I see. Some unsupported claims indicate that Luke was written before the 60's. How about the date of Mark? Modern scholars appear to disagree with you.

leroy · Mar 21, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
The general claim is that the Bible is not a reliable source and Paul as an author has never shown himself to be reliable either. You start with an assumption that he is supposedly reliable, but are unable to support that claim.

ok and under what basis do you claim that paul is not reliable?

Paul knew some of the disciples and he knew James, so clearly paul had acces to good information about jesus.....

all (or nearly all) the verifiable historical claims made by paul have been verified and happend to be true.

why isn't this good enough for you?

leroy · Mar 21, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
Where do you get that claim from? I am unaware of a known date of his death.

according to Wikipedia he died between 64 and 67ad

Why?

because acts describes the live of Paul, the factvthat his death is not included suggests that he was not dead whwb acts was written

Again, why?

because acts is the continuation of the gospel of luke therefore the gospel was written earlier than acts

Subduction Zone · Mar 21, 2021

leroy said:
ok and under what basis do you claim that paul is not reliable?

Paul knew some of the disciples and he knew James, so clearly paul had acces to good information about jesus.....

all (or nearly all) the verifiable historical claims made by paul have been verified and happend to be true.

why isn't this good enough for you?

The lack of evidence. The self contradictions with other parts of the Bible. Paul appears to rate his understanding of Jesus higher than that of the disciples. It makes it rather hard to decide which, if any of them have valid claims.

The main reason that Paul is not reliable is that he fails the burden of proof.

Relying on verifiable history is not evidence for Paul. At best it can only be evidence against Paul if he gets facts wrong. Any person from that time should get historical facts right. Do you not understand the Spiderman fallacy yet?

SeekingAllTruth · Mar 21, 2021

leroy said:
1 Paul died in the year 64

2 Acts was probably written before the death of Paul

3 the gospel of luke was written before acts

this is how we arrive at the conclusion that luke was written before the 60s...... this has nothing to do with religious agendas. its simply good historical methodology

How do you know that Luke was written before acts? What's your secular textual evidence for any of this? There's no conclusive proof that any of the NT was written prior to the 2nd century, much less 70 CE. It's all just conjecture based on traditions. You know this, leroy. We've had this conversation before. You make these grand sweeping pronouncements and then when Subduction or I or anybody asks you to produce proof for them you hem and haw but offer nothing to support your pronouncements.

Subduction Zone · Mar 21, 2021

leroy said:
according to Wikipedia he died between 64 and 67ad

Yes, but that appears to be church tradition more than anything else. The earliest source is 30 years after the event.

because acts describes the live of Paul, the factvthat his death is not included suggests that he was not dead whwb acts was written

Not necessarily. Paul supposedly died in Rome. If the author stayed in Jewish territory the news may never had gotten back to him. If you are going to use Wikipedia you should look at why your date is rejected today:

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia

The most probable date for its composition is around AD 80–110, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.[9]

Looking at Wiki its support is rather scant for this article, but there are other sources written by Biblical scholars that support a later date:
Historical Context for Luke/John by Unknown | The Core Curriculum (columbia.edu)

The four canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were all composed within the Roman Empire between 70 and 110 C.E (± five to ten years) as biographies of Jesus of Nazareth. Written a generation after the death of Jesus (ca. 30 C.E), none of the four gospel writers were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus. Our earliest extant sources of information about Jesus of Nazareth and his teachings remain the letters of the apostle Paul.

The Gospel According to Luke, written in roughly 85 C.E. (± five to ten years), most likely during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, is known in its earliest form from extensive papyri fragments dating to the early or middle of the third century. The Gospel of John, dated between 80 and 110 C.E. is first attested in a highly fragmentary papyrus, dated to 125-150 C.E.

because acts is the continuation of the gospel of luke therefore the gospel was written earlier than acts

And Acts was probably written even later. There is quite a bit of doubt that Luke Acts was written by Luke. Part of the problem is that their are differences between the accounts in Acts and Paul's. Luke Acts have always been anonymous works. It was an early assumption that they were written by a companion of Paul's but that does not appear to be the case today.

Redemptionsong · Mar 21, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
Since Jesus died long before the fall of the temple why would a story about him mention the temple?

One of the reasons Luke is thought to have be written then is due to the dating of Mark. And since Luke copied large swathes of Mark he obviously was a younger source . For various reasons an early date is rejected by most Bible scholars. It is mainly the fundamentalists that demand an early date:

The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[7] Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110,[16] and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[9]

Gospel of Luke

What you argue can be easily countered with much more persuasive evidence.

Internal evidence states that Luke wrote both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts [see Acts 1:1,2]. If the destruction of the temple (70 CE) had taken place before his writing of both books, then it would certainly have been mentioned. Yet, the book of Acts, which was written after the Gospel [see Acts 1:1,2], does not reach 70 CE! It follows the story of Paul's missionary journeys up until 63 CE, when Paul arrived in Rome [see Acts 28].

To determine the date of Luke's Gospel, one cannot simply date it according to Mark. The most reliable way of dating Luke is to look at the internal evidence. Luke provides us with an account of Jesus' life, and the ministry of Holy Spirit during the early period of the Church. Luke sets all of this information in a framework of verifiable history and geography.

Here are just some of the historical markers that impact on the dating of Luke's book of Acts.

1. The reign of Aretas of Damascus ( Acts 9:25, cf. 2 Cor.11:32)
2. The reign and death of Herod Agrippa 1 (Acts 12)
3. The famine under Claudius (Acts 11:28-30; 12:25)
4. The proconsulship of Sergius Paulus in Cyprus (Acts 13:7)
5. The expulsion of Jews from Rome under Claudius (Acts 18:2)
6. The proconsulship of Gallio in Achaia (Acts 18:12)
7. The reign of Herod Agrippa II, and marriage of his sister Drusilla to Felix (Acts 24:24; Acts 25:13-26:32)
8. The proconsulships of Felix and Festus (Acts 21:38; 23:24; 24:10,27)
9. The persecution under Nero.

Based on events that could be precisely determined, such as the death of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:23) and St Paul's second appearance before Festus (26:32) Bishop Lightfoot has given the following reckoning of dates for fourteen events in the book of Acts.
1. The Ascension of Christ - 30 CE
2. Conversion of Saul - 34-36 CE
3. Paul's first visit to Jerusalem - 37,38 CE
4. Paul at Antioch - 44 CE
5. Paul's second Visit to Jerusalem - 45 CE
6. Paul's first missionary journey - 48 CE
7. The Great Council of Jerusalem - 51 CE
8. Paul's first visit to Corinth - 52 CE
9. Paul's fourth visit to Jerusalem - 54 CE
10. Paul leaves Ephesus - 57 CE
11. Paul's arrest in Jerusalem - 58 CE
12. Paul reaches Rome - 61 CE
13. Close of the 'Acts' - 63 CE
14. Paul is martyred - 67 CE

Conclusion: 'The abrupt conclusion of the narrative suggests a change of circumstances. Either the great fire of Rome, in 64 AD, or want of opportunity, or political discretion, or Luke's death, would account for the incompleteness of the record.' (Scroggie)

Subduction Zone · Mar 21, 2021

Redemptionsong said:
What you argue can be easily countered with much more persuasive evidence.

Internal evidence states that Luke wrote both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts [see Acts 1:1,2]. If the destruction of the temple (70 CE) had taken place before his writing of both books, then it would certainly have been mentioned. Yet, the book of Acts, which was written after the Gospel [see Acts 1:1,2], does not reach 70 CE! It follows the story of Paul's missionary journeys up until 63 CE, when Paul arrived in Rome [see Acts 28].

To determine the date of Luke's Gospel, one cannot simply date it according to Mark. The most reliable way of dating Luke is to look at the internal evidence. Luke provides us with an account of Jesus' life, and the ministry of Holy Spirit during the early period of the Church. Luke sets all of this information in a framework of verifiable history and geography.

Here are just some of the historical markers that impact on the dating of Luke's book of Acts.

1. The reign of Aretas of Damascus ( Acts 9:25, cf. 2 Cor.11:32)
2. The reign and death of Herod Agrippa 1 (Acts 12)
3. The famine under Claudius (Acts 11:28-30; 12:25)
4. The proconsulship of Sergius Paulus in Cyprus (Acts 13:7)
5. The expulsion of Jews from Rome under Claudius (Acts 18:2)
6. The proconsulship of Gallio in Achaia (Acts 18:12)
7. The reign of Herod Agrippa II, and marriage of his sister Drusilla to Felix (Acts 24:24; Acts 25:13-26:32)
8. The proconsulships of Felix and Festus (Acts 21:38; 23:24; 24:10,27)
9. The persecution under Nero.

Based on events that could be precisely determined, such as the death of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:23) and St Paul's second appearance before Festus (26:32) Bishop Lightfoot has given the following reckoning of dates for fourteen events in the book of Acts.
1. The Ascension of Christ - 30 CE
2. Conversion of Saul - 34-36 CE
3. Paul's first visit to Jerusalem - 37,38 CE
4. Paul at Antioch - 44 CE
5. Paul's second Visit to Jerusalem - 45 CE
6. Paul's first missionary journey - 48 CE
7. The Great Council of Jerusalem - 51 CE
8. Paul's first visit to Corinth - 52 CE
9. Paul's fourth visit to Jerusalem - 54 CE
10. Paul leaves Ephesus - 57 CE
11. Paul's arrest in Jerusalem - 58 CE
12. Paul reaches Rome - 61 CE
13. Close of the 'Acts' - 63 CE
14. Paul is martyred - 67 CE

Conclusion: 'The abrupt conclusion of the narrative suggests a change of circumstances. Either the great fire of Rome, in 64 AD, or want of opportunity, or political discretion, or Luke's death, would account for the incompleteness of the record.' (Scroggie)

Sorry, but claiming that does not make it so. Try your arugment in front of real scholars. It can be shown with source after soruce that modern scholars disagree with you. Your reasoning appears to be driven by your belief in the Bible and the realization that

By the way, it is no longer thought to be "Luke's bookd of Acts". Once again the majority of modern scholars appear to disagree with you.

You are conflating events with dates that are limiting dates with events that support your claims. All you can know is that Acts was written after those events. How long one cannot say. Since the Acts of the Apostles deals largely with the apostles and Paul it is unlikely to state very many events after their deaths.

Redemptionsong · Mar 21, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
Sorry, but claiming that does not make it so. Try your arugment in front of real scholars. It can be shown with source after soruce that modern scholars disagree with you. Your reasoning appears to be driven by your belief in the Bible and the realization that

By the way, it is no longer thought to be "Luke's bookd of Acts". Once again the majority of modern scholars appear to disagree with you.

You are conflating events with dates that are limiting dates with events that support your claims. All you can know is that Acts was written after those events. How long one cannot say. Since the Acts of the Apostles deals largely with the apostles and Paul it is unlikely to state very many events after their deaths.

I'm quoting from real scholars!

What you have failed to explain is why a highly significant event in history, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 CE, does not appear in the Synoptic Gospels or in the book of Acts.

Flavius Josephus, considered to be a reliable Jewish historian, states:
'Now the number of those that were carried captive during this whole war was collected to be ninety-seven thousand; as was the number of those that perished during the whole siege, eleven hundred thousand, the greater part of whom were indeed of the same nation, [which citizens of Jerusalem,] but not belonging to city itself; for they were come up from all of the country to the feast of unleavened bread, and were on a sudden shut up by an army, which, at the very first, occasioned such a straitness among them, that there came a pestilential destruction upon them, and soon afterward such a famine as destroyed them more suddenly.'

Jerusalem had been surrounded by Titus' army during Passover, when Jews from across the whole region would have been celebrating the pilgrim festival together. Josephus estimates that over a million people perished in the siege.

Can you honestly believe that such an event would not have been mentioned by Luke?

Subduction Zone · Mar 21, 2021

Redemptionsong said:
I'm quoting from real scholars!

What you have failed to explain is why a highly significant event in history, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 CE, does not appear in the Synoptic Gospels or in the book of Acts.

Flavius Josephus, considered to be a reliable Jewish historian, states:
'Now the number of those that were carried captive during this whole war was collected to be ninety-seven thousand; as was the number of those that perished during the whole siege, eleven hundred thousand, the greater part of whom were indeed of the same nation, [which citizens of Jerusalem,] but not belonging to city itself; for they were come up from all of the country to the feast of unleavened bread, and were on a sudden shut up by an army, which, at the very first, occasioned such a straitness among them, that there came a pestilential destruction upon them, and soon afterward such a famine as destroyed them more suddenly.'

Jerusalem had been surrounded by Titus' army during Passover, when Jews from across the whole region would have been celebrating the pilgrim festival together. Josephus estimates that over a million people perished in the siege.

Can you honestly believe that such an event would not have been mentioned by Luke?

Are you? Or are you quoting from apologists? Do you know the difference?

And yes, I did explain why that event did not appear in either the Gospels or Acts. You ignored the explanation. Most scholars do not seem to think that that is a problem at all.

Redemptionsong · Mar 21, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
Are you? Or are you quoting from apologists? Do you know the difference?

And yes, I did explain why that event did not appear in either the Gospels or Acts. You ignored the explanation. Most scholars do not seem to think that that is a problem at all.

Historical Criticism does not ignore reliable history; it uses all the historical information available to uncover the truth.

Nor is there anything wrong with a Christian being an historian; indeed, one might even go so far as to say that a Christian's love of truth should be an asset in their work as a researcher. IMO, your use of the word 'apologist' as a derogatory term is to twist the true definition.

Subduction Zone · Mar 21, 2021

Redemptionsong said:
Historical Criticism does not ignore reliable history; it uses all the historical information available to uncover the truth.

Nor is there anything wrong with a Christian being an historian; indeed, one might even go so far as to say that a Christian's love of truth should be an asset in their work as a researcher. IMO, your use of the word 'apologist' as a derogatory term is to twist the true definition.

No one is ignoring reliable history.

And a Christian can be a historian, if he can be honest. If history tells you that part of the Bible is not true then a Christian has to adapt. And I use apologist as a derogatory term because I have never seen an honest one.

Here is a simple test for you, reliable history shows that Luke's Nativity is made up. How do you deal with that?

Trailblazer · Mar 21, 2021

Redemptionsong said:
Jesus did not send the Holy Spirit until after he had ascended to heaven. Jesus could only send the Holy Spirit because he was the Son of God. Jesus is given authority over heaven and earth [Philippians 2:10].

Paul had no authority to speak for and about Jesus. I consider the following verses to be false.

Philippians 2

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Jesus would be appalled at what Paul wrote because Jesus did not consider Himself this way. Jesus spoke for God as the Voice of God but Jesus was a humble Servant of God. Jesus was not the Lord God; Jesus was a Manifestation of God, a Messenger, a Prophet and a Servant of God.

Jesus could only send the Holy Spirit because God gave it to Him to send. Jesus was not literally the Son of God because God has no offspring. Son of God is a title which means is that Jesus was in relationship as a son is to his father. Jesus was never given authority to rule over heaven and earth; God has always had that authority and God retains that authority.

Redemptionsong said:
Are you suggesting that Baha'u'llah 'released the Holy Spirit' into the world whilst he was on earth? Has he now ascended to heaven to steal the authority given to Jesus Christ?

Baha'u'llah received the Holy Spirit from God while He was on earth, and He first received it when He was in the Black Pit prison.

A revelation from God - The Life of Bahá'u'lláh

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

“God is My witness, O people! I was asleep on My couch, when lo, the Breeze of God wafting over Me roused Me from My slumber. His quickening Spirit revived Me, and My tongue was unloosed to voice His Call.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 90

“And whenever I chose to hold my peace and be still, lo, the voice of the Holy Ghost, standing on my right hand, aroused me, and the Supreme Spirit appeared before my face, and Gabriel overshadowed me, and the Spirit of Glory stirred within my bosom, bidding me arise and break my silence. If your hearing be purged and your ears be attentive, ye will assuredly perceive that every limb of my body, nay all the atoms of my being, proclaim and bear witness to this call: “God, besides Whom is none other God, and He, Whose beauty is now manifest, is the reflection of His glory unto all that are in heaven and on earth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 103-104

Jesus never had any authority to steal. God has all the authority. Baha'u'llah ascended to heaven to be with Jesus and God and all the other Messengers of God in the Supreme Concourse.

Redemptionsong said:
Does the Holy Spirit ever 'wane'?

Yes, the Holy Spirit wanes, and it did, and that is why God always sends a new Messenger who establishes a new religion.
Each time a new Messenger comes He brings the Holy Spirit.

“All that lives, and this includes the religions, have springtime, a time of maturity, of harvest and wintertime. Then religion becomes barren, a lifeless adherence to the letter uninformed by the spirit, and man’s spiritual life declines. When we look at religious history, we see that God has spoken to men precisely at times when they have reached the nadir of their degradation and cultural decadence. Moses came to Israel when it was languishing under the Pharaoh’s yoke, Christ appeared at a time when the Jewish Faith had lost its power and culture of antiquity was in its death those. Muhammad came to a people who lived in barbaric ignorance at the lowest level of culture and into a world in which the former religions had strayed far away from their origins and nearly lost their identity. The Bab addressed Himself to a people who had irretrievably lost their former grandeur and who found themselves in a state of hopeless decadence. Baha’u’llah came to a humanity which was approaching the most critical phase of its history.” (Udo Schaefer, The Light Shineth in Darkness, p. 24)

Truthseeker · Mar 21, 2021

leroy said:
Acts was probably written before the death of Paul

So you think Luke, or whoever wrote this, knew all facts such as reporting the death of Paul?

Truthseeker · Mar 21, 2021

Trailblazer said:
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Jesus would be appalled at what Paul wrote because Jesus did not consider Himself this way. Jesus spoke for God as the Voice of God but Jesus was a humble Servant of God. Jesus was not the Lord God; Jesus was a Manifestation of God, a Messenger, a Prophet and a Servant of God.

Jesus could only send the Holy Spirit because God gave it to Him to send. Jesus was not literally the Son of God because God has no offspring. Son of God is a title which means is that Jesus was in relationship as a son is to his father. Jesus was never given authority to rule over heaven and earth; God has always had that authority and God retains that authority.

Jesus' name is above every name, and that name to me is the name of God, that is, all of the attributes of God. That's my metaphorical interpretation, which is only my own. The same is true of every Prophet of God.

Jesus is Lord, and every Prophet is Lord, they are all the same reflection of God.

What you say about Jesus being a humble servant of God is also true, He is so humble and self-effacing that God revealed Himself through Him. We learn from the Book of Certitude that we can say Jesus is God as He is a representation of God on earth and Jesus is a servant of God.

I'm not sure about the part about Jesus given authority to rule over heaven and earth. The Manifestations of God seem to have a kind of omnipotence to do what they want.

Is Yahweh A Liar? Yes, He Is. I Can Prove It.

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Non-debating member when I can help myself

Non-debating member when I can help myself