Page 18 of 26 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 257

Thread: Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

  1. #171
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,025
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Yeah, I've noticed that.


    1) Siam, I recall in another thread you mentioned you haven't even read the NT completely, only bits and pieces. Why are you here discussing doctrines of Christianity when you can't even take the time to familiarize yourself with the writings on which Christian doctrine are based? If it was only a case of mild curiosity I would understand, but you're constantly arguing against Christianity and coming up with the weirdest misrepresentations based on your limited and misunderstood knowledge.

    2) You said if Christianity was more simple and clear maybe you wouldn't be so confused. I think you have it backwards. Maybe if you actually took the time necessary to familiarize yourself with the writings from which Christianity derives it's doctrines you wouldn't be so confused all the time.
    1) I have not read the Buddhist sutras---I have encountered a few of verses/themes/quotes here and there while researching Buddhism. Why have I not read their text?...because it is a humongous piece of work and the full wisdom of Buddhism also flows into the works of monks and sages that have contributed over the centuries. So...I am not even going to attempt to read it.

    I have read some of Confucious and Sun Tzu...read all of the Tao te Ching (but then, the Tao te Ching is a smaller piece of text). I have read a chunk of the OT/Jewish Bible---not all of it.

    My first encounter with the Bible (---starting with Genesis) was a dismal disappointment. Fortunately I encountered a Jewish person and we read it together for a while---that person got too busy and so we stopped. However, while reading together, I discovered that there was much wisdom in Judaism and Jewish encounter with their holy text. (Midrash, rabbinical writings, Jewish philosophy....)

    All of these wisdom teachings are "a way"/"path"---they are a worldview from which one formulates human relationships within societies and groups, our encounters/relationships with the wider creation and with God/Divine. They influence daily ethics/morality, the laws, and philosophy.

    Islam too has a wealth of wisdom---its philosophy, laws, and ethics/morality are deep and rich. Like the other traditions I mentioned, there is much that can contribute to "human flourishing".

    Comparatively---my encounters with Christians have only been about establishing "truth claims" of original sin + trinity + crucifixion. Not only does none of it make any sense to me---I cannot see its relevance to Justice, ethics/morality, philosophy, human relations, economics, and other practical aspects of "human flourishing".....(with the exception of the Christian practice of charity, which I admire)
    Nevertheless---I have read some bits and pieces of the NT, some Christian apocrypha....because they happen to intersect with the Quran.

    In their attempts to "prove" their "truth claims" Christians have quoted reams of texts to me, from the OT and the NT. Unfortunately---one has to have a "Christian lens" with which to interpret them because reading them raw from a non-Christian perspective---the texts, often, do not seem to say what the Christians are claiming they say.

    2) So...as you say---I could read these texts---but it will get me no closer to understanding Christian doctrine. Christians read their texts with eisegesis.
    One first has to believe in "original sin + trinity + crucifixion" in order for the NT to say what Christians claim it is saying.

  2. #172
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,025
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    1) I think the main problem is you keep strawmanning and making the weirdest conclusions even when you have absolutely no warrant for it.

    2)Spiritual death is not "de-incarnation". Jesus still remained human even after His death on the cross.

    3)No, the "formula" is a sinless human. I already pointed out that Jesus had to become like us in post #131. "Any animal" can most certainly not do.

    In that case it's a good thing I've never used such logic.

    No, they might argue that you're still strawmanning and continuing to draw completely unwarranted conclusions.

    4) According to Christianity it was Jesus Himself who willingly gave up Himself to be crucified, and willingly gave up His own life. And even though the result was the forgiveness of the world, that doesn't mean the people who sentenced Jesus to be executed and carried it out weren't committing a grave sin.

    And you're wrong about having others do the dirty deeds. It was our sins that made it necessary for Christ to incarnate and going to the cross, the issue of who nailed Him to that cross is a minor irrelevancy compared to that fact.
    1) Weird conclusions?.....Thankyou for appreciating my creativity.

    2) So neither God the person nor Jesus the person dies?
    If no one dies---whats the big deal with the crucifixion?

    3) If Jesus is "like us" then he is sinful--remember "original sin"?----it is because he is NOT "like us" ---sinless", that God can incarnate---according to you.

    4) So---even if people "obey" God's will, they still commit sin.
    Not to mention---this "death" that is not really a death as non one dies---ends up in "forgiving the world" but not really---because non one is "really" forgiven---right!!!!

  3. #173
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,252
    Amen (Given)
    5382
    Amen (Received)
    3870
    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    Comparatively---my encounters with Christians have only been about establishing "truth claims" of original sin + trinity + crucifixion. Not only does none of it make any sense to me---I cannot see its relevance to Justice, ethics/morality, philosophy, human relations, economics, and other practical aspects of "human flourishing".....(with the exception of the Christian practice of charity, which I admire)
    Nevertheless---I have read some bits and pieces of the NT, some Christian apocrypha....because they happen to intersect with the Quran.
    If you cannot see the relevance of original sin (assuming it's true for the sake of discussion) to justice, ethics/morality, human relations and economics, I'm not really sure what to say. It seems obvious to me that a doctrine that claims that we are subject to a corrupt and sinful nature will inevitably have consequences for how we look at all of those things.

    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    In their attempts to "prove" their "truth claims" Christians have quoted reams of texts to me, from the OT and the NT. Unfortunately---one has to have a "Christian lens" with which to interpret them because reading them raw from a non-Christian perspective---the texts, often, do not seem to say what the Christians are claiming they say.
    Do not "seem" to say? Based on what you've written in this thread so far I'm doubtful about your ability to make that judgement.

    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    2) So...as you say---I could read these texts---but it will get me no closer to understanding Christian doctrine. Christians read their texts with eisegesis.
    One first has to believe in "original sin + trinity + crucifixion" in order for the NT to say what Christians claim it is saying.
    This is priceless. You claim Christians read the Bible eisegetically and you say it is pointless to read the NT in it's entirety because you say it would bring you no closer to understanding Christian doctrine, but for you to make either of those claims you would actually need to have the requisite knowledge of what the NT is saying, which you demonstrably and self-admittedly lack.

  4. #174
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,252
    Amen (Given)
    5382
    Amen (Received)
    3870
    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    1) Weird conclusions?.....Thankyou for appreciating my creativity.
    You're welcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    2) So neither God the person nor Jesus the person dies?
    If no one dies---whats the big deal with the crucifixion?
    Who said no one dies? I have consistently been hammering on the fact that Jesus, both God and man, died a physical death on the cross. Physical death does not imply de-incarnation.

    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    3) If Jesus is "like us" then he is sinful--remember "original sin"?----it is because he is NOT "like us" ---sinless", that God can incarnate---according to you.
    "Like us" in the fact that He is human, not that He has original sin? Remember how I said that earlier that being "sinful", i.e having original sin, is not an essential part of being human, but a corruption of human nature?

    I honestly shouldn't need to be clarifying this for you. Based on our discussion so far you should have been able to draw the conclusion for yourself that "like us" does not include our sinful nature, simply because I've been so insistent on the fact that Jesus was completely sinless. In any case, this passage is what I base my "like us" statement, and partly also the fact that Jesus had to die for our sins, on:

    Scripture Verse: Hebrews 2:14-18 ESV


    14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

    © Copyright Original Source



    And in case you want to claim that "in every respect means that he should also inherit original sin:

    Scripture Verse: Hebrews 4:14-16 ESV


    14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    4) So---even if people "obey" God's will, they still commit sin.
    Not to mention---this "death" that is not really a death as non one dies---ends up in "forgiving the world" but not really---because non one is "really" forgiven---right!!!!
    Of course they still commit sin. Even if the result was the forgiveness of sins they still did it because of selfish and immoral motivations. If your motivations are evil it does not matter whether the result is good, or whether God was able to use your evil to bring about a greater good, your actions themselves are still evil.

    Not sure what your gripe about 'non one is "really" forgiven' is all about. Jesus' death was enough to atone for the sins of anyone who receives the forgiveness of sins through faith, which would potentially include every single human that has ever lived, is living, and will live on the earth. If you're alluding to the fact that it doesn't apply to people who do not accept this gift of forgiveness, then that's another story altogether, but it still doesn't support your baseless 'non one is "really" forgiven' claim.

  5. #175
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,025
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    1) If you cannot see the relevance of original sin (assuming it's true for the sake of discussion) to justice, ethics/morality, human relations and economics, I'm not really sure what to say. It seems obvious to me that a doctrine that claims that we are subject to a corrupt and sinful nature will inevitably have consequences for how we look at all of those things.



    2) Do not "seem" to say? Based on what you've written in this thread so far I'm doubtful about your ability to make that judgement.



    3) This is priceless. You claim Christians read the Bible eisegetically and you say it is pointless to read the NT in it's entirety because you say it would bring you no closer to understanding Christian doctrine, but for you to make either of those claims you would actually need to have the requisite knowledge of what the NT is saying, which you demonstrably and self-admittedly lack.
    1) Original sin+Trinity+Crucifixion---I do not see the benefit (not consequence) of any of these doctrines/premises to "human flourishing"---but to limit to "original sin" for this discussion...Original sin =human beings are evil.
    However, Modern Justice as well as Judeo-Islamic Justice is based on the foundational idea that a person is "innocent until proven guilty"---which is in direct opposition to the premise that all humans are sinful unless they are Christian. Leading, ofcourse, to the many atrocities against humanity committed by ignorant, zealous "Christians" such as Christopher Columbus and the Taino massacre, the forcible conversions (too numerous to list), the (Holy) Inquisitions (an example of "Christian Justice")...all the way to the Modern era of colonialism and "Orientalism"---attitudes springing from a profound disrespect of the "other".

    2) True--I may not be a good judge as I do not understand Christianity. However...to go back to the premise of "original sin" ----a Pauline creation according to Wiki
    "Paul believed that Adam's transgression in a mysterious way affected the nature of the human race. The primeval sin, a Pauline creation with no biblical or post-biblical Jewish precedent, was irreparable by ordinary human effort."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

    But Jews claim its not in their Bible---
    "The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews (as it is to Christian sects such as Baptists and Assemblies of G-d). Jews believe that man enters the world free of sin, with a soul that is pure and innocent and untainted."
    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...f-original-sin.

    In other words---original sin is a premise that has to be read into the story of Adam (Eisegesis)

    3) I am not a Christian---I could read the NT raw---but then, without the "Christian lens"... I would come to very different conclusions than Christians for example---Christians often quote this verse John 14:6
    " Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
    As a Muslim, my understanding would be that the "way" here means the Sharia (ethics/morality/law) and truth means Shema/Tawheed and life means the Sunna or example that Jesus left behind. If "Father" here is understood as one of many descriptors of "God"/Divine---then it is exactly what Muslims do in Islam.
    I doubt a Christian is going to be happy with that?....

  6. #176
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,252
    Amen (Given)
    5382
    Amen (Received)
    3870
    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    1) Original sin+Trinity+Crucifixion---I do not see the benefit (not consequence) of any of these doctrines/premises to "human flourishing"---but to limit to "original sin" for this discussion...Original sin =human beings are evil.
    However, Modern Justice as well as Judeo-Islamic Justice is based on the foundational idea that a person is "innocent until proven guilty"---which is in direct opposition to the premise that all humans are sinful unless they are Christian. Leading, ofcourse, to the many atrocities against humanity committed by ignorant, zealous "Christians" such as Christopher Columbus and the Taino massacre, the forcible conversions (too numerous to list), the (Holy) Inquisitions (an example of "Christian Justice")...all the way to the Modern era of colonialism and "Orientalism"---attitudes springing from a profound disrespect of the "other".
    I mean, when you look at the state that the world is currently in, it's pretty hard to argue anything other than humans being evil. If we were not, then trying to do what is good and right wouldn't be such a chore, and something you have to "train" yourself in. Doing the selfish, and self-serving thing comes far easier for the vast majority of people, than doing the right thing. Humans being intrinsically good should mean that doing the right thing would come naturally to us, almost like breathing. It shouldn't even be something we have to think about.

    Also, I sure wouldn't be speaking about "Christian" atrocities considering Islam's bloody history. At least we Christians can avail ourself of the excuse that the Christians who committed the atrocities you list were acting in direct opposition of what Christianity and the Bible teaches, you don't have that luxury when it comes to most of the atrocities committed in during the dark history of Islam.

    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    2) True--I may not be a good judge as I do not understand Christianity. However...to go back to the premise of "original sin" ----a Pauline creation according to Wiki
    "Paul believed that Adam's transgression in a mysterious way affected the nature of the human race. The primeval sin, a Pauline creation with no biblical or post-biblical Jewish precedent, was irreparable by ordinary human effort."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

    But Jews claim its not in their Bible---
    "The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews (as it is to Christian sects such as Baptists and Assemblies of G-d). Jews believe that man enters the world free of sin, with a soul that is pure and innocent and untainted."
    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...f-original-sin.

    In other words---original sin is a premise that has to be read into the story of Adam (Eisegesis)
    With all due respect to Geza Vermes and the Jews, but they're wrong about there being no precendent for original sin, and also about the OT teaching that man enters the world pure and untainted in the Old Testament. From the aftermath of the story of the Flood:

    Scripture Verse: Genesis 8:20-21 ESV


    20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

    © Copyright Original Source



    And with regards to entering the world pure and untainted, David writes in Psalm 51:

    Scripture Verse: Psalm 51:5 ESV


    5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
    and in sin did my mother conceive me.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    3) I am not a Christian---I could read the NT raw---but then, without the "Christian lens"... I would come to very different conclusions than Christians for example---Christians often quote this verse John 14:6
    " Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
    As a Muslim, my understanding would be that the "way" here means the Sharia (ethics/morality/law) and truth means Shema/Tawheed and life means the Sunna or example that Jesus left behind. If "Father" here is understood as one of many descriptors of "God"/Divine---then it is exactly what Muslims do in Islam.
    I doubt a Christian is going to be happy with that?....
    Well, you could read it that way, but then you would be doing the exact same thing that you (unjustly) accuse Christians of doing, namely engage in eisegesis.

  7. #177
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,025
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    You're welcome.



    1) Who said no one dies? I have consistently been hammering on the fact that Jesus, both God and man, died a physical death on the cross. Physical death does not imply de-incarnation.

    2) "Like us" in the fact that He is human, not that He has original sin? Remember how I said that earlier that being "sinful", i.e having original sin, is not an essential part of being human, but a corruption of human nature?

    3) Of course they still commit sin. Even if the result was the forgiveness of sins they still did it because of selfish and immoral motivations. If your motivations are evil it does not matter whether the result is good, or whether God was able to use your evil to bring about a greater good, your actions themselves are still evil.

    Not sure what your gripe about 'non one is "really" forgiven' is all about. Jesus' death was enough to atone for the sins of anyone who receives the forgiveness of sins through faith, which would potentially include every single human that has ever lived, is living, and will live on the earth. If you're alluding to the fact that it doesn't apply to people who do not accept this gift of forgiveness, then that's another story altogether, but it still doesn't support your baseless 'non one is "really" forgiven' claim.
    1) God dies?
    2) having "original sin" is not essential?...but you said God cannot incarnate into any human because of sinful nature---he had to create a "sinless creation?---did I understand it wrong?
    If God cannot be near sinfulness and has to trouble himself into creating a sinless creature in order to incarnate---it would not seem possible to take up the "sins" of all humanity?---He cant even stand the "sinful nature" of one human being!?...
    ...and if he can take up the sins of all humanity---then why the whole process of "sinless creation" + incarnation...etc....?
    3) So after all the trouble God goes through to "forgive sins" of all humanity---its still conditional !!!---one has to be a Christian first---otherwise humanity is NOT forgiven!

    Do you still want to continue this discussion?
    There are too many holes in the Christian explanations and no way to plug them except to say ---- God's ways are a mystery and human language is inadequate to explain them. In all of my discussions with Christians---it is the only "explanation" that closes all questions.

  8. #178
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,252
    Amen (Given)
    5382
    Amen (Received)
    3870
    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    1) God dies?
    2) having "original sin" is not essential?...but you said God cannot incarnate into any human because of sinful nature---he had to create a "sinless creation?---did I understand it wrong?
    If God cannot be near sinfulness and has to trouble himself into creating a sinless creature in order to incarnate---it would not seem possible to take up the "sins" of all humanity?---He cant even stand the "sinful nature" of one human being!?...
    ...and if he can take up the sins of all humanity---then why the whole process of "sinless creation" + incarnation...etc....?
    3) So after all the trouble God goes through to "forgive sins" of all humanity---its still conditional !!!---one has to be a Christian first---otherwise humanity is NOT forgiven!

    Do you still want to continue this discussion?
    There are too many holes in the Christian explanations and no way to plug them except to say ---- God's ways are a mystery and human language is inadequate to explain them. In all of my discussions with Christians---it is the only "explanation" that closes all questions.
    Siam, why are you making up stuff and asserting I've claimed stuff I've never claimed? That's not a very honest way of discussing.

    1) Yes, God died a PHYSICAL death.

    2) I never said God cannot incarnate into any human because of sinful nature. God didn't incarnate into any human period. Incarnation does not mean "entering" into an already existing human being. Incarnation means God took on human nature with all that entails, including a human body, but excluding original sin, since original sin is not an essential part of being human, but a corruption in the nature of humanity. Jesus did not have to incarnate "into" a sinless human being because He couldn't stand the sinful nature of one human being, He had to incarnate as a sinless human being because a sinful, imperfect sacrifice is not good enough to atone for sins.

    3) If someone hands you a check of a million dollars free of charge, but you have to go to the bank to check it in before you get the money, is that really conditional? I mean, technically yes, but anyone who would object to the gift on the grounds of that being the required condition would rightly be seen as out of their mind. Same thing applies here. If your objection is that God's forgiveness is conditional on the fact that we must choose to accept the gift of salvation before it's granted to us you're honestly not thinking straight.

    There might be holes in the Christian explanation, but you still haven't managed to demonstrate any of them in this discussion, except those that you have made up out of whole cloth yourself.

  9. #179
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,025
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    I mean, when you look at the state that the world is currently in, it's pretty hard to argue anything other than humans being evil. If we were not, then trying to do what is good and right wouldn't be such a chore, and something you have to "train" yourself in. Doing the selfish, and self-serving thing comes far easier for the vast majority of people, than doing the right thing. Humans being intrinsically good should mean that doing the right thing would come naturally to us, almost like breathing. It shouldn't even be something we have to think about.

    Also, I sure wouldn't be speaking about "Christian" atrocities considering Islam's bloody history. At least we Christians can avail ourself of the excuse that the Christians who committed the atrocities you list were acting in direct opposition of what Christianity and the Bible teaches, you don't have that luxury when it comes to most of the atrocities committed in during the dark history of Islam.



    With all due respect to Geza Vermes and the Jews, but they're wrong about there being no precendent for original sin, and also about the OT teaching that man enters the world pure and untainted in the Old Testament. From the aftermath of the story of the Flood:

    Scripture Verse: Genesis 8:20-21 ESV


    20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

    © Copyright Original Source



    And with regards to entering the world pure and untainted, David writes in Psalm 51:

    Scripture Verse: Psalm 51:5 ESV


    5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
    and in sin did my mother conceive me.

    © Copyright Original Source





    Well, you could read it that way, but then you would be doing the exact same thing that you (unjustly) accuse Christians of doing, namely engage in eisegesis.
    I think humans are intrinsically good---Judeo-Islamic and Eastern philosophy generally premise that humanity is good/potentially good. That is why when we do good/right deeds we do not need any justification but when we do bad/wrong deeds, we need to justify them to ourselves or others. Being selfish and self-serving is not necessarily "easier" unless its systemic. If the whole socio-economic-justice system is built to reward the selfish and punish the unselfish---only then does it become "easier" to be selfish. ---And ironically, Christianity (Charity) is the biggest proof of that....apparently sharing food with the poor and homeless as charity is a big part of Christianity?...but many cities have made it illegal....
    https://www.motherjones.com/politics...meless-bans-2/
    there are other articles like the above---I just pulled the first one I found---

    Islam would not have survived for so long if it were a philosophy based on committing atrocities. In fact---world history attests to the benefits brought about by the scholars, scientists, philosophers, engineers, ....etc during the Islamic age (?)/Islamicate (?)...whatever...

    Jews are wrong---So says the Christian---meanwhile Jews claim the Christians are wrong---I say---only God knows.

  10. #180
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,025
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Siam, why are you making up stuff and asserting I've claimed stuff I've never claimed? That's not a very honest way of discussing.

    1) Yes, God died a PHYSICAL death.

    2) I never said God cannot incarnate into any human because of sinful nature. God didn't incarnate into any human period. Incarnation does not mean "entering" into an already existing human being. Incarnation means God took on human nature with all that entails, including a human body, but excluding original sin, since original sin is not an essential part of being human, but a corruption in the nature of humanity. Jesus did not have to incarnate "into" a sinless human being because He couldn't stand the sinful nature of one human being, He had to incarnate as a sinless human being because a sinful, imperfect sacrifice is not good enough to atone for sins.

    3) If someone hands you a check of a million dollars free of charge, but you have to go to the bank to check it in before you get the money, is that really conditional? I mean, technically yes, but anyone who would object to the gift on the grounds of that being the required condition would rightly be seen as out of their mind. Same thing applies here. If your objection is that God's forgiveness is conditional on the fact that we must choose to accept the gift of salvation before it's granted to us you're honestly not thinking straight.

    There might be holes in the Christian explanation, but you still haven't managed to demonstrate any of them in this discussion, except those that you have made up out of whole cloth yourself.
    So..you still want to continue...ok
    but I am warning you...its going to end up going in circles....been there b4....

    1) So...the "eternal God" dies. ---ok
    just so we are on the same page---"eternal" = "lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning." ---thats from google...

    2) So God can incarnate into any creature sinful or otherwise---just chooses not to?
    God chooses to incarnate as sinless creature because to incarnate as sinful creature is not a "perfect sacrifice"
    So if "perfect sacrifice" of sinless creature is the goal---why bother being human?
    not to mention---if God incarnating does not mean "entering into" an existing human being---then what was God doing being born of Mary---"mother of God"?

    3) So if forgiveness is going to be conditional anyway---why not just forgive human beings when they repent and ask for forgiveness as He had been doing for millennia before Christians came up with this confusing concept?....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •