• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus says, I Am He

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If they could bring themselves to acknowledge that it is in fact polytheism, it would indeed make sense, of course. But that, the record shows, is not what they want.
No, with the use of "essence" it is not polytheism. Much like a car is more than just a sum of its parts, the Trinitarian doctrine has Jesus and the Holy Spirit being of God. However, where you are correct is that this line became blurred in order to bring those in Arianism aboard, which did work btw.

I wish I could forward to you Hitchcock's "History of the Catholic Church" whereas he spends an entire chapter on the 4th century developments, especially the Council at Nicaea.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Trinity Sunday is the only day in our church calendar where we are called first to consider a teaching of the church rather than a teaching of Jesus. The word “Trinity” never appears in the Bible. We wouldn’t expect it to. It derived from early Christian efforts to make sense of what they read in Scripture and throughout their own experience of the divine. As the early movement of Christ followers organized and became a Church – and with that as teaching and theological identity formed – there was a growing sense that God existed not as singular and static, but in multiple ways.

Like in the first chapters of Genesis. Almost every line is astounding and inspiring, but in the midst of the story of God’s good creation is a statement that seems to expand who we understand God to be and interrupt the monotheism we see throughout the Hebrew Bible. In vv. 26-27 of chapter 1 we hear, “Let us create in our image…” YHWH – God – twice uses the plural pronoun, precisely in this moment of creating humankind in the divine image.

It’s the same image of plurality and relationship that we hear as the risen Christ prepares to depart to the Father, but first commissions his disciples – and all of us who have followed him since – in the name of God the Father, Son and Spirit. Baptize in this way. Go forth in ministry and mission with this image.

In all of their attempts to explain or internalize, some of them came to embrace it with a certain image. A word that came from Greek theatre. Perichoresis. Peri – “around” from where we get perimeter. And Choresis – from where we get the word choreography, dance. God is like a circular dance, they came to understand. God is the flow and the swirling between these three. God is a constant movement of love flowing in an around itself, then finally outward to draw all people in.

It’s there from the very beginning. God swirling above the waters and creating humankind. This same dynamic, loving God moving in the lives of every one of us, and sending us out in that same movement, empowered by the spirit to call others into the flow. Sometimes we forget the dance in our refusal to serve God and our denial of the community God offers. We’ve been stumbling and tripping over ourselves since the Garden itself. Yet, through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, we are always called back in. As Father Rohr has said, “God is not a dancer. God is the dance itself.”

The theologian Karl Rahner once produced a classic study called The Trinity, in which he says that “Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere monotheists.’” That is, if Christianity ended up dropping the doctrine of the Trinity, he suggested, the day-to-day lives of Christians would remain largely unchanged. Because so often our lives bear no evidence of this community we see in our God in three persons. We don’t operate with this sense of interrelatedness that testifies to the creative God who binds us all together in love.

“The Trinity is a mystery, not a puzzle…” the theologian Justo Gonzalez has said, “You try to solve the puzzle, but you stand in awe of the mystery.”


“The Dance of God: A Sermon on Trinity Sunday” A Sermon by Alan Sherouse | First Baptist Church Greensboro
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Theologian Bart Ehrman, who happens to be an agnostic btw, tends to believe that the first century Church didn't get too hung up on the precise theology on this, or so it seems, thus it took later generations to try and piece together what they thought was the relationship with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. This would explain the controversy and confusion that the Church tried to sort on with issuing the creeds. The Council at Nicaea was long and arduous, and even the results were conjectural.

Did they hit a home run? I doubt it, but then maybe even a double or triple might do. :shrug: IOW, I don't lose any sleep over this.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No, with the use of "essence" it is not polytheism.
EITHER God has only one will, so that the Father and Jesus and the Ghost have only one will between them, in which case they're not distinct persons, OR each of them has [his] own will and there are three of them, no?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
EITHER God has only one will, so that the Father and Jesus and the Ghost have only one will between them, in which case they're not distinct persons, OR each of them has [his] own will and there are three of them, no?
I have been told many times that I am of the "essence" of my maternal grandfather, but that doesn't mean we were exactly one and the same but more that our personalities were so similar. Thus, "essence" does not mean nor imply "exact".

The early Church fathers well knew that Jesus had said things about God to show that they were not "exactly" the same, such as when the end of times would be. When he referred to God being his "Father", that logically cannot imply that they're exactly the same.

The Greek philosophers had a major impact on the composition of the NT writings in Koine Greek, especially Aristotle who designed the concept of "essence". Here:
Aristotle
In Aristotle essence was identified with substance (ousia) or sometimes substantial form. The essence is what makes the thing be what it is. The essence of a thing or substance is able to be known and so defined accordingly. It is through the definition that we come to know essences. The most classic example is the definition of a human being as a “rational animal.” To say that the essence of Socrates is to be human is to say that Socrates possesses a certain set of properties which are necessary to a human being—namely, a rational nature and an animal nature. This most basic definition can then be expanded to include any number of various functions or powers that are specific to the essence of a human being. These would include various vegetative powers of growth and reproduction, along with the animal powers of movement, the five senses, memory, and so forth. At the same time, there are innumerable qualities, which any particular human being (such as Socrates) might possess but which are not essential to the essence of being human. For example, the brownness of his hair or the blueness of his eyes would merely be accidental or contingent features of Socrates' being... --Essence - New World Encyclopedia
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
EITHER God has only one will, so that the Father and Jesus and the Ghost have only one will between them, in which case they're not distinct persons, OR each of them has [his] own will and there are three of them, no?
The problem is church fathers were hung up with pagan gods. They never considered God's duality. It was easier for them to ignore Jesus, a man with ambiguities, and find Jesus, the son of God, a perfect theological solution, one compatible leadership bias. Which pagan god, and in which way should it be presented? So, they decided on a politically correct solution. It became a happy family. Dad has his son close by, and mother becomes the holy spirit to keep peace. It's a perfect family solution. The problem is it doesn't exist. Oh, maybe one of those flying saucers up high in the sky is the solution. Why not! We can ask a perfect family from outer space to replace all of those pagan gods, including unproductive pagan rituals.

The best reference for this problem of misinterpretation is found in Burton L. Mack's book, The Lost Gospel Q, in this scholarly book, Mack documents the transition of Jesus sayings and narratives from Jesus a sage or wise leader to Jesus the son of God. In short, we have scholarly information which allows one to conclude the Christian story about Jesus did not derive primarily from literal translations of gospel stories, but from a figurative interpretation by NT authors over a period of several decades. In short, if Jesus was the son of God, then why didn't NT authors find it in early gospels, and why did they propose narrative stories not found in those gospels. The most convincing evidence for false narratives is the evolution of those stories when Jesus wasn't the son of God to stories when Jesus became the son of God. In his scholarly book, Mack illustrates how Jesus stories changed over a period of about forty-five years from a wise or sage man to the son of God. If Jesus was truly the son of God, why wasn't it discovered in original books or writings about Jesus?
 
Last edited:

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
No, with the use of "essence" it is not polytheism..
Is it anything like vanilla essence? ;)

Much like a car is more than just a sum of its parts, the Trinitarian doctrine has Jesus and the Holy Spirit being of God.
Hmm .. why don't we have a vote to determine the nature of G-d? :rolleyes:

However, where you are correct is that this line became blurred in order to bring those in Arianism aboard, which did work btw..
Did it?
Then why was Origen once a respected Christian scholar, and then some Nicean Emperor orders all his books to be burnt.
Doesn't look much like cooperation to me.
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
The problem is church fathers were hung up with pagan gods. They never considered God's duality. It was easier for them to ignore Jesus, a man with ambiguities, and find Jesus, the son of God, a perfect theological solution, one compatible leadership bias. Which pagan god, and in which way should it be presented? So, they decided on a politically correct solution. It became a happy family. Dad has his son close by, and mother becomes the holy spirit to keep peace. It's a perfect family solution. The problem is it doesn't exist. Oh, maybe one of those flying saucers up high in the sky is the solution. Why not! We can ask a perfect family from outer space to replace all of those pagan gods, including unproductive pagan rituals.


The best reference for this problem of misinterpretation is found in Burton L. Mack's book, The Lost Gospel Q, in this scholarly book, Mack documents the transition of Jesus sayings and narratives from Jesus a sage or wise leader to Jesus the son of God. In short, we have scholarly information which allows one to conclude the Christian story about Jesus did not derive primarily from literal translations of gospel stories, but from a figurative interpretation by NT authors over a period of several decades. In short, if Jesus was the son of God, then why didn't NT authors find it in early gospels, and why did they propose narrative stories not found in those gospels. The most convincing evidence for false narratives is the evolution of those stories when Jesus wasn't the son of God to stories when Jesus became the son of God. In his scholarly book, Mack illustrates how Jesus stories changed over a period of about forty-five years from a wise or sage man to the son of God. If Jesus was truly the son of God, why wasn't it discovered in original books or writings about Jesus?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
A human has to exist first to observe to claim I think to detail a want as a statement by humans as science.

As everything existed created first.

Position one in a humans theory thin king is everything as all exists.

A thought is instant. Instant observation. Instant statement.

Human says consciously I own dominion. The theist. As everything existed.

Are you first sacrificed as first man whilst with God. By status natural and everything?

No says the thinker.

So man is placed first with everything God instantly by thought only.....not sacrificed.

Are you a God?

No I am a human thinking.

Owns no argument anywhere by anyone. Human.

Yet you do argue about first cause. The subject says subject now changed.

As first cause has nothing to do with being human.

Theism displaces natural presence.

Now you say I am a man. I own no name as the man. My name I gave self Hu man as man. Two status.

I am a human first
Sexual place I am a man hu man.

Two in thought first.

Then your man says I am a he and a him and his.

Stating ownership clauses of the self human.

Not are you in any status a he window science symbol.

Not a he window.
Not El a name science human stated gave to God.
Not HEL L.

Man human said I live inside a holy water heavens. Above me is God the heavens circulating O spirit cooling system keeping life safe.

Cooling as you knew opposition in heavens is burning.

So you said in theism God keeps life safe.

Fully advised

First cause you state was bang blast burn change.

You sought it's terms on earth where no status big bang existed

For scientific theism.

Why man's life was sacrificed and the man said I did it as the he self.

A confession then reasoned. By a sacrificed life biology of a man.

A man didn't do the science act as the term I am a man. He is just a human.

The man said he did it as men were involved. Not all men are scientist theists.

So men said he did it as my brother by choice as a man.

As window in science word is window means changed status only in science terms.

As he the man introduced radiating gas burning fall of man. Fallout.

Gases burning changed biology the human owned inheritance biology changed.

Reason the womb void took the sacrifice body spirit burning gas away. Kept human man baby life safe and holy. A teaching.

Man brought sacrificed spirit gas to the ground where he built the machine at his side.

Instead of honouring natural human life balanced with a woman human.

He theoried Sophia Phi maths conversion space womb change.

Was the exact teaching.

Science of men caused it by man's choice. Science the practice.

Yet the teaching says men did not own God they changed God so God states changed them. God states saved them.

First natural position natural healthy holy man with God first. Status I survived being attacked. Is the teaching

As healthy man was first with God. Not sacrificed man.

Ignored as how it was taught.

Man did it to himself.

Now if you claim you have to sacrifice life to be saved. A natural human thinking for self and not science would tell you your thinking is possessed by theism instead of natural reality.

Being first. Theism secondary. As natural non theist humans.
 
Last edited:

Repox

Truth Seeker
A human has to exist first to observe to claim I think to detail a want as a statement by humans as science.

As everything existed created first.

Position one in a humans theory thin king is everything as all exists.

A thought is instant. Instant observation. Instant statement.

Human says consciously I own dominion. The theist. As everything existed.

Are you first sacrificed as first man whilst with God. By status natural and everything?

No says the thinker.

So man is placed first with everything God instantly by thought only.....not sacrificed.

Are you a God?

No I am a human thinking.

Owns no argument anywhere by anyone. Human.

Yet you do argue about first cause. The subject says subject now changed.

As first cause has nothing to do with being human.

Theism displaces natural presence.

Now you say I am a man. I own no name as the man. My name I gave self Hu man as man. Two status.

I am a human first
Sexual place I am a man hu man.

Two in thought first.

Then your man says I am a he and a him and his.

Stating ownership clauses of the self human.

Not are you in any status a he window science symbol.

Not a he window.
Not El a name science human stated gave to God.
Not HEL L.

Man human said I live inside a holy water heavens. Above me is God the heavens circulating O spirit cooling system keeping life safe.

Cooling as you knew opposition in heavens is burning.

So you said in theism God keeps life safe.

Fully advised

First cause you state was bang blast burn change.

You sought it's terms on earth where no status big bang existed

For scientific theism.

Why man's life was sacrificed and the man said I did it as the he self.

A confession then reasoned. By a sacrificed life biology of a man.

A man didn't do the science act as the term I am a man. He is just a human.

The man said he did it as men were involved. Not all men are scientist theists.

So men said he did it as my brother by choice as a man.

As window in science word is window means changed status only in science terms.

As he the man introduced radiating gas burning fall of man. Fallout.

Gases burning changed biology the human owned inheritance biology changed.

Reason the womb void took the sacrifice body spirit burning gas away. Kept human man baby life safe and holy. A teaching.

Man brought sacrificed spirit gas to the ground where he built the machine at his side.

Instead of honouring natural human life balanced with a woman human.

He theoried Sophia Phi maths conversion space womb change.

Was the exact teaching.

Science of men caused it by man's choice. Science the practice.

Yet the teaching says men did not own God they changed God so God states changed them. God states saved them.

First natural position natural healthy holy man with God first. Status I survived being attacked. Is the teaching

As healthy man was first with God. Not sacrificed man.

Ignored as how it was taught.

Man did it to himself.

Now if you claim you have to sacrifice life to be saved. A natural human thinking for self and not science would tell you your thinking is possessed by theism instead of natural reality.

Being first. Theism secondary. As natural non theist humans.
Wow, you win the contest for the most amount of nothingness, or illogical, or, if you will, irrational tidbits in a posting. I must go back to my nothingness learning board. Oh, no, I don't think I can do it. My nothingness learning board just disintegrated. Give me some assistance. What college or university must I attend to acquire such expertise? Oh, is it a school of hard knocks? I don't qualify, I have a college degree.

Yes, theism gets in the way. It depends on what side you're on. The alternative for you and other atheists is to present a rational explanation for origin of everything. Explain the big bang without a creator, or how the universe functions without a design, which, of course, came from the creator. You can't do it, so you'll continue to have faith in the tenants of atheism, which is something based on nothing. Oh, I got a good one for you. Explain how humans evolved to become what they are without a creator. What is the explanation for nature evolving without a design, or coming about by accident alone? According to laws of probability, chances of happening without a creator are extremely low, or without possibility. So sad, to be consumed with false ideas.
 
Last edited:

Repox

Truth Seeker
you had to ask
Yes, theism gets in the way. It depends on what side you're on. The alternative for you and other atheists is to present a rational explanation for origin of everything. Explain the big bang without a creator, or how the universe functions without a design, which, of course, came from the creator. You can't do it, so you'll continue to have faith in the tenants of atheism, which is something based on nothing. Oh, I got a good one for you. Explain how humans evolved to become what they are without a creator. What is the explanation for nature evolving without a design, or coming about by accident alone? According to laws of probability, chances of happening without a creator are extremely low, or without possibility. So sad, to be consumed with false ideas.

Is it possible atheists are really uniformed about so much of what they profess to know?

Last edited: 3 minutes ago
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
you had to ask

Are you a Satanist? My experience with Satanists is they never back down until they've destroyed adversaries. It is a form of nihilism. One thing, however, Satanists don't have, it's tolerance for opposition.
 
Last edited:

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Wow, you win the contest for the most amount of nothingness, or illogical, or, if you will, irrational tidbits in a posting. I must go back to my nothingness learning board. Oh, no, I don't think I can do it. My nothingness learning board just disintegrated. Give me some assistance. What college or university must I attend to acquire such expertise? Oh, is it a school of hard knocks? I don't qualify, I have a college degree.

Yes, theism gets in the way. It depends on what side you're on. If you are truly disposed to hate theism, then you should contact owners of this forum, they are tolerant of believers. The alternative for you and other atheists is to present a rational explanation for origin of everything. Explain the big bang without a creator, or how the universe functions without a design, which, of course, came from the creator. You can't do it, so you will continue to have faith in the tenants of atheism, which is something based on nothing. Oh, I got a good one for you. Explain how humans evolved to become what they are without a creator. What is the explanation for nature evolving without a design, or coming about by accident alone? I have a lot more puzzles for atheists, but mostly you'll do what most atheist do. Ignore it!
By accident and alone?

Always slip in a threat.

I am not a theist. I don't theory what a big bang blast is in a current stated self present spatial existence.

Existing means owned form.

The theist status says nothing exists.

Okay thinker you want nothing to exist as consciousness knows every status first does exist. What being conscious means supported by all things present.

Meaning of first is self a human plus all formation. The Two being term.

You think about the state that causes everything to not exist when it does already exist. Nothing.

Creation ion says every state exists first.

Not I will create an ion.

Create to cause change.
Created is existing due to a change.
Created ion as is in creation.

A base. First in science says a man is an ion.

Are you first in created creation a man?

No.

Are you first as a created human?

No human was equal not first.

Do you lie changer of natural form first?

Yes.

Whilst you theory are you changing natural form?

No.

But my thinking causes a not existing vision. A space. So spaces build into nothing in a thinking purpose. Applied choice.

What is your intention?

I am either just an egotist storyteller or I intend to use a machine to apply a reaction.

The theist self explanation. A human thinking.

So if you are just a storyteller like I am no need to be angry claiming I am a theist.

As I don't theory about what the eternal is.

Science today I want the eternal by a thesis formula to react change it. As a science statement.

Mind asks a question. How then does it exist forever? Non stop resource for greedy men? If you can change react and remove it?

I just keep constantly doing it.

Okay you say begin end is the reaction first?

Yes.

You introduce a space.

Then you want to increase nothingness each reaction? Yes.

Didn't space mean end of the reaction?

Yes.

So space stopped it?

Yes.

Nothing allows a reaction and gives it an end.

Did sciences reaction begin with nothing?

No substances existed created.

Did numbers not exist first?

Yes.

Adding+ owned no form it was just a thesis formula first. Meaning of a theists human inferred nothing theism.

Then I took mass and applied by thesis converting of the mass reacting a nothing space then increased space. Energy removal itself intentional.

Space allowed a human scientist to invent change.

Copying. How did space exist first? Energy was consumed the first law.

I was copying known first law in space history. Consuming.

And if you ask do I own a problem thinking telling stories. As a challenge to a theists?

No.

I don't pretend it's anything other than a human telling a story stating believe what you want as you already do.

You however cannot tell me that I am lying just telling stories as I told you it is just a story and not a thesis.

Science the practice is not just a thesis. It involves designed built by humans using mass not nothing with human minds controlling designed machine and designed changes to mass.

Mass is the natural design as fusion. It's first image fusion. The design itself held mass. Energy plus space is design first mass.

By the human thinker about design.

Design is placed to think upon to try to cause the design to be manipulated.

If you can change design by manipulation then it is no creator. It is ended. Only ends held by space can be manipulated changed.

Earth is not the eternal it is created mass. End of destruction. Said a theist.

In space laws if men of science don't change earth it should exist forever by space law cooled held mass.

Teaching.

Humans equal said we are taught belief.

Science says my design is not any belief as I am successful in building.

Yet if no mass existed you would not express building by design as science.

By human presence.

Men said hence mass is God is science by their say so as builder designer change.
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
By accident and alone?

Always slip in a threat.

I am not a theist. I don't theory what a big bang blast is in a current stated self present spatial existence.

Existing means owned form.

The theist status says nothing exists.

Okay thinker you want nothing to exist as consciousness knows every status first does exist. What being conscious means supported by all things present.

Meaning of first is self a human plus all formation. The Two being term.

You think about the state that causes everything to not exist when it does already exist. Nothing.

Creation ion says every state exists first.

Not I will create an ion.

Create to cause change.
Created is existing due to a change.
Created ion as is in creation.

A base. First in science says a man is an ion.

Are you first in created creation a man?

No.

Are you first as a created human?

No human was equal not first.

Do you lie changer of natural form first?

Yes.

Whilst you theory are you changing natural form?

No.

But my thinking causes a not existing vision. A space. So spaces build into nothing in a thinking purpose. Applied choice.

What is your intention?

I am either just an egotist storyteller or I intend to use a machine to apply a reaction.

The theist self explanation. A human thinking.

So if you are just a storyteller like I am no need to be angry claiming I am a theist.

As I don't theory about what the eternal is.

Science today I want the eternal by a thesis formula to react change it. As a science statement.

Mind asks a question. How then does it exist forever? Non stop resource for greedy men? If you can change react and remove it?

I just keep constantly doing it.

Okay you say begin end is the reaction first?

Yes.

You introduce a space.

Then you want to increase nothingness each reaction? Yes.

Didn't space mean end of the reaction?

Yes.

So space stopped it?

Yes.

Nothing allows a reaction and gives it an end.

Did sciences reaction begin with nothing?

No substances existed created.

Did numbers not exist first?

Yes.

Adding+ owned no form it was just a thesis formula first. Meaning of a theists human inferred nothing theism.

Then I took mass and applied by thesis converting of the mass reacting a nothing space then increased space. Energy removal itself intentional.

Space allowed a human scientist to invent change.

Copying. How did space exist first? Energy was consumed the first law.

I was copying known first law in space history. Consuming.

And if you ask do I own a problem thinking telling stories. As a challenge to a theists?

No.

I don't pretend it's anything other than a human telling a story stating believe what you want as you already do.

You however cannot tell me that I am lying just telling stories as I told you it is just a story and not a thesis.

Science the practice is not just a thesis. It involves designed built by humans using mass not nothing with human minds controlling designed machine and designed changes to mass.

Mass is the natural design as fusion. It's first image fusion. The design itself held mass. Energy plus space is design first mass.

By the human thinker about design.

Design is placed to think upon to try to cause the design to be manipulated.

If you can change design by manipulation then it is no creator. It is ended. Only ends held by space can be manipulated changed.

Earth is not the eternal it is created mass. End of destruction. Said a theist.

In space laws if men of science don't change earth it should exist forever by space law cooled held mass.

Teaching.

Humans equal said we are taught belief.

Science says my design is not any belief as I am successful in building.

Yet if no mass existed you would not express building by design as science.

By human presence.

Men said hence mass is God is science by their say so as builder designer change.
By accident and alone?

Always slip in a threat.

I am not a theist. I don't theory what a big bang blast is in a current stated self present spatial existence.

Existing means owned form.

The theist status says nothing exists.

Okay thinker you want nothing to exist as consciousness knows every status first does exist. What being conscious means supported by all things present.

Meaning of first is self a human plus all formation. The Two being term.

You think about the state that causes everything to not exist when it does already exist. Nothing.

Creation ion says every state exists first.

Not I will create an ion.

Create to cause change.
Created is existing due to a change.
Created ion as is in creation.

A base. First in science says a man is an ion.

Are you first in created creation a man?

No.

Are you first as a created human?

No human was equal not first.

Do you lie changer of natural form first?

Yes.

Whilst you theory are you changing natural form?

No.

But my thinking causes a not existing vision. A space. So spaces build into nothing in a thinking purpose. Applied choice.

What is your intention?

I am either just an egotist storyteller or I intend to use a machine to apply a reaction.

The theist self explanation. A human thinking.

So if you are just a storyteller like I am no need to be angry claiming I am a theist.

As I don't theory about what the eternal is.

Science today I want the eternal by a thesis formula to react change it. As a science statement.

Mind asks a question. How then does it exist forever? Non stop resource for greedy men? If you can change react and remove it?

I just keep constantly doing it.

Okay you say begin end is the reaction first?

Yes.

You introduce a space.

Then you want to increase nothingness each reaction? Yes.

Didn't space mean end of the reaction?

Yes.

So space stopped it?

Yes.

Nothing allows a reaction and gives it an end.

Did sciences reaction begin with nothing?

No substances existed created.

Did numbers not exist first?

Yes.

Adding+ owned no form it was just a thesis formula first. Meaning of a theists human inferred nothing theism.

Then I took mass and applied by thesis converting of the mass reacting a nothing space then increased space. Energy removal itself intentional.

Space allowed a human scientist to invent change.

Copying. How did space exist first? Energy was consumed the first law.

I was copying known first law in space history. Consuming.

And if you ask do I own a problem thinking telling stories. As a challenge to a theists?

No.

I don't pretend it's anything other than a human telling a story stating believe what you want as you already do.

You however cannot tell me that I am lying just telling stories as I told you it is just a story and not a thesis.

Science the practice is not just a thesis. It involves designed built by humans using mass not nothing with human minds controlling designed machine and designed changes to mass.

Mass is the natural design as fusion. It's first image fusion. The design itself held mass. Energy plus space is design first mass.

By the human thinker about design.

Design is placed to think upon to try to cause the design to be manipulated.

If you can change design by manipulation then it is no creator. It is ended. Only ends held by space can be manipulated changed.

Earth is not the eternal it is created mass. End of destruction. Said a theist.

In space laws if men of science don't change earth it should exist forever by space law cooled held mass.

Teaching.

Humans equal said we are taught belief.

Science says my design is not any belief as I am successful in building.

Yet if no mass existed you would not express building by design as science.

By human presence.

Men said hence mass is God is science by their say so as builder designer change.
Wow, you win the contest for the most amount of nothingness, or illogical, or, if you will, irrational tidbits in a posting. I must go back to my nothingness learning board. Oh, no, I don't think I can do it. My nothingness learning board just disintegrated.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Wow, you win the contest for the most amount of nothingness, or illogical, or, if you will, irrational tidbits in a posting. I must go back to my nothingness learning board. Oh, no, I don't think I can do it. My nothingness learning board just disintegrated.
When you think to say some words you the self reflects first in self presence.

And what you express allows another human to review you don't really have anything to say but retorts. The same retort.

If you want me to agree interviewer that I am not giving you conscious scientific insights. You are correct.

Disintegration only occurs in mass when it happens. It doesn't happen just because you speak some words.

If you think self controller of disintegration by design it is inside your machine designed reaction.

Which isn't God.
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
When you think to say some words you the self reflects first in self presence.

And what you express allows another human to review you don't really have anything to say but retorts. The same retort.

If you want me to agree interviewer that I am not giving you conscious scientific insights. You are correct.

Disintegration only occurs in mass when it happens. It doesn't happen just because you speak some words.

If you think self controller of disintegration by design it is inside your machine designed reaction.

Which isn't God.
When we reply to an idea, it's a retort, unless one can defend it as otherwise. We may or may not have scientific insights, but if its logical, it may be realistic, or it may be reasonable. Whatever it may be, it must have a predicate, or a subject for review. If you drop a hammer on glass, the glass breaks. You can't fix the glass with a feather. Nor can you fix it with a contrary idea. Words may be feathers, unless they have substance, or concrete ideas. The idea of God is concrete when the idea cannot be refuted. To refute God, one must have proof, and proof can be scientific, for the existence of the universe without God. After God created the universe, he didn't have to show up and prove he did it. He assumed there would be intelligent people on earth to prove he did it. So, for all atheists, where is the proof God didn't do it.

So, later, after God created the universe, he created paradise, which he and his angels enjoyed. I use the word God when I mean "God is a Duality." Then, God selected his holy people and attempted to establish a holy order on earth. Then, after everything went astray, God came into the world as Jesus. Then, again, everything went astray. Now, without God in our world, we are stumbling along hoping it will work out.

Poor God, nothing works out. The key for understanding God's dilemma, is "obedience." God requires "obedience to his commandments." It is a freewill issue. Why did I post all of this? I just like to post what I know, even though it may be an exercise in futility. I will, however, forgo my theological argument and revert back to "basic logic" to refute false ideas. Without logic, we have irrational rambles about almost anything, and an open door to fantasy land.

Religious arguments go back to the reason we are having them. Satan rebelled in heaven, God created the universe and imprisoned Satan inside, and, then humans came into being. Assuming a chain reaction, Satan started it! Let's get the culprit. Oh, God did that. The universe is Satan's prison. What a revolting development this is! Now, we're stuck in this world, Satan's prison, not knowing the ending.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Hmm .. why don't we have a vote to determine the nature of G-d? :rolleyes:
Who says you can't?

Did it?
Then why was Origen once a respected Christian scholar, and then some Nicean Emperor orders all his books to be burnt.
Doesn't look much like cooperation to me.
Well, maybe read this:
Did the Catholic Church burn books?

Andrew Boyd
Professor of Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue
Updated Aug 28, 2021 ·

Generally not.

There are historical examples of someone in some position within or connected to the Church burning books or ordering them burned, but these are exceptional. And it has never been an institutional policy or practice as far as I can tell.
-- Did the Catholic Church burn books? - Quora

I googled this and found no article that states that the Church burned Origen's books, and as a matter of fact I have a Catholic publication that quotes Origen.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
I googled this and found no article that states that the Church burned Origen's books, and as a matter of fact I have a Catholic publication that quotes Origen.

One: I think you'll find that these quotes of Origen are from Latin translations, as no originals exist, due to the order of Emperor Justinian

At the very beginning of Justinian's reign, he deemed it proper to promulgate by law the Church's belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, and to threaten all heretics with the appropriate penalties, whereas he subsequently declared that he intended to deprive all disturbers of orthodoxy of the opportunity for such offense by due process of law.
Justinian I - Wikipedia

In 543 AD, Pelagius presented Justinian with documents, including a letter denouncing Origen written by Patriarch Mennas of Constantinople, along with excerpts from Origen's On First Principles and several anathemata against Origen. A domestic synod convened to address the issue concluded that the Isochristoi's teachings were heretical and, seeing Origen as the ultimate culprit behind the heresy, denounced Origen himself as a heretic as well. Emperor Justinian ordered for all of Origen's writings to be burned. In the west, the Decretum Gelasianum, which was written sometime between 519 and 553, listed Origen as an author whose writings were to be categorically banned.
Origenist Crises - Wikipedia

If the orignal writing of Origen were not destroyed, then where are they?
We only have Rufinus' version left intact.

..in 397, Rufinus published a Latin translation of Origen's On First Principles. Rufinus was convinced that Origen's original treatise had been interpolated by heretics and that these interpolations were the source of the heterodox teachings found in it. He therefore heavily modified Origen's text, omitting and altering any parts which disagreed with contemporary Christian orthodoxy.
Origenist Crises - Wikipedia

Two: I never said "the catholic church", but "the state" .
 
Last edited:
Top