Claims of God Being Omnipotent in the Bible

i think all writing is inspired, period. but then, i use the proper definition of inspiration, and not the "god forced my hand to make this" definition.

yes. jesus, whether or not he was god, was also man, and a man descended from jacob. that means he is held to mosaic law. breaking mosaic law in such a manner would justify death.besides, why believe someone who walks around teaching humility and then claiming to be god?also, i can reasonable prove, biblically, that jesus could not have been god. the title he calls himself, "son of man," although having messianic implications, literally means "mortal." part of the definition of god (see gen 3) is immortality. "son of man" is a common prophetic name as well, ezekial is called this name several hundred times."son of god" although possibly rendered properly as "other god" is common title for entities below god. both satan and david are called by this name, as well as adam (god's literal son).there is nothing about jesus or any messiah that indicates deity, except in the book of john. and even then it's based on faulty aramaic rendering of the name of god in the targums.

kings in other local cultures were gods. this was unacceptable to the monotheistic jews. and so their kings were the next step down, sons of god.calling jesus the son of god is designed to indicate kingship, and because of the restoration of the line of david, messiah-ship. but nt author misunderstood this idea, and took it literally. but you can't be both the literal son of david, and the literal son of god.

let's start by asking a CHRISTIAN dictionary what the word "seed" means since you don't seem to think context is a valid textual method (it is, btw).

quote:

---

1) seed, sowing, offspring
   a) a sowing
   b) seed
   c) semen virile
   d) offspring, descendants, posterity, children
   e) of moral quality
1) a practitioner of righteousness (fig.)
   f) sowing time (by meton)

---

now, you can even go and find midrashim by hebrew rabbis before the time fo christ that think this is messianic. but there's what the text says, and there's what you want the text to say. this just says "child" and because god is talking to the WOMAN he refers to it as her child. that's how the text puts it, and this not absurd or foreign or out of place in the bible at all.i'm not making up definition. but you are. i know what the word means, and there's nothing in it that indicates ANYTHING miraculous in the slightest. the theme is there, sure, but it can also be read literally. and was by many groups of jews. alright, make me look stupid then. i'm gonna DESCRIBE something for you.it's called a snake. it crawls along on its stomach. it licks the ground.what am i describing? seriously, this is basic reading comprehension people. what does the book SAY?

you misunderstood my statement. "they line with the ot about as well" means that the nt and the bom compare adequately to each other in relation to the old testament, in the aspect that they neither fit right.parts of the nt were copied and influenced from the ot as well, btw. and often misinterpretted and misread. see the genesis 3 example we're talking about. see also virgin birth (which refers to an event within the lifetime of isaiah, doesn't involve a virgin, and is not the prophesy in itself). or see the passage about jesus riding two donkeys at the same time. i'm gonna make the obvious statement. psalms contains poetry. songs, actually, because they were set to music. they are praises of god, usually, and never prophetic or historical.and before you bring it up, psalm is david's coronation psalm. not prophesy. if any of the five books of psalms were prophetic, they'd be in the nevi'im (prophets) and not ketuvim (writings). wrong section of the tanakh.most seem to claim authorship. but actually, we're not even sure that "a psalm of david" means that it was written BY david. it's possible it means that they were written by a psalmist in employment of david. (just as king james did not translate the bible himself) yes, but written but isaiah, and not god. (or rather, THREE isaiahs. but that's besides the point)

sorry, but that's demonstratably flat out wrong.here's the most books jesus mentions:

quote:

---

Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

---

let's translate to hebrew for a second.
law = torah
prophets = nevi'im.now, assuming that each division contains the same books now as it did two thousand years ago (which i could probably show that it did), the torah is the first five books. nevi'im contains, joshua, judges, samuel/kings, isaiah, jeremiah, ezekiel, and the 12 minor prophets (hosea, joel, amos, obadiah, jonah, micah, nahum, habakkuk, zephaniah, haggai, zechariah, malachi). jesus also mentions psalms.that means that jesus never once mentions the majority of the ketuvim (writings). that rules out:proverbs
job
song of songs/solomon
ruth
lamentations
ecclesiastes
esther
daniel
ezra
nehemiah
chronicles.now, chronicles is boring, and i've never read ezra or ecclesiastes, but i REALLY like job, and proverbs, song of songs, and lamentations. not to mention daniel. and i bet your bible has all of those books, doesn't it?you really wanna know the defining characteristic of what's the christian "old testament?" what's in the hebrew tanakh. the books are exactly copied from the hebrew library at the time. there appears to be no other reasoning in this matter. when martin luther goes to make his german translation, he selects, suprise, only the books of the masoretic tanakh. as opposed to catholic's latin vulgate, which contains the apocrypha. (via the septuagint? i forget)This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 02-28-2005 03:14 AM

probably, yes. yes, but god didn't inseminate solomon's mother. that's what i meant by literal son of god. yes, such as in psalm 2.

then he could not have been fully god, if he was not fully a god. but as even PART human, and a son of jacob, he's held to the mosaic covenant. so lazarus is a god? what about all those skeletons god puts back together in front of ezekiel? are they all gods too? god controls life and death. he can resurrect whomever he pleases. no, by logic. no amount of evidence will ever prove anything, just make it really stupid to think anything else. logically, do die, jesus has to be mortal. to be mortal, he has to be a man. as a man, he's held to the law. if he breaks the law, it defeats the entire point of your theology. except it's plainly obvious to anyone who knows how to read anything with any degree of comprehension that there is more than one author in the bible. in fact, it's alos pretty obvious that there is usually more than one author within each book. genesis has at least 3. isaiah has 3. psalms has 5 separate sources, each with different authors.reads like the word of god? how do you know what god writes like?try reading some apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts, and tell me if you think they sound like god too. because most of them do. because what you're doing is mistaking cultural identity with deity. i've operated a chas register for years. i had a counterfeit bill go through my hands once. i didn't even notice. because it felt real, and looked real. now, i check for watermarks. latent images put into the paper. and i look for the strip.see, authenticity is really in the details. anyone can write a book that SOUNDS like what you think the bible is. but the trick is to look a little closer. psalm 2: the coronation psalm.think about it. the lord said to me: "you are my son, i have fathered you THIS DAY." christians don't seem to be good with "this day" for some reason. but it means that whoever this is directed to was not god's son, and then BECAME god's son. that is what it says. it's talking about crowning a king, probably david.psalm 22: we've talked about this one before.it's interesting because it's the one jesus quotes when he's on the cross. (do you honestly think jesus hadn't read psalms?) look, they even cast lots over the clothes. wonder where the nt authors got that idea, hm? but look who's doing it: the evil ones of bashan. and after they've torn his body apart. read the text if you don't believe me.psalm 72:where does jesus conquer the enemies of the jews? where does he make them lick the dust? when did he rule from sea to shining sea? actually, if you read it at all, it's the last prayer of david, but at the top it says "of solomon." follow the parallelim, "endow the king with your judgements / the king's son with your righteousness." jesus didn't have a son, but david did. and his name was solomon.psalm 89:i don't even know what you're talking about. it's ethan the ezrahite talking about his relationship to david and god.psalm 132:is the "annointed one" business you're talking about? notice how it's always in parallel with david. it's possible it holds messianic significance, sure. (so does a lot of the ot) but it's hardly prophesy. it's talking about a king. any king. maybe even david. remember every king of judah was "annointed." that's what the word means. or rather, vice versa. like i said, pre-hoc propter-hoc fallacy. unique to religion, i think. well it compells me to think he wasn't. and that whoever wrote the new testament doesn't know how to read hebrew very well. considering it does mention the specific parties at hand, and doesn't match the depiction of the crucifixion at all. it's about a pack of wild dogs tearing a man to pieces. have you even read psalm 22?it's also easy to show that nt authors misinterpretted a lot of ot stuff.and still, pre-hoc propter-hoc. if there's a corellation between two events, it's more likely that the second was influenced by the first than vice versa.

well, what i mean is that i don't think "son of god" has a darned thing to do with genetics. it's a title.and obviously one that can applied well after birth, see psalm 2.

this bill in question not only felt like a real bill, it passed the marker test. it's actually the reason we no longer use the markers: they don't work well enough.in other words, i'd bet it was printed on exactly the same kind of paper real money is. however, the bank is obviously better at checking than we are, or i am, because they spotted it and we didn't.what i mean to say is exactly what you're saying. it takes experience. and frankly, the average religious person doesn't even have enough experience (or common sense) to tell one book of the bible from another, let alone start talking about authenticity.here's a question for you: is deuteronomy a complete forgery, from the reign of king josiah? http://EvC Forum: the forgery of deuteronomy -->EvC Forum: the forgery of deuteronomytextual hints point to yes. this is not a new thought, either. it's been known for at least 2000 years that moses could not have written deuteronomy. it's setup is that it's the speech of moses delivered from across the jordan. so it had to be written by someone else on the other side of jordan from moses. but ask a fundamentalist, and it's the word of god written down by moses.

sure. not jesus. his explanation is not "as god, i'm allowed to do whatever i want thank you!" it's that it's not work, it's helping something or someone out. the point of sabbath is that you get a break, not that you're not allowed to pull you ass out of a hole in the ground.