|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Suzanne
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
 |
|
"Rupert Morrish" <rupert@morrish.org> wrote in message
news:6cr0bfF3h06d3U1@mid.individual.net...
| Quote: |
Suzanne wrote:
[snip]
Macroevolution is not the same thing as microevolution.
If it were, then macro would be called micro, and there
would be no need for two different terms.
This is true. Most of the people drawing a distinction are evolutionists,
who, unlike brave Ray, have abandoned their previous position that
(micro-)evolution doesn't happen, and retreated to the currently more
defensible position that macro-evolution has not been observed (although
it has, for the definition of macro-evolution accepted by biologists).
Macro is
supposed to involve a DNA change, whereas micro does
not have a DNA change.
If you don't change the DNA, what you have is a clone. I don't know your
family circumstances, so I suppose it's possible that you are a clone of
your mother, but the rest of us are a fairly random selection of alleles
from each of our parents, plus a hundred or so mutations unique to
ourselves.
I don't know how to word this, but I was trying |
to say that I believe that in macroevolution,
some new genetic material would have to be
made, it seems like to me, in order to produce a
kind of "lock" in the DNA in order that the newly
formed species can produce issue that does not
revert back to the former species the parent is
descended from. If anyone can ever define "kinds"
though, I don't think animals evolve past their
kind. I don't think "kinds" is equal to species, but
greater than species.
| Quote: |
Macro is something that has
occurred above the species level, and micro is something
that happens within a species' level.
Yes, these are the usual definitions.
You evidently believe
that the process is the same and that when a lifeform in
one species gets enough variation changes within it's
DNA,
Not really. There is variation within species (as I explained above).
Sometimes, a breeding population gets split in two. It can be
geographical, perhaps if one half of the population crosses a river or a
mountain range, or it could be that the two sub-populations are exploiting
different niches, such as nut-eaters and seed-eaters in Darwins finches.
Whatever the cause, the two populations are now affected by different
environments, and micro-evolution will take them in different directions.
What you are describing is microevolution, though, |
and not speciation, or macro, I believe.
| Quote: |
then the DNA changes and it becomes another
species, capable of producing offspring with the
supposedly new DNA change, within the supposed
new species estate.
At some point, the two populations stop breeding with each other. It can
be that they have accumulated significant mutations that hybrids are
sterile. It can be that hybrids are not able to exploit either niche as
well as pure-breds, and so do not thrive. It could just be that the
hybrids are unattractive, and do not find mates. Once that happens, there
are two new species.
How do you know that they have accumulated |
significant mutations? And why do you say that
they become two new species when mating
ceases? It seems to me that they should be
producing a new species population, rather than
ceasing to mate. Or did you mean that they cease
to mate with their own species? Also, you are
saying that hybrids are pure-bred? How can a
hybrid be a pure-bred? It's a mixture. In the
plant world, one time I grafted a valencia orange
bud onto an average orange trees, and the
branch that had the graft on it produced valencia
oranges, while the rest of the limbs did not
produce valencias on their branches. Any branch
off of of the branch with the graft on it, would
produce Valencias if a cutting was rooted. But
if the seeds were planted and grown into a tree
from seed, the plant would revert back to the
original tree's kind of oranges.
| Quote: |
This is a crude example,
This shows your lack of breeding ;) Oddly enough, evolution is all about
breeding. You are different from your mother, and the chimpanzee at the
zoo is different from her mother. Without any daughter ever being
significantly different from her mother, your great^300,000-grandmother
and the chimpanzee's great^300,000-grandmother are the same ape.
So you are saying that the apes and man branched. |
What is making you think this is more than just
theory? May I ask what information you have that
gives conclusive proof of this, or do you treat this
still as a theory, yourself?
| Quote: |
but it
would be about like me taking a liter of cola, and
pouring it into a giant glass, bigger than people
drink. If I keep on pouring slowly and steadily it
would suddenly become a glass of orange juice
because the DNA changed. That is not a very likely
thing to happen.
It's more like taking a group of wild rock pigeons, and from them breeding
short-faced tumblers, giant runts, and other sorts of fancy pigeons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pigeon_breeds
I believe that variation does occur within a species |
for the reasons that you described and some that
you have not mentioned. This is microevolution.
| Quote: |
You are very nice to explain your position.
Suzanne |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ye Old One
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 02:06:10 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@flash.net>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
| Quote: |
"Rupert Morrish" <rupert@morrish.org> wrote in message
news:6cr0bfF3h06d3U1@mid.individual.net...
Suzanne wrote:
[snip]
Macroevolution is not the same thing as microevolution.
If it were, then macro would be called micro, and there
would be no need for two different terms.
This is true. Most of the people drawing a distinction are evolutionists,
who, unlike brave Ray, have abandoned their previous position that
(micro-)evolution doesn't happen, and retreated to the currently more
defensible position that macro-evolution has not been observed (although
it has, for the definition of macro-evolution accepted by biologists).
Macro is
supposed to involve a DNA change, whereas micro does
not have a DNA change.
If you don't change the DNA, what you have is a clone. I don't know your
family circumstances, so I suppose it's possible that you are a clone of
your mother, but the rest of us are a fairly random selection of alleles
from each of our parents, plus a hundred or so mutations unique to
ourselves.
I don't know how to word this, but I was trying
to say that I believe that in macroevolution,
some new genetic material would have to be
made,
|
No, you are wrong.
| Quote: |
it seems like to me, in order to produce a
kind of "lock" in the DNA in order that the newly
formed species can produce issue that does not
revert back to the former species the parent is
descended from.
|
In the early stages that would happen a lot, mainly because the new
and the old will still form a breeding group. That is one reason why
isolation is often required to allow divergence.
| Quote: |
If anyone can ever define "kinds"
though, I don't think animals evolve past their
kind. I don't think "kinds" is equal to species, but
greater than species.
|
Since life, and that is all life today, has descended from simple
single-celled organisms, your statement cannot be true.
| Quote: |
Macro is something that has
occurred above the species level, and micro is something
that happens within a species' level.
Yes, these are the usual definitions.
You evidently believe
that the process is the same and that when a lifeform in
one species gets enough variation changes within it's
DNA,
Not really. There is variation within species (as I explained above).
Sometimes, a breeding population gets split in two. It can be
geographical, perhaps if one half of the population crosses a river or a
mountain range, or it could be that the two sub-populations are exploiting
different niches, such as nut-eaters and seed-eaters in Darwins finches.
Whatever the cause, the two populations are now affected by different
environments, and micro-evolution will take them in different directions.
What you are describing is microevolution, though,
and not speciation, or macro, I believe.
|
Macro is just several steps of micro - it is all evolution.
| Quote: |
then the DNA changes and it becomes another
species, capable of producing offspring with the
supposedly new DNA change, within the supposed
new species estate.
At some point, the two populations stop breeding with each other. It can
be that they have accumulated significant mutations that hybrids are
sterile. It can be that hybrids are not able to exploit either niche as
well as pure-breds, and so do not thrive. It could just be that the
hybrids are unattractive, and do not find mates. Once that happens, there
are two new species.
How do you know that they have accumulated
significant mutations? And why do you say that
they become two new species when mating
ceases? It seems to me that they should be
producing a new species population, rather than
ceasing to mate. Or did you mean that they cease
to mate with their own species? Also, you are
saying that hybrids are pure-bred? How can a
hybrid be a pure-bred? It's a mixture.
|
Do learn to read.
| Quote: |
In the
plant world, one time I grafted a valencia orange
bud onto an average orange trees, and the
branch that had the graft on it produced valencia
oranges, while the rest of the limbs did not
produce valencias on their branches.
|
That is grafting you dipstick.
| Quote: |
Any branch
off of of the branch with the graft on it, would
produce Valencias if a cutting was rooted. But
if the seeds were planted and grown into a tree
from seed, the plant would revert back to the
original tree's kind of oranges.
|
No they would not.
You really are very ignorant when it comes to biology.
| Quote: |
This is a crude example,
This shows your lack of breeding ;) Oddly enough, evolution is all about
breeding. You are different from your mother, and the chimpanzee at the
zoo is different from her mother. Without any daughter ever being
significantly different from her mother, your great^300,000-grandmother
and the chimpanzee's great^300,000-grandmother are the same ape.
So you are saying that the apes and man branched.
|
No, we are still apes. Never forget that.
| Quote: |
What is making you think this is more than just
theory? May I ask what information you have that
gives conclusive proof of this, or do you treat this
still as a theory, yourself?
|
First, look up the meaning of theory in science.
Second, conclusive proof has come within the last decade in the form
of comparison of the genetic code of both apes (us and the chimps).
| Quote: |
but it
would be about like me taking a liter of cola, and
pouring it into a giant glass, bigger than people
drink. If I keep on pouring slowly and steadily it
would suddenly become a glass of orange juice
because the DNA changed. That is not a very likely
thing to happen.
It's more like taking a group of wild rock pigeons, and from them breeding
short-faced tumblers, giant runts, and other sorts of fancy pigeons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pigeon_breeds
I believe that variation does occur within a species
for the reasons that you described and some that
you have not mentioned. This is microevolution.
You are very nice to explain your position.
Suzanne
-- |
Bob. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Anthony Williams
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:40 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
Suzanne wrote:
| Quote: |
eroot@swva.net> wrote in message
news:f1481dc9-360d-4740-8fad-24d8e7ba02a9@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On May 19, 1:17 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:d4767d26-da91-4fd5-aeef-6797cdd6cff2@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 10, 10:15 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
(snip)
It also shows that
A. is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the
God the Father, whose son is Jesus Christ.
Not true. He very specifically _is_ the God of Abraham, etc. "Allah"
is just the Arabic word for "God," used by all Arabs, whether
Christian, Jewish or Muslim. It is just as dumb to say Allah isn't
God as it is to say Deo or Gott isn't God.
Also, Muslims believe that Jesus was the son of God, just not that he
was _identical_ with God.
I used to think that what you are saying is true
until I read what the Koran says about God and
about Jesus.
The Bible says that Jesus is God's "only begotten Son,"
in John 3:16; John 1:18; John 3:18; 1 John 4:9.
The Koran says:
(God) begets not, nor was He begotten. (Qur'an 112:3)
The Bible also says that the Son, Jesus says that he
and the Father are one. "If you've seen me, you've
seen the Father." So he says they are identical with
one another, while the Muslims teach that the Son
if not identical with God. The Bible also teaches
that Jesus Christ IS God in John 1:1.
Suzanne
But those are theological differences in opinion about the nature of
Jesus, _not_ that Muslims and Christians don't worship the same god
(i.e., God).
These are NOT opinions. Neither of them claim to be
opinions, each claims to be the word of God. You have
the free will to choose the one that you think is the
word of God. I have chosen that it is the Bible. You can
read for yourself that they are NOT identical with one
another. One says that God did not begat, and one says
that Jesus is God's "only begotten son" (John 3:16).
Since Adam and Eve were on the face of the earth,
according to the Bible, God has promised that he would
send the Seed/Redeemer (Genesis 3:15) who would
cause the death blow to Satan, i.e. the seed of the serpent
that tempted Eve to sin. The Seed/Redeemer/Messiah
is spoken of for thousands of years in the Old Testament.
Finally Daniel pins down the time and says that when the
Messiah comes, his life will be cut short and yet that will
not be for his sake, but for the sake of others. It tells a
countdown which can be traced. It tells that when the
messiah is "cut off," in other words, when he dies, after
that the Temple/holy place will be destroyed. In the year
72 A.D., the temple was destroyed in Jerusalem. Jesus
even told that when that happened, not one stone would
be left upon another. (The Western Wall is not part of
the temple, but part of the retaining wall that was around
the temple.) Daniel told this long before Jesus was on
the earth. These Bible verses are hundreds and thousands
of years apart. In the New Testament when Jesus was
talking with a woman of Samaria, commonly called
"The Woman At The Well," that he asked for a drink of
water, he revealed unto her that he is the Messiah. He
also told her things about herself that astonished her that
he knew, and she believed, and went and told everyone
that she had met the Messiah. The New Testament says
that one day later in his ministry, Jesus was in the place
where the people worshipped and he read to them it says
all the places in the Scriptures that were about the
Messiah, and then he announced that he is that one. They
wanted to run him out of town on a rail and said he was
guilty of blaspheming God. As a nation the Jews did not
accept him as being the Messiah. They were looking for
a king that would bring immediate peace. But if they
had read what Daniel had said, they would not have
concluded that because Daniel, one whom they knew
was a prophet told them already what to expect, and
it would not be a king that immediately would take
over the world.
In fairness to the ones that believe the Koran, in the
Middle East, there is an idea, and it comes from
the present day Jews, that in each year a person is
born that potentially could become the Messiah. So,
when the Muslims mention Jesus as being a prophet,
and when they study the Bible (which many do) to
see what words Jesus the prophet says, they also
believe at the same time, that since he died on the
cross, he must not be the messiah. You see they
don't have any problem accepting the virgin birth,
and they honor Mary also as being a pure woman
of faith. But this idea from the Middle East says
also that since Jesus didn't make it, in their
estimation, then someone yet will come who will
be the Messiah. However, the scriptures make it
plain that messiahship is not an office to attain to.
It is something that one already is when he is born.
The Jews in Jesus day did not believe what these
modern day people say. When the wise men came
to see Herod and wanted to find the Christ child
(Christ means the same thing as "messiah," which
is "the annointed one), Herod called his Jewish
courtiers together to determine from them where
this king of the Jews would be born. They gave
him an answer that he would be born in Bethlehem.
They seemed to have the information then that he
would be born king, not given kingship later. In
fact, Isaiah chapter 9 tells that the messiah will
be a child when he is the messiah. The book of
Matthew also backs up Isaiah 7:14 about this
child. "For unto us a child is born, and the
government shall be upon his shoulder, and
his name will be wonderful, counsellor, the
mighty God, the everlasting father, the prince
of peace (Is. 9). So this says nothing about him
being a grown man being all those things, but
being a child being all those things. According
to what the Bible says about Herod deterimining
about this new baby king, he believed himself,
based on what he had been told by these Jews,
that the messiah is a baby who is born a king.
Otherwise, Herod would not have ordered the
killing of all the Hebrew children who were
boys, from birth age up to two years of age.
Nevertheless, you have free will and the choice
is yours as to what you believe. I've told you
what I believe and some of why I believe it.
Best Regards,
Suzanne
I am sorry, Suzanne but you really are OBVIOUSLY still in the "Baby |
Christian" phase. A lot of us have already been there done that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Suzanne
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"Anthony Williams" <TruthSeeker@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:ERRck.7960$L_.5884@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
| Quote: |
Suzanne wrote:
eroot@swva.net> wrote in message
news:f1481dc9-360d-4740-8fad-24d8e7ba02a9@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On May 19, 1:17 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:d4767d26-da91-4fd5-aeef-6797cdd6cff2@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 10, 10:15 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
(snip)
It also shows that
A. is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the
God the Father, whose son is Jesus Christ.
Not true. He very specifically _is_ the God of Abraham, etc. "Allah"
is just the Arabic word for "God," used by all Arabs, whether
Christian, Jewish or Muslim. It is just as dumb to say Allah isn't
God as it is to say Deo or Gott isn't God.
Also, Muslims believe that Jesus was the son of God, just not
that he
was _identical_ with God.
I used to think that what you are saying is true
until I read what the Koran says about God and
about Jesus.
The Bible says that Jesus is God's "only begotten Son,"
in John 3:16; John 1:18; John 3:18; 1 John 4:9.
The Koran says:
(God) begets not, nor was He begotten. (Qur'an 112:3)
The Bible also says that the Son, Jesus says that he
and the Father are one. "If you've seen me, you've
seen the Father." So he says they are identical with
one another, while the Muslims teach that the Son
if not identical with God. The Bible also teaches
that Jesus Christ IS God in John 1:1.
Suzanne
But those are theological differences in opinion about the nature of
Jesus, _not_ that Muslims and Christians don't worship the same god
(i.e., God).
Eric, these are not opinions. They are what the holy book
of each says, not what people's opinions are. That's why I
gave you a reference above. I'll write it out for you. Maybe
I should have done that before.
John 1:1-3
1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God.
2. The same was in the beginning with God.
3. All things were made by him; and without him was
not any thing made that was made."
Then verse 14 identifies who this one that is called the
Word is:
14. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten
of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
--
If the Koran says that God begets not, and the Bible says
that God says Himself that Jesus is His begotten son,
you see an obvious clash about God, as presented by the
Bible and as presented by the Koran. I will grant you this,
though. The Bible says that God heard the prayer of a man
who was not a Jew and was not a Christian, and that was
Cornelius. This is in Acts 10:1-8. It says that he was a
devout man, and that he feared God, and that he prayed to
God always. He was sent a vision of an angel coming to
him to talk to him. The angel said to him (v. 10:4b of Acts),
"Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial
before God." The angel told him what he should do, and
Cornelius followed what the angel said to him, and it
led to Peter who came and ministered to him to tell
him the gospel, and Cornelius then believed upon Jesus
and was saved. But this does illustrate that a man was
talking to God that was not a Christian and was not a
Jew, but was heard by God, who led him to salvation in
his son, Jesus.
Best Regards,
Suzanne
Ever heard anything about a guy named Abraham or does the name Ishmael
ring a bell?
Of course. What about them? Does it bother you that |
I singled out just Cornelius? I did that because he is
a classic example that God can hear the prayers of others,
since he sent an angel to Cornelius to instruct him, and
to let it be known to Cornelius that God heard his prayer.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Suzanne
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"Greg G." <ggwizz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:09b03c92-a3ba-466e-a64b-31f2a4474ade@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jul 9, 6:31 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:f1481dc9-360d-4740-8fad-24d8e7ba02a9@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On May 19, 1:17 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:d4767d26-da91-4fd5-aeef-6797cdd6cff2@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 10, 10:15 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
(snip)
It also shows that
A. is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the
God the Father, whose son is Jesus Christ.
Not true. He very specifically _is_ the God of Abraham, etc. "Allah"
is just the Arabic word for "God," used by all Arabs, whether
Christian, Jewish or Muslim. It is just as dumb to say Allah isn't
God as it is to say Deo or Gott isn't God.
Also, Muslims believe that Jesus was the son of God, just not that
he
was _identical_ with God.
This is not correct. The Koran teaches that God doesn't have |
a begotten son:
Koran: 4:171 "....GOD FORBID THAT HE SHOULD HAVE
A SON!"
---
The Bible teaches that God has a son:
Hebrews 5:5; Psalms 2:7 "Thou art my son. This day have I
begotten you."
| Quote: |
I used to think that what you are saying is true
until I read what the Koran says about God and
about Jesus.
The Bible says that Jesus is God's "only begotten Son,"
in John 3:16; John 1:18; John 3:18; 1 John 4:9.
The Koran says:
(God) begets not, nor was He begotten. (Qur'an 112:3)
The Bible also says that the Son, Jesus says that he
and the Father are one. "If you've seen me, you've
seen the Father." So he says they are identical with
one another, while the Muslims teach that the Son
if not identical with God. The Bible also teaches
that Jesus Christ IS God in John 1:1.
Suzanne
But those are theological differences in opinion about the nature of
Jesus, _not_ that Muslims and Christians don't worship the same god
(i.e., God).
These are NOT opinions. Neither of them claim to be
opinions, each claims to be the word of God. You have
the free will to choose the one that you think is the
word of God. I have chosen that it is the Bible. You can
read for yourself that they are NOT identical with one
another. One says that God did not begat, and one says
that Jesus is God's "only begotten son" (John 3:16).
Since Adam and Eve were on the face of the earth,
according to the Bible, God has promised that he would
send the Seed/Redeemer (Genesis 3:15) who would
cause the death blow to Satan, i.e. the seed of the serpent
that tempted Eve to sin. The Seed/Redeemer/Messiah
is spoken of for thousands of years in the Old Testament.
Finally Daniel pins down the time and says that when the
Messiah comes, his life will be cut short and yet that will
not be for his sake, but for the sake of others. It tells a
countdown which can be traced. It tells that when the
messiah is "cut off," in other words, when he dies, after
that the Temple/holy place will be destroyed. In the year
72 A.D., the temple was destroyed in Jerusalem. Jesus
even told that when that happened, not one stone would
be left upon another. (The Western Wall is not part of
the temple, but part of the retaining wall that was around
the temple.) Daniel told this long before Jesus was on
the earth. These Bible verses are hundreds and thousands
of years apart. In the New Testament when Jesus was
talking with a woman of Samaria, commonly called
"The Woman At The Well," that he asked for a drink of
water, he revealed unto her that he is the Messiah. He
also told her things about herself that astonished her that
he knew, and she believed, and went and told everyone
that she had met the Messiah. The New Testament says
that one day later in his ministry, Jesus was in the place
where the people worshipped and he read to them it says
all the places in the Scriptures that were about the
Messiah, and then he announced that he is that one. They
wanted to run him out of town on a rail and said he was
guilty of blaspheming God. As a nation the Jews did not
accept him as being the Messiah. They were looking for
a king that would bring immediate peace. But if they
had read what Daniel had said, they would not have
concluded that because Daniel, one whom they knew
was a prophet told them already what to expect, and
it would not be a king that immediately would take
over the world.
In fairness to the ones that believe the Koran, in the
Middle East, there is an idea, and it comes from
the present day Jews, that in each year a person is
born that potentially could become the Messiah. So,
when the Muslims mention Jesus as being a prophet,
and when they study the Bible (which many do) to
see what words Jesus the prophet says, they also
believe at the same time, that since he died on the
cross, he must not be the messiah. You see they
don't have any problem accepting the virgin birth,
and they honor Mary also as being a pure woman
of faith. But this idea from the Middle East says
also that since Jesus didn't make it, in their
estimation, then someone yet will come who will
be the Messiah. However, the scriptures make it
plain that messiahship is not an office to attain to.
It is something that one already is when he is born.
The Jews in Jesus day did not believe what these
modern day people say. When the wise men came
to see Herod and wanted to find the Christ child
(Christ means the same thing as "messiah," which
is "the annointed one), Herod called his Jewish
courtiers together to determine from them where
this king of the Jews would be born. They gave
him an answer that he would be born in Bethlehem.
They seemed to have the information then that he
would be born king, not given kingship later. In
fact, Isaiah chapter 9 tells that the messiah will
be a child when he is the messiah. The book of
Matthew also backs up Isaiah 7:14 about this
child. "For unto us a child is born, and the
government shall be upon his shoulder, and
his name will be wonderful, counsellor, the
mighty God, the everlasting father, the prince
of peace (Is. 9). So this says nothing about him
being a grown man being all those things, but
being a child being all those things. According
to what the Bible says about Herod deterimining
about this new baby king, he believed himself,
based on what he had been told by these Jews,
that the messiah is a baby who is born a king.
Otherwise, Herod would not have ordered the
killing of all the Hebrew children who were
boys, from birth age up to two years of age.
Nevertheless, you have free will and the choice
is yours as to what you believe. I've told you
what I believe and some of why I believe it.
Best Regards,
Suzanne
Do you think that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God
of the New Testament? Some early Christians believed they were
different gods.
It's not what someone thinks, it's what the Koran |
says and what the Bible says. The Koran says that
God has no begotten son. The Bible says that he
does.
| Quote: |
The early Christians were debating whether Jesus was flesh and blood
or manisfestation, whether he was a conceived child of God or an
adopted child, and even whether Jesus, more or less, possessed and
left the sucker who was left hanging on the cross asking why he had
been forsaken. These differences are greater than the differences
between the God of the Muslims, the God of the Christians, and the God
of the Jews. Would you say the early Christians were worshipping
different gods than what you worship?
You have something wrong here. I don't know |
who these early Christians are that you are
talking about. There were Christians earlier
than the ones you are speaking of, that wrote
the New Testament that told that Jesus is the
one who hung on the cross and that his body
was taken down after he died, and carefully
guarded in a tomb. But he arose from the dead
on the third day just as he said that he would.
The group that you are talking about must have
been some doubting people who lived much
later in the early times after Jesus arose, like
maybe some hundreds of years later. The whole
New Testament was written within the first
century that Christ lived in. The Bible was
written before the Koran was written. What
the Koran says is what is so greatly different.
There are some websites where you can compare
the things each says side by side.
http://www.dianedew.com/islam.htm
| Quote: |
On the other hand, the concept of the Trinity is a few centuries
younger than the roots of Christianity, so the God of today's
Christians is not the same as any other religion's god.
Greg, let me explain something to you. Someone |
has told you the wrong thing. The word "trinity"
does not appear in the Bible at all, but the triune
nature of God was and always has been part of
the whole Bible. The Bible uses the word
"Godhead." It also uses the phrase "the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost" (or Holy Spirit).
People get this confused because later many
shortened saying the whole phrase to just the
word "trinity." They are right that the word trinity
is employed in speaking about theological things,
but it's never been added to the Bible, and that
God is triune is clearly present in the scriptures.
--
Colossians 2:9 speaking about Jesus says:
"For in him dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead
bodily."
--
See also Psalms 8:5; Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20.
---
Matthew 28:19:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost:"
--
Also, at the baptism of Jesus the Father, the Spirit,
and the Son were all present.
| Quote: |
The Bible also says that man is made in the image |
of God, and God is Father, Son, and Spirit. Man
has a triune nature as well in that he is body, soul,
and spirit. The pattern of the tabernacle, and the
temple is also triune, in that they have an outer
court, and inner court and a holy of holies room.
This pattern also compares with a man who has
an outer court (his flesh), an inner court (his soul),
and a holy of holies (his spirit).
--
The Old Testament speaks of the pre-existing Jesus
as the Word of God. It also speaks often of the
Spirit of God as well as God. John, chapter 1 shows
that the Word of God came to dwell on the earth,
and is also the one who created the world. He is
identified in 1:14 as being the Word born in teh
flesh. Further on in same continuation his name
is named as being Jesus.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Erb
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:33 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Jul 11, 5:10 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Greg, let me explain something to you. Someone
has told you the wrong thing. The word "trinity"
does not appear in the Bible at all, but the triune
nature of God was and always has been part of
the whole Bible.
|
Actually, it's platonism. It was brought in by Augustine, who was
reading the neo-Platonist Plotinus:
http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/plotinus-and-augustine/
Until Plato's tripartite notion came in, Christians had a variety of
theories about God and Jesus; the Old Testament had one entity as God,
the trinity is a purely fabricated outside theological notion. It
really makes Christians tri-theists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Earle Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:43 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
In article <lrke745jqnti1eg7of7prrcm7shn1inauf@4ax.com>,
Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:10:32 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@flash.net
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
"Greg G." <ggwizz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:09b03c92-a3ba-466e-a64b-31f2a4474ade@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 9, 6:31 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:f1481dc9-360d-4740-8fad-24d8e7ba02a9@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On May 19, 1:17 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:d4767d26-da91-4fd5-aeef-6797cdd6cff2@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 10, 10:15 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
(snip)
It also shows that
A. is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the
God the Father, whose son is Jesus Christ.
Not true. He very specifically _is_ the God of Abraham, etc. "Allah"
is just the Arabic word for "God," used by all Arabs, whether
Christian, Jewish or Muslim. It is just as dumb to say Allah isn't
God as it is to say Deo or Gott isn't God.
Also, Muslims believe that Jesus was the son of God, just not that
he
was _identical_ with God.
This is not correct. The Koran teaches that God doesn't have
a begotten son:
Koran: 4:171 "....GOD FORBID THAT HE SHOULD HAVE
A SON!"
---
The Bible teaches that God has a son:
Hebrews 5:5; Psalms 2:7 "Thou art my son. This day have I
begotten you."
Two fairy stories.
I used to think that what you are saying is true
until I read what the Koran says about God and
about Jesus.
The Bible says that Jesus is God's "only begotten Son,"
in John 3:16; John 1:18; John 3:18; 1 John 4:9.
The Koran says:
(God) begets not, nor was He begotten. (Qur'an 112:3)
The Bible also says that the Son, Jesus says that he
and the Father are one. "If you've seen me, you've
seen the Father." So he says they are identical with
one another, while the Muslims teach that the Son
if not identical with God. The Bible also teaches
that Jesus Christ IS God in John 1:1.
Suzanne
But those are theological differences in opinion about the nature of
Jesus, _not_ that Muslims and Christians don't worship the same god
(i.e., God).
These are NOT opinions. Neither of them claim to be
opinions, each claims to be the word of God. You have
the free will to choose the one that you think is the
word of God. I have chosen that it is the Bible. You can
read for yourself that they are NOT identical with one
another. One says that God did not begat, and one says
that Jesus is God's "only begotten son" (John 3:16).
Since Adam and Eve were on the face of the earth,
according to the Bible, God has promised that he would
send the Seed/Redeemer (Genesis 3:15) who would
cause the death blow to Satan, i.e. the seed of the serpent
that tempted Eve to sin. The Seed/Redeemer/Messiah
is spoken of for thousands of years in the Old Testament.
Finally Daniel pins down the time and says that when the
Messiah comes, his life will be cut short and yet that will
not be for his sake, but for the sake of others. It tells a
countdown which can be traced. It tells that when the
messiah is "cut off," in other words, when he dies, after
that the Temple/holy place will be destroyed. In the year
72 A.D., the temple was destroyed in Jerusalem. Jesus
even told that when that happened, not one stone would
be left upon another. (The Western Wall is not part of
the temple, but part of the retaining wall that was around
the temple.) Daniel told this long before Jesus was on
the earth. These Bible verses are hundreds and thousands
of years apart. In the New Testament when Jesus was
talking with a woman of Samaria, commonly called
"The Woman At The Well," that he asked for a drink of
water, he revealed unto her that he is the Messiah. He
also told her things about herself that astonished her that
he knew, and she believed, and went and told everyone
that she had met the Messiah. The New Testament says
that one day later in his ministry, Jesus was in the place
where the people worshipped and he read to them it says
all the places in the Scriptures that were about the
Messiah, and then he announced that he is that one. They
wanted to run him out of town on a rail and said he was
guilty of blaspheming God. As a nation the Jews did not
accept him as being the Messiah. They were looking for
a king that would bring immediate peace. But if they
had read what Daniel had said, they would not have
concluded that because Daniel, one whom they knew
was a prophet told them already what to expect, and
it would not be a king that immediately would take
over the world.
In fairness to the ones that believe the Koran, in the
Middle East, there is an idea, and it comes from
the present day Jews, that in each year a person is
born that potentially could become the Messiah. So,
when the Muslims mention Jesus as being a prophet,
and when they study the Bible (which many do) to
see what words Jesus the prophet says, they also
believe at the same time, that since he died on the
cross, he must not be the messiah. You see they
don't have any problem accepting the virgin birth,
and they honor Mary also as being a pure woman
of faith. But this idea from the Middle East says
also that since Jesus didn't make it, in their
estimation, then someone yet will come who will
be the Messiah. However, the scriptures make it
plain that messiahship is not an office to attain to.
It is something that one already is when he is born.
The Jews in Jesus day did not believe what these
modern day people say. When the wise men came
to see Herod and wanted to find the Christ child
(Christ means the same thing as "messiah," which
is "the annointed one), Herod called his Jewish
courtiers together to determine from them where
this king of the Jews would be born. They gave
him an answer that he would be born in Bethlehem.
They seemed to have the information then that he
would be born king, not given kingship later. In
fact, Isaiah chapter 9 tells that the messiah will
be a child when he is the messiah. The book of
Matthew also backs up Isaiah 7:14 about this
child. "For unto us a child is born, and the
government shall be upon his shoulder, and
his name will be wonderful, counsellor, the
mighty God, the everlasting father, the prince
of peace (Is. 9). So this says nothing about him
being a grown man being all those things, but
being a child being all those things. According
to what the Bible says about Herod deterimining
about this new baby king, he believed himself,
based on what he had been told by these Jews,
that the messiah is a baby who is born a king.
Otherwise, Herod would not have ordered the
killing of all the Hebrew children who were
boys, from birth age up to two years of age.
Nevertheless, you have free will and the choice
is yours as to what you believe. I've told you
what I believe and some of why I believe it.
Best Regards,
Suzanne
Do you think that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God
of the New Testament? Some early Christians believed they were
different gods.
It's not what someone thinks, it's what the Koran
says and what the Bible says. The Koran says that
God has no begotten son. The Bible says that he
does.
And the Koran, being newer, is more likely to be right?
|
*
And Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion" is even newer, and therefore even
more right.
earle
* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Suzanne
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"Vernon Balbert" <vbalbert@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:33Ndk.1933$zv7.1569@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
| Quote: |
On 7/11/2008 6:25 AM, Ye Old One went clickity clack on the keyboard and
produced this interesting bit of text:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:10:32 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@flash.net
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
"Greg G." <ggwizz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:09b03c92-a3ba-466e-a64b-31f2a4474ade@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 9, 6:31 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:f1481dc9-360d-4740-8fad-24d8e7ba02a9@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On May 19, 1:17 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:d4767d26-da91-4fd5-aeef-6797cdd6cff2@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 10, 10:15 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
(snip)
It also shows that
A. is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the
God the Father, whose son is Jesus Christ.
Not true. He very specifically _is_ the God of Abraham, etc.
"Allah"
is just the Arabic word for "God," used by all Arabs, whether
Christian, Jewish or Muslim. It is just as dumb to say Allah isn't
God as it is to say Deo or Gott isn't God.
Also, Muslims believe that Jesus was the son of God, just not that
he
was _identical_ with God.
This is not correct. The Koran teaches that God doesn't have
a begotten son:
Koran: 4:171 "....GOD FORBID THAT HE SHOULD HAVE
A SON!"
---
The Bible teaches that God has a son:
Hebrews 5:5; Psalms 2:7 "Thou art my son. This day have I
begotten you."
Two fairy stories.
I used to think that what you are saying is true
until I read what the Koran says about God and
about Jesus.
The Bible says that Jesus is God's "only begotten Son,"
in John 3:16; John 1:18; John 3:18; 1 John 4:9.
The Koran says:
(God) begets not, nor was He begotten. (Qur'an 112:3)
The Bible also says that the Son, Jesus says that he
and the Father are one. "If you've seen me, you've
seen the Father." So he says they are identical with
one another, while the Muslims teach that the Son
if not identical with God. The Bible also teaches
that Jesus Christ IS God in John 1:1.
Suzanne
But those are theological differences in opinion about the nature of
Jesus, _not_ that Muslims and Christians don't worship the same god
(i.e., God).
These are NOT opinions. Neither of them claim to be
opinions, each claims to be the word of God. You have
the free will to choose the one that you think is the
word of God. I have chosen that it is the Bible. You can
read for yourself that they are NOT identical with one
another. One says that God did not begat, and one says
that Jesus is God's "only begotten son" (John 3:16).
Since Adam and Eve were on the face of the earth,
according to the Bible, God has promised that he would
send the Seed/Redeemer (Genesis 3:15) who would
cause the death blow to Satan, i.e. the seed of the serpent
that tempted Eve to sin. The Seed/Redeemer/Messiah
is spoken of for thousands of years in the Old Testament.
Finally Daniel pins down the time and says that when the
Messiah comes, his life will be cut short and yet that will
not be for his sake, but for the sake of others. It tells a
countdown which can be traced. It tells that when the
messiah is "cut off," in other words, when he dies, after
that the Temple/holy place will be destroyed. In the year
72 A.D., the temple was destroyed in Jerusalem. Jesus
even told that when that happened, not one stone would
be left upon another. (The Western Wall is not part of
the temple, but part of the retaining wall that was around
the temple.) Daniel told this long before Jesus was on
the earth. These Bible verses are hundreds and thousands
of years apart. In the New Testament when Jesus was
talking with a woman of Samaria, commonly called
"The Woman At The Well," that he asked for a drink of
water, he revealed unto her that he is the Messiah. He
also told her things about herself that astonished her that
he knew, and she believed, and went and told everyone
that she had met the Messiah. The New Testament says
that one day later in his ministry, Jesus was in the place
where the people worshipped and he read to them it says
all the places in the Scriptures that were about the
Messiah, and then he announced that he is that one. They
wanted to run him out of town on a rail and said he was
guilty of blaspheming God. As a nation the Jews did not
accept him as being the Messiah. They were looking for
a king that would bring immediate peace. But if they
had read what Daniel had said, they would not have
concluded that because Daniel, one whom they knew
was a prophet told them already what to expect, and
it would not be a king that immediately would take
over the world.
In fairness to the ones that believe the Koran, in the
Middle East, there is an idea, and it comes from
the present day Jews, that in each year a person is
born that potentially could become the Messiah. So,
when the Muslims mention Jesus as being a prophet,
and when they study the Bible (which many do) to
see what words Jesus the prophet says, they also
believe at the same time, that since he died on the
cross, he must not be the messiah. You see they
don't have any problem accepting the virgin birth,
and they honor Mary also as being a pure woman
of faith. But this idea from the Middle East says
also that since Jesus didn't make it, in their
estimation, then someone yet will come who will
be the Messiah. However, the scriptures make it
plain that messiahship is not an office to attain to.
It is something that one already is when he is born.
The Jews in Jesus day did not believe what these
modern day people say. When the wise men came
to see Herod and wanted to find the Christ child
(Christ means the same thing as "messiah," which
is "the annointed one), Herod called his Jewish
courtiers together to determine from them where
this king of the Jews would be born. They gave
him an answer that he would be born in Bethlehem.
They seemed to have the information then that he
would be born king, not given kingship later. In
fact, Isaiah chapter 9 tells that the messiah will
be a child when he is the messiah. The book of
Matthew also backs up Isaiah 7:14 about this
child. "For unto us a child is born, and the
government shall be upon his shoulder, and
his name will be wonderful, counsellor, the
mighty God, the everlasting father, the prince
of peace (Is. 9). So this says nothing about him
being a grown man being all those things, but
being a child being all those things. According
to what the Bible says about Herod deterimining
about this new baby king, he believed himself,
based on what he had been told by these Jews,
that the messiah is a baby who is born a king.
Otherwise, Herod would not have ordered the
killing of all the Hebrew children who were
boys, from birth age up to two years of age.
Nevertheless, you have free will and the choice
is yours as to what you believe. I've told you
what I believe and some of why I believe it.
Best Regards,
Suzanne
Do you think that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God
of the New Testament? Some early Christians believed they were
different gods.
It's not what someone thinks, it's what the Koran
says and what the Bible says. The Koran says that
God has no begotten son. The Bible says that he
does.
And the Koran, being newer, is more likely to be right?
The early Christians were debating whether Jesus was flesh and blood
or manisfestation, whether he was a conceived child of God or an
adopted child, and even whether Jesus, more or less, possessed and
left the sucker who was left hanging on the cross asking why he had
been forsaken. These differences are greater than the differences
between the God of the Muslims, the God of the Christians, and the God
of the Jews. Would you say the early Christians were worshipping
different gods than what you worship?
You have something wrong here.
No, he doesn't.
I don't know
who these early Christians are that you are
talking about.
You do seem to be ignorant of the early church.
There were Christians earlier
than the ones you are speaking of, that wrote
the New Testament
Nope. The NT came after the arguments were largely done and dusted.
that told that Jesus is the
one who hung on the cross and that his body
was taken down after he died, and carefully
guarded in a tomb. But he arose from the dead
on the third day just as he said that he would.
But we know that is impossible. He cannot have died and then come back
to life after that time.
The group that you are talking about must have
been some doubting people who lived much
later in the early times after Jesus arose, like
maybe some hundreds of years later. The whole
New Testament was written within the first
century that Christ lived in.
No it was not.
The Bible was
written before the Koran was written. What
the Koran says is what is so greatly different.
There are some websites where you can compare
the things each says side by side.
http://www.dianedew.com/islam.htm
You cannot put one work of fiction against another in that way - it is
madness.
On the other hand, the concept of the Trinity is a few centuries
younger than the roots of Christianity, so the God of today's
Christians is not the same as any other religion's god.
Greg, let me explain something to you. Someone
has told you the wrong thing. The word "trinity"
does not appear in the Bible at all, but the triune
nature of God was and always has been part of
the whole Bible.
No, it has not.
The Bible uses the word
"Godhead."
It also uses the phrase "the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost" (or Holy Spirit).
That makes three.
People get this confused because later many
shortened saying the whole phrase to just the
word "trinity." They are right that the word trinity
is employed in speaking about theological things,
but it's never been added to the Bible, and that
God is triune is clearly present in the scriptures.
--
Colossians 2:9 speaking about Jesus says:
"For in him dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead
bodily."
--
See also Psalms 8:5; Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20.
---
Matthew 28:19:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost:"
--
Also, at the baptism of Jesus the Father, the Spirit,
and the Son were all present.
The Bible also says that man is made in the image
of God,
Since religion is the invention of man....
and God is Father, Son, and Spirit. Man
has a triune nature as well in that he is body, soul,
and spirit. The pattern of the tabernacle, and the
temple is also triune, in that they have an outer
court, and inner court and a holy of holies room.
This pattern also compares with a man who has
an outer court (his flesh), an inner court (his soul),
and a holy of holies (his spirit).
Surely, in religious terms, the soul and the spirit are the same
thing?
These terms are so slippery. The Mormons claim that a body and a spirit
combined form a soul. I don't know about other religions.
I know. I sat down one time confused about the difference. I took scriptures |
that talked about each, and read them together to try to understand the
difference. Then I found this verse and it comfirmed to me that biblically,
it is explained that God does make a difference between the two, and is
able, himself, to separate out the difference. Here's the verse I found:
Hebrews 4:12:
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any
twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents
of the heart."
soul: "psuche" - def.: "the breath of life;" "the vital force which animates
the body and shows itself in breathing.in animals and man."
spirit: "pneuma" - def. "1. the power by which the human being feels,
thinks, decides. 2. a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at
least
all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring,
deciding, and acting.
It's a bit more complicated even than this because the words are
used interchangeably in a few places. We also are subject to what
translaters say that they mean.
| Quote: |
In my opinion, the soul and the spirit are so intertwined that it is |
sometimes difficult to separate out the differences ourselves.
Adam had a nature which was to obey God, before the fall. That
nature describes his spirit. Eve was deceived in the transaction
because the serpent seemed to understand that she desired to
be wise to her husband, which is her weakness, and which he
exploited in order to get her to sin. So she was deceived in what
she did. Adam, however, not wanting to lose that part of himself
that she was, in a sense made himself sin for her, in order to
take her sin upon himself, because he knew and believed that he
would then become vulnerable to death, which he did do, since
he became fully mortal.
["mortal": Latin: "mortalis" = "death"]
His children then were born in his image, in other words, that
of a person who did possess temporarily eternal life, but now
has a fractured spirit, producing a nature to sin...which means
a nature to self-rule if it conflicts with God's will.
--
That we are supposed to be born "sinners" does not mean that
when we are little tiny sweet babies we sit around thinking of
doing evil things, but it means we are born mortal, and possess
a nature desiring self-rule. Becoming a Christian is not giving
up the rights to choose, it is accepting someone's payment for
your sins, and trying to please God, having a different attitude
about what he wants to do in your life.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Suzanne
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"Woland" <jerrydeon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1306818-f3c5-40c3-8063-62d886ceadc7@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jul 9, 6:31 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:f1481dc9-360d-4740-8fad-24d8e7ba02a9@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On May 19, 1:17 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:d4767d26-da91-4fd5-aeef-6797cdd6cff2@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 10, 10:15 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
(snip)
It also shows that
A. is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the
God the Father, whose son is Jesus Christ.
Not true. He very specifically _is_ the God of Abraham, etc.
"Allah"
is just the Arabic word for "God," used by all Arabs, whether
Christian, Jewish or Muslim. It is just as dumb to say Allah isn't
God as it is to say Deo or Gott isn't God.
Also, Muslims believe that Jesus was the son of God, just not that
he
was _identical_ with God.
I used to think that what you are saying is true
until I read what the Koran says about God and
about Jesus.
The Bible says that Jesus is God's "only begotten Son,"
in John 3:16; John 1:18; John 3:18; 1 John 4:9.
The Koran says:
(God) begets not, nor was He begotten. (Qur'an 112:3)
The Bible also says that the Son, Jesus says that he
and the Father are one. "If you've seen me, you've
seen the Father." So he says they are identical with
one another, while the Muslims teach that the Son
if not identical with God. The Bible also teaches
that Jesus Christ IS God in John 1:1.
Suzanne
But those are theological differences in opinion about the nature of
Jesus, _not_ that Muslims and Christians don't worship the same god
(i.e., God).
These are NOT opinions. Neither of them claim to be
opinions, each claims to be the word of God. You have
the free will to choose the one that you think is the
word of God. I have chosen that it is the Bible. You can
read for yourself that they are NOT identical with one
another. One says that God did not begat, and one says
that Jesus is God's "only begotten son" (John 3:16).
Since Adam and Eve were on the face of the earth,
according to the Bible, God has promised that he would
send the Seed/Redeemer (Genesis 3:15) who would
cause the death blow to Satan, i.e. the seed of the serpent
that tempted Eve to sin. The Seed/Redeemer/Messiah
is spoken of for thousands of years in the Old Testament.
Finally Daniel pins down the time and says that when the
Messiah comes, his life will be cut short and yet that will
not be for his sake, but for the sake of others. It tells a
countdown which can be traced. It tells that when the
messiah is "cut off," in other words, when he dies, after
that the Temple/holy place will be destroyed. In the year
72 A.D., the temple was destroyed in Jerusalem. Jesus
even told that when that happened, not one stone would
be left upon another. (The Western Wall is not part of
the temple, but part of the retaining wall that was around
the temple.) Daniel told this long before Jesus was on
the earth. These Bible verses are hundreds and thousands
of years apart. In the New Testament when Jesus was
talking with a woman of Samaria, commonly called
"The Woman At The Well," that he asked for a drink of
water, he revealed unto her that he is the Messiah. He
also told her things about herself that astonished her that
he knew, and she believed, and went and told everyone
that she had met the Messiah. The New Testament says
that one day later in his ministry, Jesus was in the place
where the people worshipped and he read to them it says
all the places in the Scriptures that were about the
Messiah, and then he announced that he is that one. They
wanted to run him out of town on a rail and said he was
guilty of blaspheming God. As a nation the Jews did not
accept him as being the Messiah. They were looking for
a king that would bring immediate peace. But if they
had read what Daniel had said, they would not have
concluded that because Daniel, one whom they knew
was a prophet told them already what to expect, and
it would not be a king that immediately would take
over the world.
Not for nothin, but Genesis 3:15 is not a Messianic prophecy.
Yes, this is considered to be the first mention about the |
fact that God would send his son into the world to be
the savior.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Gregory A Greenman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
In article <3Bhek.17800$N87.1971@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, Suzanne
<shiloh7@flash.net> declared...
| Quote: |
"Woland" <jerrydeon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1306818-f3c5-40c3-8063-62d886ceadc7@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
Not for nothin, but Genesis 3:15 is not a Messianic prophecy.
Yes, this is considered to be the first mention about the
fact that God would send his son into the world to be
the savior.
|
"Considered to be" and "is" are not the same thing.
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Suzanne
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"Vernon Balbert" <vbalbert@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:GNMdk.23511$co7.13787@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
| Quote: |
On 7/11/2008 12:15 AM, Suzanne went clickity clack on the keyboard and
produced this interesting bit of text:
"Anthony Williams" <TruthSeeker@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:ERRck.7960$L_.5884@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
Suzanne wrote:
eroot@swva.net> wrote in message
news:f1481dc9-360d-4740-8fad-24d8e7ba02a9@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On May 19, 1:17 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:d4767d26-da91-4fd5-aeef-6797cdd6cff2@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 10, 10:15 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
(snip)
It also shows that
A. is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the
God the Father, whose son is Jesus Christ.
Not true. He very specifically _is_ the God of Abraham, etc.
"Allah"
is just the Arabic word for "God," used by all Arabs, whether
Christian, Jewish or Muslim. It is just as dumb to say Allah isn't
God as it is to say Deo or Gott isn't God.
Also, Muslims believe that Jesus was the son of God, just
not that he
was _identical_ with God.
I used to think that what you are saying is true
until I read what the Koran says about God and
about Jesus.
The Bible says that Jesus is God's "only begotten Son,"
in John 3:16; John 1:18; John 3:18; 1 John 4:9.
The Koran says:
(God) begets not, nor was He begotten. (Qur'an 112:3)
The Bible also says that the Son, Jesus says that he
and the Father are one. "If you've seen me, you've
seen the Father." So he says they are identical with
one another, while the Muslims teach that the Son
if not identical with God. The Bible also teaches
that Jesus Christ IS God in John 1:1.
Suzanne
But those are theological differences in opinion about the nature of
Jesus, _not_ that Muslims and Christians don't worship the same god
(i.e., God).
Eric, these are not opinions. They are what the holy book
of each says, not what people's opinions are. That's why I
gave you a reference above. I'll write it out for you. Maybe
I should have done that before.
John 1:1-3
1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God.
2. The same was in the beginning with God.
3. All things were made by him; and without him was
not any thing made that was made."
Then verse 14 identifies who this one that is called the
Word is:
14. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten
of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
--
If the Koran says that God begets not, and the Bible says
that God says Himself that Jesus is His begotten son,
you see an obvious clash about God, as presented by the
Bible and as presented by the Koran. I will grant you this,
though. The Bible says that God heard the prayer of a man
who was not a Jew and was not a Christian, and that was
Cornelius. This is in Acts 10:1-8. It says that he was a
devout man, and that he feared God, and that he prayed to
God always. He was sent a vision of an angel coming to
him to talk to him. The angel said to him (v. 10:4b of Acts),
"Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial
before God." The angel told him what he should do, and
Cornelius followed what the angel said to him, and it
led to Peter who came and ministered to him to tell
him the gospel, and Cornelius then believed upon Jesus
and was saved. But this does illustrate that a man was
talking to God that was not a Christian and was not a
Jew, but was heard by God, who led him to salvation in
his son, Jesus.
Best Regards,
Suzanne
Ever heard anything about a guy named Abraham or does the name Ishmael
ring a bell?
Of course. What about them? Does it bother you that
I singled out just Cornelius? I did that because he is
a classic example that God can hear the prayers of others,
since he sent an angel to Cornelius to instruct him, and
to let it be known to Cornelius that God heard his prayer.
Suzanne
So why does Cornelius get such special treatment but nobody else does? I
never had an angel come down to me.
I don't know the answer to that. Maybe there is something in the way |
in which he is introduced that can be detected. Here's how he is
introduced:
Acts 10:1-4:
1. There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the
band
called the Italian band,
2. A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much
alms to the people, and prayed to God alway
3. He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth h | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
