Replies

I can prove it in God's word. The difference is I listen to all of God's word and not just a small piece of it. Those priests that chose which books to call canon where not prophets nor were they lead by God. God said all scripture is good. Not just the little the Catholics let you have.

We already talked about this. Since we BOTH say we accept the Bible as the word of God and authoritative, then ALL our discussion should center around what we both hold as God-breated truth. There are HUNDREDS, maybe more, of the writings of men (and women) that lay claim to being God's spokesperson and that their writings - usually ABOVE anyone elses' - are THE truth and to be believed. This "little list" you say I accept from the Catholics - though it really has NOTHING to do with the Catholics - has proven to be Divinely revealed sacred Scripture. That your standards for determining what is or isn't directly from God allows you to accept your religion's founders as also inspired by God doesn't mean I also have to accept them. So, no, you cannot prove God the Father was once a man before He was God. Since you cannot prove by the Bible what you say about God, I reject your version with a clear conscience.

To me, claiming that the Bible is the only word of God is ridiculous. God is the God of the whole world. Not just that little piece of the Middle East. The books of the Bible even make reference to other scripture, which you don't have. Since nearly all the books in the Bible are unique, it stands to reason that those missing books contain unique writings from the prophets, you don't know what teachings are missing.

Claiming additional writings were by the SAME God - even when they contradict the writings that believers have received ever since they came to be - sounds MORE ridiculous, to me. I trust that God is powerful enough to preserve His word against any and every threat man can come up with INCLUDING the idea that some essential writings were suppressed and only discovered nearly two thousand years later. Sorry, but that sounds like a pretty flimsy reason to accept these extra-Biblical books. We have the whole counsel of God and the presence of the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth.

After our likeness and our image is pretty clear. Which is why Jesus was born a man and not half man and half chipmunk. Man looks like God the Father as does Jesus.

I don't think this inane comment deserves a response. I already told you I won't accept any other so-called scripture so bullying or mocking won't do it either.

How can you claim to know God when you can't even describe what He looks like? It would be more appropriate to say you know "of" Him. If He is so vague and beyond our understanding then we can't actually know Him. Would a Father want His children to NOT understand Him? But I know that's not the case.

I know what God has revealed about Himself in the Bible and as the Holy Spirit has taught me throughout my forty-five year personal relationship with Him. You couldn't possibly know what is in my heart nor what God has or has not done to help me understand Him. Jesus told us about the Father:

"But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:23-24)

Do you worship God as a spirit and within your spirit in truth or must you bring Him down to your level in order to do so? I hate to break it to you, but you will NEVER be god. Be grateful to be His child. Gill's Exposition of the Bible says:

God is a spirit, and not a body, or a corporeal substance: the nature and essence of God is like a spirit, simple and uncompounded, not made up of parts; nor is it divisible; nor does it admit of any change and alteration. God, as a spirit, is immaterial, immortal, invisible, and an intelligent, willing, and active being; but differs from other spirits, in that he is not created, but an immense and infinite spirit, and an eternal one, which has neither beginning nor end: he is therefore a spirit by way of eminency, as well as effectively, he being the author and former of all spirits: whatever excellence is in them, must be ascribed to God in the highest manner; and whatever is imperfect in them, must be removed from him: and they that worship him; worship is due to him on account of his nature and perfections, both internal and external; with both the bodies and souls of men; and both private and public; in the closet, in the family, and in the church of God; as prayer, praise, attendance on the word and ordinances: must worship him in spirit and in truth; in the true and spiritual manner before described, which is suitable to his nature, and agreeably to his will.

Finally, the translators state the purpose and plan of the present translation. They have not intended to make a new translation, but to make the best possible translation by improving upon previous ones. To do so they have, of course, carefully examined the original Hebrew and Greek since translation should only be done from the original tongues. Also, they did not work hastily, as did the translators of the Septuagint, who, according to legend, finished their work in only seventy-two days. The translators also availed themselves of commentaries and translations of the Scriptures in other languages. In their work they felt it was essential to include marginal notes, despite the fact that some might feel such notes tend to undermine the authority of the Scriptures. These notes are essential since the translators confess that oftentimes they were unsure how a word or phrase should be translated. This is especially true in Hebrew, where there are a number of words which only occur once in Scripture, and even the Jews themselves are uncertain about their translation. And so, as Augustine notes, a “variety of translations is profitable for finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.” Lastly, the translators observe that, in spite of criticism from some quarters, they decided not to always translate the same Hebrew or Greek word with the same English word and have retained, over the objections of the Puritans, the old ecclesiastical words like “baptism” instead of “washings.”

http://dbts.edu/blog/the-embarrassing-preface-to-the-king-james-version/

"Since we BOTH say we accept the Bible as the word of God and authoritative..."

I accept the Bible as having some authority. Not all. And the principles taught in the Bible but be weighed against all scripture and all sources including modern prophets. This guards against error.

"then ALL our discussion should center around what we both hold as God-breated truth."

Yes but our personal interpretations are not God breathed and are prone to error. Therefore, limiting the things of God will undoubtedly produce error.

"That your standards for determining what is or isn't directly from God allows you to accept your religion's founders as also inspired by God doesn't mean I also have to accept them."

The Holy Spirit told me they were authorized and recognized by God to found His Church.

If I don't believe and in fact reject those men at the Council of Nicea as being inspired by God how can I possibly accept what grew from their teachings? Didn't the Lord say that an evil seed cannot grow good fruit?

History alone shows that Amos 8 was fulfilled.

"...as also inspired by God doesn't mean I also have to accept them."

True, you have the freedom of choice. /shrug.

"So, no, you cannot prove God the Father was once a man before He was God."

No one can prove anything to another person if the other person isn't willing to accept it no matter the proof. Your unwillingness to be convinced has bearing on whether or not something is true.

"I trust that God is powerful enough to preserve His word against any and every threat man can come up with INCLUDING the idea that some essential writings were suppressed and only discovered nearly two thousand years later."

But you're assuming that just because He has the power to do so, He will do so. God gives us the freedom to reject Him and He doesn't interfere with that freedom.

God had the power to see the future and knew the books in the Bible would be preserved and the state it would be in. He has the power to instruct a real prophet to collect the writings of the prophets that we would need to find the truth and combat the error of false doctrines.

"Sorry, but that sounds like a pretty flimsy reason to accept these extra-Biblical books."

I accept them because they actually teach truth. They add to my knowledge of God, His laws, His commandments, an actual path of how to be saved into the kingdom of Heaven.

"or must you bring Him down to your level in order to do so?"

And we get to the crux of the problem, self loathing. Do you not know that God has promise to elevate the faithful? He uses words like exaltation. To exalt. It's not lowering God by no means. It's accepting the gift of God to be lifted up. To be crowned with glory. A joint-heir with Christ. To be given a crown. This is the very promise of God.

Can you tell me why you think the passages below are not spoken by the Lord?

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.