What is a God?

[Audie]

That is not true. There is evidence of intelligent design in the universe. Of course it is probabilistic evidence but so is most evidence used in science.
The God hypothesis is based on accumulated evidence not mere blind speculation.
The fine tuning of the universe.
The Big Bangs initial expansion from a uniform state of equilibrium.
The Quantum mechanical wave functions.
Information theory applied to molecular biology in structures such as DNA.
The inability of evolutionary theory to account or even propose a tenable theory as to how life began, how consciousness arose from inorganic matter.
The conspicuous lack of intermediate species fossil evidence. We should be swimming in these fossils. We are not.
Proofs of Gods existence? No. Evidences of an intelligent designer’s possible existence? Yes.



I did not concoct or choose the definition of God that is being used. And it doesn't suit me at all since I cannot fathom its meaning in totality. I have nothing to compare it to.
The qualities of what it means to be God can however be discussed and rationalized to a certain degree.
I do not know what great range of things you think you can do that God cannot? Can you give me an example?



I cannot help it that my observation was insulting. The best I could do was declare I meant no offense. To be an atheist is to declare that the case of Gods existence or nonexistence has been definitively proven. Yet atheists can offer no proof for their particular declaration even though they demand proof from theists for theirs. Theists at least can offer evidential support, as I've given above, for the possibility to remain tenable and to the degree of something being hypothesized but as yet not proven they have the greater probability of proving their case than atheists have in declaring they've proven their case already.



I don't know what you’re getting at here? Are you saying I'm being artificial but trying to pass it off as understanding? Why are you being so confrontational? Why do you find what I say so offensive? It’s just a discussion. I'm not saying I'm positively right and everyone else is positively wrong. There are usually degrees.




Wow. You’re really on a role. It’s usually remedial science 101 but I guess 099 level was your way of salting the wound. What was I critiquing about science you found incorrect?
Spelling I admit is not my strongest suit. But I wouldn't throw those rocks while you’re standing in a glass house yourself. You’re consistently making spelling and grammar errors. I don't dwell on such things because I can get what you meant and that's what's important to me.



It’s not based on my emotions. My rationalization began with my emotions. As in I was moved to act. The act is attempting to rationalize what I felt with what I experience in reality.
Humans don't rationalize and then feel. Humans feel and then attempt to rationalize that feeling. That doesn't mean equating rationalization with emotion. Though the one too often effects the other in many I must admit.
If you would take the time to think about what I'm saying before rushing to judge me as a person this would be a much more productive conversation.



I believe the historicity of the bible is being proven time and again with archeological findings in the Middle East. The places existed. The people existed. The supernatural events? That's of course faith based.




It’s the same way we rationalize all definitions. We propose or demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of something and then define it according to the qualities we agree to assign it. In this way we can meaningfully have a rational discussion of the defined thing.
FYI...God and or gods have been deliberated, defined, and discussed for generations. I didn't make up a definition of God. It’s not my made up definition. I am discussing the definition of God as the pinnacle of perfection. A definition that has been discussed and deliberated since the early Greeks first wondered what being a God might mean.




See my earlier...
A counter example of a rational discussion of something that at first showed no signs of existing in reality is Black Holes.

Thanks for the conversation...it’s a pleasure speaking with you.

As usual you go on and on and on
when 1/10 the words would do.

I will just pick two things to comment
on, which stand for the rest as representing the
depth and quality of your " evidence", and
what you know about it.

Your comments on evolution show you
have no idea what you are talking about,
Its 2nd hand creationist site garbage.
No way you learned such ignorant ideas from
actual study.

On " archaeology". Of course the red sea,
Egypt, and some towns are real. Big ttumpet
flourish!

Of course archaeology, geology, physics, biology etc each separately and together disprove the genesis creation and flood.

Oh, and i know an insult when i see one.
Denying it just makes it go rancid.

 

[DNB]

You should be aware that the word 'trinity' is a theological term, and is not in scripture. The doctrine is primarily used to explain how God redeems mankind.

There are hundreds of scriptural passages than can be used to demonstrate that God was in Christ, and the Spirit of the Father is the Holy Spirit. This is all that is needed to show that God is above (Father), amongst (Son), and within (Holy Spirit), whilst still being one God.

What tends to confuse the issue is the person of Jesus Christ. He is clearly a man with a soul. There is no doubt that he was born of a virgin, and is without sin. He was righteous under the law, and righteous before God the Father. He was also anointed with the Holy Spirit (in full measure) and is, as such, the Son of God in Spirit.

The conclusion reached by Christians is that Jesus Christ, on earth, was both fully man and fully God. The reason Jesus Christ is viewed as God is because the Spirit that rested upon him on earth was the fulness of the Father's Spirit. Once resurrected, Jesus ascended to heaven spiritually and is granted dominion over all things in heaven and in earth.

All of this can be justified from scripture.

No one grants God anything, for He is already the possessor of all things.

 

[DNB]

This is not correct. You provided one passage from Chronicles, and you failed to read it carefully! It did not say that David the king was worshipped. It said that the LORD, and the king, were worshipped.

Maybe, it's just too subtle for you to see?

Maybe you're the queen of splitting hairs or non-sequiturs? Did you actually read the context?
Who's the Lord therefore, and who's the king?

 

[DNB]

I believe your presentation of these verses paves the way to a trinitarian rendering and false belief concerning the creation in that it is specifically obscure in its meaning. Your claim that the Son (Jesus specifically) was always ‘born ahead of the creation’ by being in the thought of God thus making him pre-existent, is convoluted and very wrong!

Have you, or do you know, or heard of, anyone who had designed an autonomous system? Do they not build in contingencies in case of something going wrong?

Is God any different? God may be perfect, but he build a system that was cyclic… all the non-human aspects. Then he put into it a free-Willed Head: Man.

The man and his offspring were meant to nurture, husband, tend lovingly, develop monumentally and creatively, this world he was out in… What could go wrong??

You ARE right that a saviour was in the mind of God: a contingency saviour… but he was not existing. He would only come into existence IF the man sinned AND none of his offspring were sufficiently righteous to act as a saviour. You know your scriptures enough, I’m sure, to understand that God sought a saviour from among mankind for generations, even selecting David as his own Son in flesh: ‘I have found my David’ and

• “He will call out to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.’ And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.” (Psalm 89:26-27)

But then even David sinned… So, in the fullness of time after no offspring of Adam was found, God created a NEW ADAM… born not of the flesh of man (I’m whom there was sin) but like the first man, Adam, born of the Holy Spirit, sinless, righteous and Holy. Jesus, his name, remained sinless and was adopted by God in the words: ‘You are my Son; This day I have become your Father’ … ‘This day I have begotten you’

If you read the scriptures properly you will see that ADAM was the FIRST BORN of humanity. I do not think God is fussed over the animals he created nor the plants nor fish nor insects of microbes. What I did was to show you that THE FIRST BORN sins and another is brought up to replace him….

This next Born (need not be chronologically next… see the patriarchs) become THE MOST BELOVED BY THE FATHER. This is the meaning of the too similar word, FIRSTBORN!

The scriptures tends to tease us with too-similar words to test our understanding - or is it from The Satan to DESTROY our understanding. Why:

• ‘Lord’ and ‘LORD’
• ‘Worship’ and ‘Obeisance’
• ‘Dead’ and ‘Sleep’
• ‘Heaven’ and ‘Heavens’
• ‘Hell / Hades’ and ‘The Grave’

Colossians, again, uses the term ‘Before all things’… yet another confusion.

No! It does not mean CHRONOLOGICALLY PRIOR… it means ‘AHEAD OF’ / ‘GREATER THAN’: Christ is ‘Ahead of all things’.

We see this confusion wherein Jesus is asked if he is GREATER THAN Abraham. Jesus answers, ‘Before Abraham, I am’.

You see the confusion? Trinitarians interpret it to mean that weirdly Jesus is calling himself ALMIGHTY GOD!!!! But No! Jesus is saying that:

• ‘Yes, I am GREATER THAN (Ahead of in power and authority) Abraham’

and THAT is why the Jews took up stones to try to stone him. Jesus argued that EVEN ABRAHAM foresaw that one of his descendants would become the messiah… that one GREATER THAN HE (for God surely loved Abraham and gifted him the lineage to the saviour because of his faith) would arise from his loins down the ages.

See that self reference, ‘I am’.. yet another devilish confusion - or righteous obscuring… ‘I Am’ is not a ‘NAME’. It is though, a meaning OF God’s name: YHWH. So it is ridiculous to say that Jesus saying ‘I am’ means Jesus is God… Wow! How many times a day do people say, ‘I am’ in sentences… are we to believe that we are all God? And in the very next chapter Jesus opens the eyes of a man who goes on to answer ‘I Am’ when asked if he is the man that was blind… I notice no trinitarian races to call the man Almighty God! How wickedly strange of them then!!!!

No, DNB, nothing in Corinthians points to a pre-existent Jesus creating or being first created over creation. The verse is saying that the world was created FOR HIM but it does not mean absolute Jesus Christ. IT WAS CREATED for the one who would be the human SON of God… which turned out to be Jesus Christ.

Remember that ADAM was originally SON OF GOD (Luke 3:38) (Created in the image of God) before he sinned. Had Adam not sinned (and God was sorely grieved that he did!!!!) then he, Adam, would be absolutely BOTH the FIRST BORN OF MANKIND and the FIRSTBORN OF THE FATHER OVER CREATION.

Soapy, how is it possible that you keep misconstruing what I say, how is it possible? How much more explicit and comprehensive does one have to be in order to not misunderstand him.
How many times did I give Jesus' birth date, or state that only the Father is God, or that no other deities exist in the universe except for the Father?.
How is it possible that you believe that I think that Christ was pre-existent?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Maybe you're the queen of splitting hairs or non-sequiturs? Did you actually read the context?
Who's the Lord therefore, and who's the king?

There is only one LORD, and he is the king!

David did not tell the congregation to bless David, as king. They were to bless the LORD, as king.

Interestingly, the comma is missing in the JPS Hebrew translation. It says 'the LORD and the king'.

Where else do you think you find men being worshipped in scripture?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Soapy, how is it possible that you keep misconstruing what I say, how is it possible? How much more explicit and comprehensive does one have to be in order to not misunderstand him.
How many times did I give Jesus' birth date, or state that only the Father is God, or that no other deities exist in the universe except for the Father?.
How is it possible that you believe that I think that Christ was pre-existent?

Here's a little puzzle for you both to explain.
Philippians 2:10,11 tells us about the dominion and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
What does lsaiah 45:22,23 say?

How can the two be distinguished?

 

[Soapy]

Soapy, how is it possible that you keep misconstruing what I say, how is it possible? How much more explicit and comprehensive does one have to be in order to not misunderstand him.
How many times did I give Jesus' birth date, or state that only the Father is God, or that no other deities exist in the universe except for the Father?.
How is it possible that you believe that I think that Christ was pre-existent?

I did not say you said that. I said that by presenting the mistranslated 1 Corinthians verse you appear to be condoning the case for a pre-existent Jesus who trinity claim created all things.

In effect I’m saying you err by presenting the verse without contravening it. In it, the verse claims that Jesus is BEFORE all things - which Trinitarians take to mean that he was created before all other things.

I said that by not explaining the proper meaning (that ‘Before’ means ‘Greater than’ rather than ‘prior in time’) you appear to be condoning the mistranslation since you had previous said that Jesus was in the thought of God and that, in effect, made him pre-existent.

Believe me, I can see how that thought might establish itself but that would be for those who desire to make a case for pre-existent Active Jesus. This is the warning rather than a condemnation I’m showing you.

Im not sure of your math skills but if you give an equation of x = 1/3 and only approximate the result. Then you multiply x by 3, what answer do you get!

You do not get ‘3’…. You get 0.9(999..)

Here’s what I’m saying: Tiny errors like holding to 1 Corinthians, can lead to errors later on down the equation line. … Trinitarians absolutely hold to 1 Corinthians as their evidence of Jesus being pre-existent yet you were presenting it as your … well, I don’t know because it just seemed a spurious presentation. You didn’t even show the discrepancy that Jesus was REWARDED with the rulership over creation which would be implausible if indeed Jesus had been its creator.

You implied that the creation was always the reward for the son who was in the mind of God from before the beginning…. And that was Jesus [Christ].

I don’t see evidence of that. I expressed to you that the eventual Son of God WOULD originally have been ADAM. I showed that God was immensely distraught that Adam had sinned - and even initially sought to destroy his creation because of the sin of Adam.

Even so, because Adam was created in his (God’s) image, God relented and sought a self-sacrificing solution from one of Adam’s offspring. However, none could be found over the ages. Even the one who became the ‘Most Loved’ (David: ‘Begotten Son of God’) sinned. Hence God established the throne of David as an everlasting throne even though David himself was not to be the occupant of it.

It can therefore be seen that no saviour would arise from a son of Adam. God then put into place the CONTINGENCY plan he had in mind AS ANY GOOD CREATOR would have in reserve. This is clear from the fact that Jesus was CREATED not from the procreation of a man but by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit of God. This meant that Jesus was a NEW CREATION just as Adam had been - pure spirit created: sinless, Righteous, and Holy.

So the question is, if Adam had not sinned … or if David had not given in to sexual temptation… who would have been ‘Begotten Son of God’?

Consider your answer in light of Adam being called ‘Son of God’ and David being called ‘Son of God’!

And Jesus: ‘The LAST ADAM’… (what does that mean, do you think?)

Remember that I am only refining your belief - not condemning it. Refining it to remove the possibilities of claims made by trinitarian mistranslators.

 

[Soapy]

Here's a little puzzle for you both to explain.
Philippians 2:10,11 tells us about the dominion and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
What does lsaiah 45:22,23 say?

How can the two be distinguished?

Two different time periods.

Have you not read in the New Testament:

• “Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt 28:18)
• “And God placed all things under his [Jesus’] feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” (Ephesians 1:22-23)

God, in seeking a saviour of mankind presents himself as the only saviour and two whom all mankind will bow to. This is correct since there was no other saviour.

When Jesus is created and after being anointed and offering himself as a sacrifice for the sin of Adam, God glorifies him and raises him up to Heaven and establishes him as ruler over creation by granting Jesus the rulership.

As the ruler over creation it is only right that creation should praise, honour, and glorify Jesus Christ.

Bowing the knee IS NOT WORSHIP.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Two different time periods.

Have you not read in the New Testament:

• “Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt 28:18)
• “And God placed all things under his [Jesus’] feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” (Ephesians 1:22-23)

God, in seeking a saviour of mankind presents himself as the only saviour and two whom all mankind will bow to. This is correct since there was no other saviour.

When Jesus is created and after being anointed and offering himself as a sacrifice for the sin of Adam, God glorifies him and raises him up to Heaven and establishes him as ruler over creation by granting Jesus the rulership.

As the ruler over creation it is only right that creation should praise, honour, and glorify Jesus Christ.

Bowing the knee IS NOT WORSHIP.

Your response does not make any sense to me.

If you accept that God is the only Saviour, how can you accept Jesus Christ as Saviour without also accepting that he and God are 'one'?

P1. God the Father is the only Saviour
P2. Jesus Christ is the only Saviour
C: God the Father and Jesus Christ are one Saviour

 

[DNB]

There is only one LORD, and he is the king!

David did not tell the congregation to bless David, as king. They were to bless the LORD, as king.

Interestingly, the comma is missing in the JPS Hebrew translation. It says 'the LORD and the king'.

Where else do you think you find men being worshipped in scripture?

Lots of places: many bowed in reverence to others
1 Samuel 42:8
Then David went out of the cave and called out to Saul, “My lord the king!” When Saul looked behind him, David bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.

1 Kings 2:19
When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

Genesis 37:5-10
5. Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him all the more.
6. He said to them, "Listen to this dream I had:
7. We were binding sheaves of grain out in the field when suddenly my sheaf rose and stood upright, while your sheaves gathered around mine and bowed down to it."
8. His brothers said to him, "Do you intend to reign over us? Will you actually rule us?" And they hated him all the more because of his dream and what he had said.
9. Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. "Listen," he said, "I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me."
10. When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, "What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?"

Genesis 50:18
His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. “We are your slaves,” they said.

 

[DNB]

Here's a little puzzle for you both to explain.
Philippians 2:10,11 tells us about the dominion and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
What does lsaiah 45:22,23 say?

How can the two be distinguished?

it answers itself:

Philippians 2:10-11
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.

This has nothing to do with anything

Isaiah 45:22
22 “Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.

 

[DNB]

I did not say you said that. I said that by presenting the mistranslated 1 Corinthians verse you appear to be condoning the case for a pre-existent Jesus who trinity claim created all things.

In effect I’m saying you err by presenting the verse without contravening it. In it, the verse claims that Jesus is BEFORE all things - which Trinitarians take to mean that he was created before all other things.

I said that by not explaining the proper meaning (that ‘Before’ means ‘Greater than’ rather than ‘prior in time’) you appear to be condoning the mistranslation since you had previous said that Jesus was in the thought of God and that, in effect, made him pre-existent.

Believe me, I can see how that thought might establish itself but that would be for those who desire to make a case for pre-existent Active Jesus. This is the warning rather than a condemnation I’m showing you.

Im not sure of your math skills but if you give an equation of x = 1/3 and only approximate the result. Then you multiply x by 3, what answer do you get!

You do not get ‘3’…. You get 0.9(999..)

Here’s what I’m saying: Tiny errors like holding to 1 Corinthians, can lead to errors later on down the equation line. … Trinitarians absolutely hold to 1 Corinthians as their evidence of Jesus being pre-existent yet you were presenting it as your … well, I don’t know because it just seemed a spurious presentation. You didn’t even show the discrepancy that Jesus was REWARDED with the rulership over creation which would be implausible if indeed Jesus had been its creator.

You implied that the creation was always the reward for the son who was in the mind of God from before the beginning…. And that was Jesus [Christ].

I don’t see evidence of that. I expressed to you that the eventual Son of God WOULD originally have been ADAM. I showed that God was immensely distraught that Adam had sinned - and even initially sought to destroy his creation because of the sin of Adam.

Even so, because Adam was created in his (God’s) image, God relented and sought a self-sacrificing solution from one of Adam’s offspring. However, none could be found over the ages. Even the one who became the ‘Most Loved’ (David: ‘Begotten Son of God’) sinned. Hence God established the throne of David as an everlasting throne even though David himself was not to be the occupant of it.

It can therefore be seen that no saviour would arise from a son of Adam. God then put into place the CONTINGENCY plan he had in mind AS ANY GOOD CREATOR would have in reserve. This is clear from the fact that Jesus was CREATED not from the procreation of a man but by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit of God. This meant that Jesus was a NEW CREATION just as Adam had been - pure spirit created: sinless, Righteous, and Holy.

So the question is, if Adam had not sinned … or if David had not given in to sexual temptation… who would have been ‘Begotten Son of God’?

Consider your answer in light of Adam being called ‘Son of God’ and David being called ‘Son of God’!

And Jesus: ‘The LAST ADAM’… (what does that mean, do you think?)

Remember that I am only refining your belief - not condemning it. Refining it to remove the possibilities of claims made by trinitarian mistranslators.

I see, ok, you weren't accusing but warning. That makes more sense.

Being in the mind of God prior to one's existence, does not, by any stretch of the imagination, necessitate pre-existence. All the hairs on our heads were counted before we were born, and the elect were known by God before they had even heard of Christ - this is not predestination, but God's omniscience and wisdom.
What you are proposing is that Christ was an after-thought, which is absurd, for it implies that Adam & Eve foiled God's original plan i.e. the Garden of Eden.

The universe was created for Christ, but God played it out in history in reverse chronological order. You are wrong as Adam and David being the 'Son of God', for that does not warrant rulership of the universe - the saviour does. But, again, Christ was not a contingency plan as though man threw a curve-ball to God, derailing His word. Before time began God knew what would become of man, and He implemented certain dispensations to emphasize man's need for a saviour - all leading to God's precedential creation: Christ.

 

[Redemptionsong]

it answers itself:

Philippians 2:10-11
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.

This has nothing to do with anything

Isaiah 45:22
22 “Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.

You've missed out lsaiah 45:23!

It states:
'I have sworn by myself, the word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear'.

Not only do they bow the knee to God, but 'every tongue shall swear'.

What do you think they 'swear'?

And, of course, every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father! For Jesus Christ is the glory of God come into the world!

Luke 9:32. 'But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him'.

Does God give his glory to any other?

 

[Soapy]

Your response does not make any sense to me.

If you accept that God is the only Saviour, how can you accept Jesus Christ as Saviour without also accepting that he and God are 'one'?

P1. God the Father is the only Saviour
P2. Jesus Christ is the only Saviour
C: God the Father and Jesus Christ are one Saviour

We have been through this. I have been through this many times elsewhere.

I gave an example (or here is an example in case you took no notice last time):

• An enormously wealthy and powerful king builds a great ship (God creates creation) and dispatches it on an errand. At sea the ship’s captain falls asleep at a critical moment and falls overboard - dies - and the ship starts floundering in rough water. The king learns of the disaster that is taking place and, knowing he had done something unheard of before, regrets for a moment that he had put that captain in charge. Gathering his mind back together, and remembering that his son was on board, he seeks TO SAVE HIS SHIP by first seeing if anyone else on the ship is good enough to replace the captain and take control. Over time various crew members try but the huge ship is too much for them and they too mess up. Eventually the king authorises a reserve captain he has had trained to be sent out to save the ship. The new captain, who was given full instructions about the ship, is dispatched by helicopter and landed in great applause on the ship. He, after being so happily welcomed, proposes a solution which is not wholly welcomed - in fact the rest of the crew (apart from a few loyal ones) don’t like him not his plan to save the ship and seek to get rid of him. Ignoring as best he can the antagonisation towards him he tells them that he needs to carry out a task that none of them are able to do but which will result in his death. Only he can save the ship by this act.

So there you have it. In the beginning the king was the only saviour. There was no one on board to carry out the act to save the ship… Only the king had the power to do something to save the ship. But after he GIVES HIS AUTHORISATION AND POWER to another to go save the ship, that other person becomes the ship’s saviour.

In truth, there should be no need for the analogy story above since anyone who reads and believes the scriptures should easily see the sequence of events.

The ‘two’ saviours are not the same person. The second has been delegated the role.

Moreover, God spoke to his favoured nation to say he was their only saviour in respect of the fact that they may have tried to seek salvation for their nation from believing in the ways of the other nations and their multiple Gods. The one God told them to lean on Him and Him alone - those other ‘Gods’ cannot save you… ‘I am your creator - I am your saviour’.

There is nothing wrong with delegating authority.

 

[Redemptionsong]

We have been through this. I have been through this many times elsewhere.

I gave an example (or here is an example in case you took no notice last time):

• An enormously wealthy and powerful king builds a great ship (God creates creation) and dispatches it on an errand. At sea the ship’s captain falls asleep at a critical moment and falls overboard - dies - and the ship starts floundering in rough water. The king learns of the disaster that is taking place and, knowing he had done something unheard of before, regrets for a moment that he had put that captain in charge. Gathering his mind back together, and remembering that his son was on board, he seeks TO SAVE HIS SHIP by first seeing if anyone else on the ship is good enough to replace the captain and take control. Over time various crew members try but the huge ship is too much for them and they too mess up. Eventually the king authorises a reserve captain he has had trained to be sent out to save the ship. The new captain, who was given full instructions about the ship, is dispatched by helicopter and landed in great applause on the ship. He, after being so happily welcomed, proposes a solution which is not wholly welcomed - in fact the rest of the crew (apart from a few loyal ones) don’t like him not his plan to save the ship and seek to get rid of him. Ignoring as best he can the antagonisation towards him he tells them that he needs to carry out a task that none of them are able to do but which will result in his death. Only he can save the ship by this act.

So there you have it. In the beginning the king was the only saviour. There was no one on board to carry out the act to save the ship… Only the king had the power to do something to save the ship. But after he GIVES HIS AUTHORISATION AND POWER to another to go save the ship, that other person becomes the ship’s saviour.

In truth, there should be no need for the analogy story above since anyone who reads and believes the scriptures should easily see the sequence of events.

The ‘two’ saviours are not the same person. The second has been delegated the role.

Moreover, God spoke to his favoured nation to say he was their only saviour in respect of the fact that they may have tried to seek salvation for their nation from believing in the ways of the other nations and their multiple Gods. The one God told them to lean on Him and Him alone - those other ‘Gods’ cannot save you… ‘I am your creator - I am your saviour’.

There is nothing wrong with delegating authority.

God has not delegated authority. He made the vessel, and then filled it with his own Spirit!

If the temple of Christ's sinless body is filled with the Holy Spirit, then God dwells on earth amongst his people even now!

 

[Soapy]

I see, ok, you weren't accusing but warning. That makes more sense.

Being in the mind of God prior to one's existence, does not, by any stretch of the imagination, necessitate pre-existence. All the hairs on our heads were counted before we were born, and the elect were known by God before they had even heard of Christ - this is not predestination, but God's omniscience and wisdom.
What you are proposing is that Christ was an after-thought, which is absurd, for it implies that Adam & Eve foiled God's original plan i.e. the Garden of Eden.

The universe was created for Christ, but God played it out in history in reverse chronological order. You are wrong as Adam and David being the 'Son of God', for that does not warrant rulership of the universe - the saviour does. But, again, Christ was not a contingency plan as though man threw a curve-ball to God, derailing His word. Before time began God knew what would become of man, and He implemented certain dispensations to emphasize man's need for a saviour - all leading to God's precedential creation: Christ.

Wow! This is sensational Revelation… God KNEW man would sin????

If God KNEW man would sin then why was he so angry that he said:

• ‘The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” (Gen 6:6-7)

Are you sure you are reading the scriptures right?

Maybe this is better: God KNEW there was a CHANCE that man might sin!

I say to you that ANYONE who designs a system that is run on an autonomous basis MUST also design for the possibilities that there may be a a wrongful operation at some point. Otherwise what is designed is NOT FREE… just a robotic system which is rigid and strict. Where is the pleasure in such a system - it changes not - no variations - no development … Man breaks this endless cycle by being LIKE GOD in that he can vary things, add to, modify, enhance… exactly what God told them to do. The whole of the created world - not just planet Earth - is to be the abode of man seeing his eventual ETERNAL LIFE will allow for this.

God did not say he had a specific person in mind to be the saviour. He said that the salvation would come via the Seed of a Woman… that is to say, not through the sinful way man was living now but through a new sinless way of life.

You see that God sought this new sinless way via the current offspring of Adam throughout the ages - even down to calling David, ‘His Son’. Why are you dismissing this reality? God desired David:

• ‘I have found my David’

What on earth do you think God meant by that statement?

What you are doing, talking of your words about reverse chronology, is doing exactly that. You NOW KNOW about Jesus Christ, and seeing that no prior man was able to perform what he did, and say: ‘Oh yes, that was ALWAYS what God set out in his timeline’.

What you dismiss is that God deeply desired the salvation to come from one of Adam’s offspring. Indeed, the wisdom of God pre-empted that such a saviour should come from the lineage of Abraham given that Abraham was so faithful to God.

So, God gave mankind time and space, to fulfil his promise to Abraham - but no natural man was found. Do God put into effect the contingency he had in mind from the beginning: A New Adam… another Sinless Adam (You do know that ‘Adam’ means, don’t you? That it’s more than just the name given to the first created man!).

And so, it was so. God created a new Adam… a second, and LAST ADAM. An Adam that was not innately sinful. He could sin… but chose not to - even under the harshest tests and temptations.

Thus, having ‘gone through the fire’, he was declared as ‘Son of God’, as was prophesied by God:

• He declared the decree: “You are my Son; This day I have become your Father”!’
• “Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.”

What did Jesus acquire as his possession because of his unselfish sacrifice in death, and his great faith, loyalty, duty, and works ‘because God was with him’?

Was it not the ‘ends of the earth as his possession’ because:

• “Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:19)
• ‘So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.’(1 Cor 15:45)

Jesus BECAME the Christ when God anointed him.

Jesus was created as new man in the image of God just as Adam had been created through the overshadowing of God’s Holy Spirit. The unlivened bare red earth (the Adam!!) was enlivened by the Holy Spirit therefore the Adam was Holy, sinless, and righteous. In the same manner the inert egg of the Virgin Mary was enliven by the Holy Spirit of God and, ‘The child to be born shall Holy, and called the Son of God’… ‘Adam, Son of God’ (Luke 3:38)

 

[Soapy]

God has not delegated authority. He made the vessel, and then filled it with his own Spirit!

If the temple of Christ's sinless body is filled with the Holy Spirit, then God dwells on earth amongst his people even now!

• ‘Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”’ (Matthew 28:18)
• “Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,” (John 5:22)
• “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And He [God] has given him [Jesus Christ] authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.” (John 5:26-27)
  
• “By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.” (John 5:30)

 

[Redemptionsong]

• ‘Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”’ (Matthew 28:18)
• “Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,” (John 5:22)
• “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And He [God] has given him [Jesus Christ] authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.” (John 5:26-27)
  
• “By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.” (John 5:30)

You're quoting scripture without accepting the conclusion that these scriptures point towards!

If you do not accept that God was in Jesus, then you do not make him your Saviour. If you do not make Jesus Christ your Saviour, you remain in your sin. If you remain in your sin, how can you walk by the Spirit of God in truth?

 

[Soapy]

You're quoting scripture without accepting the conclusion that these scriptures point towards!

If you do not accept that God was in Jesus, then you do not make him your Saviour. If you do not make Jesus Christ your Saviour, you remain in your sin. If you remain in your sin, how can you walk by the Spirit of God in truth?

That’s really odd - curiously odd… almost bating your responses!

First you say Jesus is God - then you say God was in Jesus!

Are you expecting that I should not have noticed those anomalies? Ooh - or that you think I was going to deny one or the other and then you say: ‘Yeah - Gotcha!’

Nah! You gotta get up far earlier in the morning to catch me out with those type of miscreated premises. claims.

‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to HIMSELF’ - The one being reconciled to is almighty God … YHWH, who poured out His Holy Spirit upon Jesus - making Jesus into The Christ of God.

If a father gives his charge card to his son, what circumstances should be observed?:

1. The charge card is still the property of the Father
2. The Son is empowered to spend on the charge card
3. The Son should not abuse the use of the charge card
4. The Son must not give away the charge card to another
5. The charge card must be used by the Son to purchase only things that glorify the Father (which is still in the name of the Father)
6. The Son must use the charge card in humbleness alone
7. The charge card must be handed back to the Father at some stage in the future
8. In the usage of the charge card the Son must not present himself to anyone as though he were the Father - He must present himself always appealing to the greatness of the Father for granting him usage of the card: “Father, I know you always hear me when I pray - but did the people standing by I spoke out loud’ (paraphrased) This Jesus spoke before using the Father’s Holy Spirit to raise up Lazarus.

 

[syo]

The eternal ones. And they are many.