Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All you have shown is that you don't believe the Bible.
I believe Daniel has stated repeatedly that he does, in fact, believe the Bible. He may not interpret it the same way you do, but your statement that he does not believe the Bible amounts to your bearing false witness against him. You are hardly in a position to be able to accurately state what someone else believes or does not believe.
I believe Daniel has stated repeatedly that he does, in fact, believe the Bible. He may not interpret it the same way you do, but your statement that he does not believe the Bible amounts to your bearing false witness against him.
His statements show otherwise. For instance, he denies that God is omnipotent-all powerful, that God is omnipresent- everywhere present, when the Bible teaches that He is. I stand by my statement.
No McClellan. You are the one barking ''Nu-uh!'' and making dismissive statements just as you have always done. Not me. All you have shown is that you don't believe or understand the Bible. You have not defended your claims. I have shown you from Scripture that God is triune, that He is omnipotent and omnipresence. You just simply deny it.
No, I've given perfectly logical reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The Bible says there is only one true God.
No, John 17:3 makes reference to a God it describes as "the one true God." That's a far cry a unilateral ontological declaration, as I said. You never responded to my points, remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Therefore any references to other gods - be they idols, the false gods of the nations, angelic beings are not God.
I didn't say they were "God," I said they were gods. You're begging the question by presupposing that God exhausts the category of divinity within an argument about the breadth of the category. Good grief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
What you demonstrate is that scholars can be quite ignorant. You've taken up enough of my time.
I'm not the one appealing to the consensus of the Church, or just barking "Nu-uh!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Oh yes. I almost forgot. Psalm 45:6-7 does not refer to David. It refers to the house of David regarding the eternal throne which will be fulfilled by Jesus when He returns to reign forever. But go ahead and bark ''nu-uh'.
Yes, it refers to the throne when it says "your throne," but when it says "O God," it refers to the Israelite king, and originally David. Go retreat back to Google and try to find a better exposition of the text. You can never escape the fact, however, that the verse refers to the king as "god," and then refers to the God of that god.
His statements show otherwise. For instance, he denies that God is omnipotent-all powerful, that God is omnipresent- everywhere present, when the Bible teaches that He is. I stand by my statement.
Suit yourself. As long as you get to define all of the words, of course you're going to be able to claim you're using them correctly and your opponent isn't. I'm curious, though, do you make a distinction between ontological and functional omnipresence? If you don't, you should, because the Bible clearly states that, from an ontological perspective, God is "in Heaven" and not "everywhere are once." With respect to His omnipotence, Daniel has explained how your understanding of the word (when used to describe God) is problematic in a number of respects. You've heard the question, "Can God create a rock that is so heavy He can't lift it?" Well, that question is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to logical fallacies relating to your understanding of what the Bible means when it uses the word "omnipotent" to mean what you consist it means.
I don't know whether Daniel would agree with me or not, but I'd say God actually is omnipotent, omnipresent (functionally) and omniscient. I just don't insist that my interpretation of those words is the only potentially correct one. And, for the record, I do believe the Bible to be the word of God.
His statements show otherwise. For instance, he denies that God is omnipotent-all powerful, that God is omnipresent- everywhere present, when the Bible teaches that He is. I stand by my statement.
The Bible nowhere teaches God is omnipresent. It unilaterally and repeatedly teaches that he is physically discreet and corporeal. His omnipresence and incorporeality is a post-biblical philosophical development.
That's interesting. I would have sworn you'd consider Jesus Christ of the New Testament to be the same individual as Jehovah of the Old Testament, and Jehovah to be none other than JHWH.
That's interesting. I would have sworn you'd consider Jesus Christ of the New Testament to be the same individual as Jehovah of the Old Testament, and Jehovah to be none other than JHWH.
I don't include any faith claims into my scholarship. It's as neutral as I can make it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
