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.
Yahweh (who has/had a wife)?
Yahweh who can not have a wife because he is the one and only god?
Yahweh and his son who are the same entity?
Yahweh and his son, who are two different entities?
The real god and his son who know that Yahweh is an evil god?
Because that is what you Bible claims.
Because we are not full of it, we know your Bible better than you do.
The God that told us to do good for blessings, and to do evil for curses.
I think you mean that is what some Bible commentators may claim.
No one in the Bible ever claimed God has, or had, a wife in the Bible...
Foolishness. First off, I don't think you ever read much of the Bible and only know what you were told.
Second, if you ever did read any of it, you didn't give it much thought.
Where is this claim in the Bible that God has, or ever had, a wife? It doesn't exist.
*snipped your post*
Funny I can tell when you've had your afternoon summer cocktail ...your grammar gets so bad...and you're are too good for that. Typos are just typos...but, grammar?
The grammar may have been bad, but the points were sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auralmack
The God that told us to do good for blessings, and to do evil for curses.
I think you mean that is what some Bible commentators may claim.
No one in the Bible ever claimed God has, or had, a wife in the Bible...
Foolishness. First off, I don't think you ever read much of the Bible and only know what you were told.
Second, if you ever did read any of it, you didn't give it much thought.
Where is this claim in the Bible that God has, or ever had, a wife? It doesn't exist.
The problem is that the Bible is far later than you think and the God that it it talks about is far earlier than you know.
I couldn't find any vids on the probable composition of the "Mosaic" books in Babylon, but I did find this on the possible Yahweh consort.
He is wise to suggest caution. But i certainly got the very strong impression reading the OT) of an ongoing polemical (and indeed political) battle between the Israelites whose tribal religion was one amongst the others (Notably I'd suggest Phoenecia which was the only one of the old Canaanite states that had survived the collapse - or been repopulated from Carthage, rather and some Syrian gods) and those who didn't approve of foreign influences and wanted Judea's religion (I say Judea because already we had the split into Israel which - I rec\all - the Bible accuses of being to tolerant of foreign gods . and Judah which seems to have been run by a Priestly lodge that was as often as not in dispute with the king about not being as intolerant of foreign gods as they would like.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the original Israelite tribal god became after the vanishment of the Northern kingdom, regarded not only as the Only god of the Jews, and not only the Chief god (being identified with El and his wife) but eventually (I suspect under Persian Zoroastrian influence which also provided a Hell and Satan) was considered the only god there was.Jewish Monotheism, I'm inclined to think wasn't settled until the post Exilic period.
Arguable, but it's a lot more complicated than the common Theistic: 'The Bible goes from Year dot to the present and future. No other books, Holy or not, count for anything' tend to suppose. A lot more is known about the ancient middle east than we get from the Bible, and a more early, relaively minor tribal god, with a wife and perhaps even being depicted in carving, though they probably didn't sit for their portrait.
P.s I con't want to do a derail into 'Biblical Archaeology' but he says the temple matches 'Solomon's temple' in Jerusalem. But so far as i know there is no trace of Solomon's temple. The remains of the one there is is Herod's temple. Presumably built on the destroyed earlier one. But who knows what the ground plan was? Herod's was supposedly modelled on Ezekiel's description. But is that accurate?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-17-2019 at 04:08 PM..
You are right. I don't claim to know God. You are the one claiming to know God. So is the God you know omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing) and omnipresent (present everywhere)? Or does the God you know sometimes FAIL to achieve His purpose?
Omnipotent? can do anything, No such claim. God can do anything...No, I don't think that.
Omniscient, No...but Mr. SubC. knows everything Mr C. knows plus things he doesn't know. God did not know Adam would fall, God did not know Abel would kill a lamb and eat it. God regretted making man...Omniscient, No.
Omnipresent? I'm not sure even an infinite being could be present everywhere in the universe at the same time...
"Or does the God you know sometimes FAIL to achieve His purpose?" God failed to achieve his purpose with Adam, and Israel. So yes.
I can see it in John's writings, the children of darkness and the children of light, it was long ago but when it was fresh on my mind I came to the conclusion they were influenced by Zoroastrian and especially John in some of his N.T. writings...it seemed obvious.
I can see it in John's writings, the children of darkness and the children of light, it was long ago but when it was fresh on my mind I came to the conclusion they were influenced by Zoroastrian and especially John in some of his N.T. writings...it seemed obvious.
Well well. We may agree on more than we imagine.
I was going to post this about a god that wasn't omnipotent, didn't know everything and who sometimes failed.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” (Epicurus).
But I watched (while I pulled a ring pull 180 degrees on a tinny of cider and lit up...) a vid -talk of the gospel of Judas.. These Lost Gospels are really worth looking into.
Essentially 'I don't understand what you are talking about, therefore you are wrong'.
And 'Ah a passage from the Bible. Let's preach a bit and pretends that's evidence'.
You are going to have to do a lot better than that.
I don't pretend to get the total energy = 0 or 'the expanding universe implies a flat edge but to dismiss that because I don't understand it is just too dismissive. I may reserve judgement about things I don't (or didn't) understand, like Kalam or DNA imporabability stats or Plantinga's Ontological argument, but i didn't try to imply that they were wrong before I had some idea what they were arguing.
Are you trying to blow your nose?
Some claim Nothing existed before the Big Bang.
303 Guy claims Nothing exists after the Big Bang.
Essentially, hold on to your rocking horse...we will get there eventually.
Some claim Nothing existed before the Big Bang.
303 Guy claims Nothing exists after the Big Bang.
Essentially, hold on to your rocking horse...we will get there eventually.
The remark after the big Bang as i recall is that total energy in the universe cancels out as 0. So no creation needed or implied. i believe that's the point. The 'Nothing' before the BB is a suggestion of a non- created state that had the property of acting as thoguh it had substance (potential)., Bottom line, don'r dismiss it before you understand it.
Omnipotent? can do anything, No such claim. God can do anything...No, I don't think that.
Omniscient, No...but Mr. SubC. knows everything Mr C. knows plus things he doesn't know. God did not know Adam would fall, God did not know Abel would kill a lamb and eat it. God regretted making man...Omniscient, No.
Omnipresent? I'm not sure even an infinite being could be present everywhere in the universe at the same time...
"Or does the God you know sometimes FAIL to achieve His purpose?" God failed to achieve his purpose with Adam, and Israel. So yes.
Well as it happens there IS such a claim. God's omnipotence is specified in the NT in fact.
Rev.19
[6] And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia:for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Are you questioning the authority and veracity of the NT? If so, then say so.
For God to be omnipotent, He would necessarily have to be omniscient as well. While the Bible does not directly use the word omniscient, God's omniscience is indicated.
Psalm 139:
[16]Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.
Psalm 56:
[8]You have taken account of my wanderings; Put my tears in Your bottle. Are they not in Your book?
Psalm 40:
[7]Then I said, "Behold, I come; In the scroll of the book it is written of me. [8]I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart.
As for omnipresent, an omnipotent God has the ability to choose any characteristic that pleases Him.
Your God is apparently capable of screwing up. My condolences to your failure God.
Some claim Nothing existed before the Big Bang.
303 Guy claims Nothing exists after the Big Bang.
Essentially, hold on to your rocking horse...we will get there eventually.
Some have indeed proposed that nothing existed before the big bang. Others propose that God existed, and then declare that the question "what existed before God" is a meaningless question. Which effectively closes the door on any further consideration of the subject.
The problem of course is that the big bang currently represents as far back as we can extrapolate. Because the big bang is currently as far back as we have good observed evidence for.
One of the things that IS observed however, is that every effect is preceded by a cause, without fail. Concluding that the big bang, or the existence of God, occurred without cause, or from nothing, contradicts all observation concerning cause and effect.
One objection that is commonly made is that time is a product of space, and that time cannot exist without space. Space (the universe) was created by the big bang. A valid objection.
But we have also learned, and it is now thoroughly established, that time is relative to the position (the conditions under which) the observer finds themselves. Do conditions exist outside of our universe in which the passage of time has meaning? We cannot currently answer that question. But we have no reason to exclude the possibility.
So... is the big bang a result of something that existed (a cause) prior to the big bang (the effect)? The trail of cause and effect breadcrumbs that leads back to the big bang would certainly suggest so.
I can see it in John's writings, the children of darkness and the children of light, it was long ago but when it was fresh on my mind I came to the conclusion they were influenced by Zoroastrian and especially John in some of his N.T. writings...it seemed obvious.
It's pretty obvious that the Pentateuch had a lot of Zoroastrian strains in 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.
