|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Was Jesus a Creationist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I've got a really simple solution for you. Why don't you accept that the Bible says what it says and not what you would like it to say ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
This whole my theology, your theology thing has gotten well out of hand. I suggest we all get back on the topic at hand. CS=1STT=0
Jesus name does not need to be used specifically for a scripture to be talking about him. No, but for a scripture to state that Jesus is the creator, it has to actually state it and not just be able to be interpreted to mean that if we want it too.
If you look at all of the scriptures you will see that they all reference HIM. According to your interpretation (and I don't mean yours solely, but yours and any one else's who subscribe to the same). A jew would see it differently, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
dwise1 writes:
huh? Where did you get that idea? Are you now trying to claim that you were applying a theology which you do not at all believe in? What kind of nonsense are you trying to foist off on us there? Very simple. You were -- and still are -- emphatically denying and railing against the very thought that you were applying your theology in interpreting those verses. Well, if it wasn't your theology, then it must have been somebody else's. In other words, a theology to which you do not hold because if you did hold to it then it would be your theology after all and all your protesting would be meaningless nonsense. And that's the problem: your objections make no sense at all.
dwise1 writes: Your subsequent false accusation is nothing but a red herring, an attempt to draw attention away from your having made a false claim. Are you serious? Look at the words you used and I think if in my position you would have come to the same conclusion. Have you even bothered to look at what I had written? Obviously not, considering your nonsensical protests. And by trying to focus us on such nonsense, you are trying to draw us away from the original issue of your false claim about what the verses state. AKA "tossing out a red herring", a trick to throw tracking dogs off their scent, AKA "rabbit trails" meant to accomplish the same derailing (imagery being that the tracking dog abandons the track in order to chase a rabbit.
wise1 writes: Your actions indicate that your name makes yet another false claim. If you are really seeking the truth, shouldn't you at least try to adhere to the truth? Making false claims and then tossing out red herrings to draw attention away from your false claims is moving in the opposite direction How is attacking my screenname at all relevant to this thread? Please refrain from such obvious personal attacks in your future responses. Trying to divert attention away from the issue of your original claim being false is a dishonest tactic. And employing such a dishonest tactics works against the search for truth. Hello? Duh? Shouldn't take a genius.
dwise1 writes: it would not at all affect the simple and obvious fact that your claim about what those verses state was completely and utterly false. If you were to take a serious look at the scriptures I gave, and applied them with the other scriptures that point to Jesus divinity, you would see that you are the one using a red herring. The following scriptures all point to jesus divinity, and that he is the creator. And you toss out yet another red herring. Everybody else can see it. Why can't you? What any document states is in the actual words it uses. Hello? It's not a question of what it's supposed to mean nor how we might interpret it. It is solely a question of what the document's actual words are. What part of that do you not understand? How many times do we have to explain it to you? How can we make it any plainer? OK, here are two of the verses you cited:
quote: quote: Show us where the word "Jesus" appears in those verses. Show us! Show us where in Psalm 33 (one would need to refer to a Bible for the complete text; I'm not about to type the whole thing out) that the pronoun "he" is made to refer specifically to "Jesus". No, it obviously refers to "the Lord", which is to say to YHWH, AKA "God". Those verses state that "the Lord" is the Creator, which by the Jewish tradition which had produced that Scripture would be YHWH. Again, it is only applying a theology which you share in (yes, it is your theology and the theology of many others as well, but not the theology of many others) that you then interpret those verses as meaning what you claim. And many others, including the community which had produced those verses would totally disagree with your interpretation. What those state and how they could be interpreted are two very different things. If in your original claim you had indicated that it was your interpretation that those verses said that Jesus was the Creator, then that claim would have been true. But since you instead claimed that those verses state that Jesus was the Creator and since those verses clearly do no such thing, then your claim is false. If you're going to continue with this, then stick to the issue of your claim. Stop trying to lead us astray with red herrings. Edited by dwise1, : moved definition of "red herring"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
The Godspell Jesus: The only revered person in history who never wrote his own manuscript. Never happened ever before or after. This leaves the figure of JC to be whatever whoever wants to make of him. And we can say, Europe went for its life - attributing everything valid to JC, and if they could not - then it was not a valid thing.
One thing which renders JC very un-jewish, aside from the latin name, european depictions, gospellian non-hebrew manuscripts, Israel is bad and will die-ho-ho-ho! and other such lovelies - are two standout factors: 1. He never wrote it down! Its so unlike 55 other jewish revered souls. The dead sea scrolls was surpressed for 50 years not because it contained something negative about Jesus - in fact it was surpressed because it was set in the same period of Jesus - and that NOTHINGNESS was said of, by, for him. Shock of shocks - nothing. This while the scrolls contained 100s of copies of all of the OT books, and new ones never known, and which gave details of the minutae news of the day - like reading yesterday's NY Times. Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry sus! 2. Instead of confronting Rome - the gospels hails Jesus for confronting hapless, rowdy money-changers, doing what they did for 2000 years - observing a mandated OT law. WHAT - GASP - SERIOUS!!??? Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr un-jewish!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4980 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
The Godspell Jesus: The only revered person in history who never wrote his own manuscript. Never happened ever before or after. What about the Dhammapada, and the life of Siddartha Gautama? The Buddha was revered for c. 600 years before Jesus was born and never wrote anything down.
This leaves the figure of JC to be whatever whoever wants to make of him. He is not unique here either.
1. He never wrote it down! Its so unlike 55 other jewish revered souls. The dead sea scrolls was surpressed for 50 years not because it contained something negative about Jesus - in fact it was surpressed because it was set in the same period of Jesus - and that NOTHINGNESS was said of, by, for him. Shock of shocks - nothing. This while the scrolls contained 100s of copies of all of the OT books, and new ones never known, and which gave details of the minutae news of the day - like reading yesterday's NY Times. Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry sus! And remember, if Jesus was the Messiah we wouldn’t be sitting here chatting abut Him.
2. Instead of confronting Rome - the gospels hails Jesus for confronting hapless, rowdy money-changers, doing what they did for 2000 years - observing a mandated OT law. WHAT - GASP - SERIOUS!!??? Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr un-jewish! I always found the cleansing of the Temple by a single man to be a ridiculous piece of propaganda. However, keep in mind that Xians have corrupted who and what the Messiah was to be and what he was going to achieve. When it became obvious that Jesus was no messiah, His followers had to come up with some excuses for His blatant failure to achieve anything that the messiah would achieve. Imagine how devastated the Jewish nation would be if the Messiah was defeated? In fact, IF the ”messiah’ was defeated then he wouldn’t have been the messiah promised by God. Jesus. Nice guy, but clearly no messiah.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Seekingthetruth writes,
there are numerous scriptues that state Jesus was the creator of the heavens and the earth Let me get this straight, the Bible says so? Well then that should do it! Its been comfirmed, Jesus did it cause the Bible says he did. I don't see what the problem with that is... All great truths begin as blasphemies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
IamJoseph writes,
aside from the latin name Please don't tell me you mean latin as in Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican etc...WOW!!! Jesus, the name, derives from the Hebrew-Aramaic name "Yeshua", which means "YHWH rescues". So if it does say YHWH is the creator, then Yeshua(Jesus,YHWH rescues), as the Jews refered to Him, is the creator. Yeshua, is YHWH in the flesh...as I've been told by people I don't trust. All great truths begin as blasphemies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jjsemsch Member (Idle past 5797 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
Col 1:16
“For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.” This verse doesn’t specifically say Jesus, but Paul is talking about Jesus here. Earlier in the chapter he refers to Jesus as Lord and later in the chapter in verse 20 he says, “by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” Could Paul possibly be talking about anyone but Jesus? Also in John 1:1-5“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.” Later in John 1:14“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Jesus is the Word made flesh. From that is it unreasonable to say Jesus was the Creator? Then as far as Jesus being a creationist: Mark 10:6“Jesus replied, “But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.” In Matthew 24:37-38 and Luke 17:26-27 Jesus speaking says.“As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark.” Is it not reasonable to say that from these passages it is clear Jesus believed the book of Genesis to be literal history?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
seekingtruth,
seekingtruth writes: In the bible God and Jesus are the same. God is actually three people, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. If you look at all of the scriptures I listed you will see what I mean. The Bible talks of God and Jesus in the same way. this is an interpretation. I suggest you do some research on that topic because there are Christians that believe Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are 3 different beings with the same purpose. However, it is accepted by the Catholic Church that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one being. Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
seekingthetruth,
it is completely theoretical that Christ even lived. Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
jjsemsch,
The issue is that the Bible is filled with manuscripts; hence copies of copies of this "word of Christianity". How can we even know the writings in the Bible are even accurate to the supposed words of "Jesus Christ"? No it is not reasonable to say that the supposed Jesus Christ supported anything in your post. ref: http://EvC Forum: Inerrant Bible Manuscripts? -->EvC Forum: Inerrant Bible Manuscripts? Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Define, 'CREATIONIST'?
The term is first recorded in the opening preamble of genesis, and is vested in the singular, perfect [past/present/future] tense. It is a technical term, signifying EX NEHILO, because no tools or products contained in the universe existed then - thus the mandated advocation not to worship any images within the universe, which are post-creation factors. Technically, to 'create' ['something from nothing'], is totally varied from 'formed' or 'made' ['something from something else'], and does not occur outside of the first creation chapter of genesis. To be a creationist, one must clearly and totally acknowledge that Monotheism in its strictest possible sense is the first and primal factor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2498 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: It is a technical term, signifying EX NEHILO Joe, technically, for someone who is so keen on the idea of creatio ex nihilo, you should have learned how to spell the damned thing by now. It is several months since I first noticed the phrase "EX NEHILO" on EvC, and only one person (its creator) has ever used it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4980 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
To be a creationist, one must clearly and totally acknowledge that Monotheism in its strictest possible sense is the first and primal factor.
A cerebral bypass also helps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jjsemsch Member (Idle past 5797 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
The topic of the thread is "Was Jesus a Creationist?" If we can't discuss this topic using the Bible what do you propose we use?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024