This not only shows your ignorance but the ignorance of the person who inserted ''[a]''. One cannot become ''a God'', God always IS. Take out the ''[a]'' and what you have is ''Who being in the very nature God'', meaning that his nature was the same as God.
Heh.
Actually the "[a]" is a reference, which points to an alternative translation. In other words instead of "in very nature" it could be translated as "in the form of", and often is in translations other than the NIV as I have previously shown. See for yourself:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2:6&version=NIV
If I forgot to remove that reference marker at some point when cutting and pasting text, it was nothing more than a simple oversight.
Here's the root of you misunderstanding
Trying to claim that this is merely
my misunderstanding is ridiculous. Once again, your charge applies to anyone who has derived the same basic Christian theology from scripture, and that is pretty much the entire Christian world. They didn't invent the theology and
then cite the Bible to try to support it (which is what
you're doing), the Bible
is Christian theology. It's the very
core of it. It's where it all started. These doctrines have been perfectly clear to Christians since the Bible was canonized, and they are still clear to them now. Yet because
you say they are wrong, they are wrong? It wouldn't be so bad if the arguments you used to try to demonstrate that weren't so weak (mostly due to being clear violations of your stated methodology in
every single case) but they are.
Having said that, there
is a context in which I could accept your position as being just as valid as any other in theological terms, and that would involve a relaxing of the requirement to interpret scripture
literally. As I've pointed out, that clearly
is the way you are approaching scripture anyway, so why not just own up to it?
''1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.''
Here's the root of you misunderstanding. The ''Word'' was with God in the begining, meaning it was separate to God, but also the the ''Word'' was God. It goes on to say that ''he was with God in the begining.
So Jesus was the same as God (the same nature), but was also separate to God.
What you
have to do is interpret the verse
literally, and see what comes out. And what comes out is that
both things are true. The Word was both
with God, and
was God. So yes, I agree.
That is what it says. In fact this theme where God is multiple things simultaneously is common:
"But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever'"
The Son is the Son, but the Son is also God, and this is God attesting to that.
It say's nothing about him being ''in the form of God''.
Wrong! As demonstrated above (as well as earlier), that's an alternative translation, and it appears in many versions of the Bible:
"who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God" - NKJV
"though he was in the form of God, he did not consider being equal with God something to exploit" - CEB
Like I said, in cases like this it serves to narrow the interpretative scope. Obviously "in the form of" can't mean physical form, since God is not a physical being. So what we have here is a statement about spiritual nature, and how it was
equal to that of God.
He took the form of a human being. It does NOT say he became a human being.
And seeing himself in human form, he voluntarily decided that death could act upon him (if HE felt like it).
Agreed. God chose to place himself into a human body and then subjected himself to the realities of a fleshly existence.
John 10.18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
Errr, sure. What's your point? Nothing there that is inconsistent with what I have been saying.
Where does it say he obtained ''a physical body''?
And where does it say that God inhabited a physical body?
Yet another verse then:
"God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory." - 1 Timothy 3:16
How many do you fucking need before you actually follow your own stated methodology and interpret one literally?
And what is so ''obvious'' about allowing death to act if one chooses?
The only time I used the word obvious in the quote you are replying to was in reference to the fact that physical bodies can die. And obvious it is. Pay attention.
Firstly it wasn't an interpretation, the words clearly said what they said. You posted the text, not me, and now you've decided to post a different wording of the text, and again the text says what it says. It still alludes to the notion that the killers thought they had killed Jesus because it appeared to them that way, so I'm not sure how this changes anything.
You're clearly oblivious to the significance of your own error here. Let's review:
"They said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”—But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not—Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise." - Qur'an 4:157
And your interpretation:
"It's as if Jesus is seeing them do something to his body, thinking that they are killing him, but in reality they were killing a body made up of matter" and
"His body was crucified, so it appeared to some people that he himself had been killed."
In line with my previous statements about how looking at different translations can serve to narrow the interpretative scope, I subsequently posted this:
"And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain." - Qur'an 4:157 (Sahih International)
And after reading this, you totally change your tune, as below:
It is claimed that Judas was the one that was killed in the place of Christ, that God made him to look like Jesus at the time when he betrayed him with a kiss.
Jesus says in Matthew 26:24: “The son of man goes as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born”.
When Judas came with the soldiers to arrest Jesus, they all fell to the ground upon Jesus identifying himself as the one they sought, it is claimed that this was the moment the switch took place. They carried Judas (looking like Jesus) away to be crucified.
So which is it? Did Jesus actually suffer a physical crucifixion, or not? Which interpretation are you going with? And how is changing your mind based on new information compatible with your stated methodology for interpreting scripture?
I don't have to change my mind at all. Nor do the Christians. Nor do the Muslims. As additional verses and even alternative translations come to the fore such positions remain consistent. You, on the other hand, have to
reinterpret everything.
How could he die, if he wasn't born? That makes no sense. Death acts upon a material body, a body made of matter, yet Jesus' body was not made of matter. That is it wasn't made in the same way material bodies are made.
In short, nothing suggests that Jesus actually died
Again, this is
totally opposed to taking scripture at face value, and not embellishing it beyond what it clearly says just so you can make pet theories fit. I mean I just posted a shitload of verses that clearly talk about the death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus, and you're going to sit there and pretend that death doesn't really mean death, and resurrection doesn't really mean resurrection, all while insisting that literal interpretations are paramount?
Your intellectual integrity really is beyond repair.
You are merely parroting the Christian religious idea, which is but one way to look at it.
Interesting comment. Am I to assume then that you accept that the view of God that Christian's derive from the Bible is a
valid conception (albeit somewhat different from your own), and that if they are properly genuine in their worship then they are indeed
real theists?
Why do you persist in quoting these verses that you [along with an overwhelming majority of scholars, theologians and Christians in general] do not understand?
Fixed. I mean that is after all what you are saying. That
your reading of scripture is correct and that of pretty much the entire Christian world is wrong, because the literal reading I am presenting is that promoted by them.
These are the sorts of things I refer to when I talk about "matters of record". Everything you say here is going to come back to bite you on the arse eventually, in one way or another.
Who witnessed him being raised from the dead? It is obviously assumed that he died which according to the Qur'an, it was made to look like that.
The bible said he was going to die. The bible says he
did die. The bible also says he rose again. Are you suggesting that the bible is wrong? Are you suggesting it was written by someone who made "assumptions"?
Oh, and by the way, Jesus didn't have a material body, so could not really die
The bible says he
did die (a physical death, of course), and in a whole lot more places than I've presented to you here as well. You're simply refusing to take it at face value, and are therefore employing an interpretative methodology that is in opposition to the one you claimed it was necessary to use. Thus your contributions here will remain an ongoing joke until you own up to it.
Ignorance on your part. I have read the NT, I just don't come to the same conclusion as you and your mainstream chums.
That people can come to different conclusions is part of what I am highlighting and you are a
perfect example. You interpret biblical scripture differently from the overwhelming majority of the Christian world because you employ a
different interpretative methodology (one that you have inaccurately characterized, but that doesn't really matter -- it is what it is). And what you get from this is a different idea about who God is, how he has interacted with man throughout the ages, and what he expects from human beings. You can't deny this because your position is clearly not consistent with Christian theology (which, in spite of your claims to the contrary, is
all about embracing the authority of scripture). The key points are as follows:
1) For a Christian, to understand God
properly is to understand that Jesus
is God. You disagree.
2) For a Christian, the road to salvation lies in understanding and accepting that Jesus
must be a central and
primary focus of one's spiritual life. You disagree.
3) For a Christian, it is understood that we live once, die and are then judged by God. I assume you disagree with this too, given your vedic leanings.
So, who is right, and who is wrong?
I said the Pope/Catholic institute contradict Jesus Christ (whose gospel they say they are committed to spreading) because accepts the genesis account as it is, and they don't.
And the Catholics could claim, with equal legitimacy, that you are contradicting the bible by denying the divinity of Jesus, and the reality of his death and resurrection. I mean again, if you're allowed to get all creative with your interpretation of what words like "death" and "resurrection" really mean rather than taking them at face value, then the catholics are allowed to get all creative about what might and might not constitute "creation". And if you're allowed to speculate beyond literal scriptural parameters to try to make sense of your argument, then so are they. You simply can't deny them that freedom with being a total hypocrite.
But you did just that. And thus you are. And this is now a matter of record too.
It is my thread, as I started it, and there was never any room for religious ideologies, not in my opening statement or the title. It is about theism, belief in God, not religion which could mean anything.
Nonsense. "Is it possible to believe in God, and be a darwinist at the same time? please discuss...."
How the fuck
isn't their room for religious ideologies, since religion is all about the belief in and worship of, God!
Try to compel a moderator to enforce this preference if you like. If you succeed, then I'll abide. If not, too bad. My guess is, too bad.
i don't see how one can believe in God, and accept darwinian evolution at the same time, unless God' position is compramised. That being the case then He is not God as defined in every single scripture.
It has already been established that this is only because you've bound God up with a creationist paradigm. Not all theists do that, therefore they don't all have your problem.
Further, as detailed in a post directed at wegs a little while ago, it's actually impossible for the sovereignty of an omnipotent God to be diminished, no matter
what we discover about the nature of his creation. Or do you think God's omnipotence was diminished when Newton's conclusions about planetary orbits were overturned?
