sonofarthur

actually, mathematics is man-made too. I am a math teacher so let me explain. The laws of arithmetic are not man-made, so 1 plus 1 always equals 2 (according to how we have generally agreed to express that truth). Mathematics though, or the way in which we solve problems and express said solutions, IS man-made. Logic, as a concept that reflects how the world NORMALLY operates, i.e. cause and effect, was not man-made but natural (God-made). Logic though is not a concept, but the communication or expression of this interaction. When I say "man-made logic" I am referring to the way we describe the cause and effect, whys, and wherefores of ideas. This is kind of abstract. I'm sorry. It has been a long idea. There are three methods of reasoning (proof) that are conventional (agreed upon generally) within logic. They are: Deductive Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning, and Proof by contradiction. Deductive Reasoning is solid. When it is used it is easy to test its validity. Inductive Reasoning predicting the behavior of the whole by observing the parts; finding a trend. The problem with inductive reasoning is that it is built upon the assumption that what is being tested in uniform and unchanging, which is not always the case. When using inductive reasoning, one has to make sure that the system being tested is closed. Proof by contradiction is especially tricky. But, it is my favorite. This kind of proof is the only way that you can test your assumptions. If your assumptions logically derive two statements that exclusive (both can't be right simultaneously) then there is some flaw in your set of assumptions. The difficulty in this type of reasoning is that it can be suprisingly difficult to identify a true contradiction. All three methods of reasoning are built upon underlying assumptions. If those assumptions are off, then the whole building is suspect.

It seems that the other thread I started has started to die down... so I thought I would bring up another topic close to my heart... I think a lot of times students of the Bible make mistakes in their reading of the Bible on certain topics because of the false logic that they employ in their studies. We need to remember, that logic itself is manmade and thus fallible. That being said, there are certain things that are inherently true that can be determined from the proper use of the laws of logic. What is logic. The word itself derives from a word many of us here have studied, "logos" (greek). Logos generally means a communication or transmission of information about a particular topic. For example, as THE LOGOS of God, Jesus is the communication from God of Himself to mankind. The laws of logic, which in their foundation are truely mathematical, are the standards by which men can draw conclusions from their assumptions. When the laws are followed, the conclusion is valid. If the assumptions are wrong, then the conclusion might be wrong even though the conclusion is VALIDLY drawn. On the other hand, IF the assumptions are correct, then valid conclusions are correct. Conclusions that are valid based solely upon correct assumptions, are called SOUND conclusions. By studying this very issue, I was able to find the errors in TWI's teaching regarding the deity of Jesus. The problem with VPW's JCING is that his conclusions ARE valid, but his assumptions are flawed. Many people from a WAY background have an extremely HARD time discarding TWI teaching on this topic. I believe that this is because they cannot find the logical errors within JCING. The problem is that they are examining the logic, and not evaluating the assumptions underlying the book. VPW, never laid out his assumptions. I am not even sure that he realized that he was making certain extrabiblical assumptions.

someone mentioned Way myspacers. Where would we find them? I don't have much experience with myspace. I went there once and kept getting sent nasty pictures from people asking me to be their friend. I already have that kind of friend (my wife) and I don't want anymore. then again, if I could figure out how to block the spammers on MySpace, I would love to use the service.

year2027, good point!! Often the Bible is written from God's perspective, and He sees us from the perspective of what we will ultimately be. Thus, God doesn't delineate for us in flashing yellow lights the different tenses of salvation. Often our confusion is the result of the fact that we are trapped in the flow of time trying to comprehend timeless truth.

Oak, You have asked good questions. You have asked where the Bible clear lays out the how of the Trinity. I think there are some partial answers in the scripture. To some degree God's answer is "we see in a glass dimly, but then we shall see face to face" (2 Corinthians). While that may not be the best answer we want, it is probably the best answer that we are given. That being said, there are clues given within the scripture as the how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit interact with each other. The Father sent the Son. The Father sends the HS on the request of the Son. The HS doesn't speak of his own initiative but speaks on behalf of both the Father AND the Son. The HS directs and leads the believer. I remember somewhere that the marriage relationship has been given as a picture of Christ and His Church. In the same passage, this relationship of oneness is also used to symbolize the relationship between the Father and the Son. (I will give verse references later if you request. I am at work and don't have my books with me and don't want to misquote.) I appreciate your question Oak. But listen. Just because the HOW is not clearly defined and layed out in scripture does NOT give anyone warrant to deny that which IS clearly laid out in scripture. THAT Jesus is God is clear in scripture. HOW He is God and man simultaneously is NOT clearly laid out. Men have tried to logically deduce some of the answers to HOW. To some extent, I think they are right. At times, they have missed the mark. That there is only ONE God is clear in scripture. Tbone has done a decent job at defining what the Bible means by "one". There can be no division in oneness, but when we say that God is one we don't mean one in person or will. It is CLEAR in scripture that Jesus prays to, talks to, received orders from, relies upon, and even worships the Father. Thus, it can easily and rightly be derived that the Father and the Son are distinct in some way. But to take this distinction so far as to conclude that Jesus is somehow a lesser or secondary or different god is to contradict the clear verses. Here is the problem as I see it: men want to have all the answers. When we don't understand things we tend to discount it. We HAVE been given ENOUGH information to know WHO God is, but we do not understand HOW God is who He is. Thus, we need Faith. Someone shared a good piece of wisdom with me when I was struggling with this topic: If we could understand God then He would cease to be God. Our minds are too small to understand God entirely. He is simply TOO big and TOO complex. Nevertheless, He relates to us on our level. Our focus should be on the person of Jesus as that is how God has decided to most fully reveal Himself to us. The Father said, "this is my beloved Son, hear ye Him". The Holy Spirit testifies of Jesus. Jesus said of himself, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." If we focus on Jesus, all the rest will become clear in time and eternity. But we must never make the gross error of twisting and denying the clear scriptures that declare WHO Jesus is, just because we cannot understand them.

Good. Keep searching. Let me know what you find. I don't claim to have all the answers. The question of whether or not Jesus had the ability to sin is one of them. That being said, I do think the question is somewhat a moot one. The fact is, whether or not He could have sinned, He never DID. Thus, He was a perfect human and able to atone for the sins of others with His death. When I say that I am satisfied, I don't mean that I am no longer wanting an answer. I only mean that my lack of a clear understanding on this issue does not hinder my willingness or ability to have faith in other things which ARE clear from scripture. I am sure that there are plenty of things in the Bible that I do NOT understand. There are many things that I will NEVER understood in this life, because the Bible doesn't provide CLEAR explanations for everything it says. I don't want to become so focused on the things that are unclear that I fail to embrace and obey the things that ARE clear. Jesus is clearly called God in the Bible. The Bible clearly, and repeatedly claims that there is only one TRUE God. I am left with three options: 1) I can throw away the whole thing (in essence what you are doing if you twist scripture to deny its clear message) 2) I can believe that Jesus is the one True God 3) I can call Jesus a false GOD (this would be even more devastating than #1

T-bone!! Where can I get that book? Thank you for redirecting the conversation in a productive way... I think I allowed myself to get distracted off the topic.

I was planning to stay on one thread at a time, but I couldn't pass this up!! The problem seems to be the method in which teacher success is evaluated. I am a middle school math teacher in Texas and I would say the problems are much worse here than in the NorthEast. I taught HS for 5 years but moved to MS this year after getting fed up with what was sent up to me in the HS. When a teacher tries to use "big words" like horizontal and vertical the students object and stop wanting to work hard. "Why do you use such big words mister?" They would prefer me to use non-mathematical words like "straight" or "flat". In truth, I use both so that they can connect, but I am careful to point out to them that "all lines are straight" and "flat" is an ambiguous term. But then they get even more confused. "What does 'ambiguous' mean?" More and more I am coming to the conclusion that the problem with math is not math, but english. The kids don't know how to communicate, orally or by writing. and yet state tests all use the "big" words. Then the math teacher is held accountable for the failings of the english and reading teachers. UNLESS, that math teacher, like me, takes the time to use big words in the class every day. Then, the students think that the teacher "doesn't know how to teach"! The other fundamental problem is the assumption that ALL students can learn at the same pace with the same circumstances. Studies have shown that 33% of students cannot mentally grasp Algebra until they are 15. Yet, No Child Left Behind mandates that all students take algebra by the time they are in ninth grade (age 14). This sets students up for failure. If we waited one more year, they would be ready. Why is this? one reason: Lawmakers are arrogant and ignore the research so that they can enact laws that make them feel good and get them re-elected.

My friend, that is sophistry. Pure and simple malarky. You are, once again, engaging in an argument from silence. If you want to be technical, I believe the Bible DOES tell us how God (a spirit) became flesh (John 1:14). Even if you discount my reading of John 1:14, which waybrains have all messed up anyway, then you are still left with an argument from silence. I, for one, will not place limits upon God that He has not clearly placed upon Himself. God manifested himself in the flesh realm SEVERAL times in the OT. Consider the burning bush for starters. If you think the bush was really just Spirit, then how did Moses (a natural man) see it? Consider angels: they came into "concretion" (to use VPW's terms) many, many times. Are you saying that Angels can do something that God Himself is UNABLE to do??? Tskk, tskk!! You almost sound Gnostic! Excuse me, but James 1:13 is not a limitation placed upon God, but upon evil. Evil is not strong enough to tempt him. This verse doesn't say that God cannot do something, but that something (evil) cannot do something to God. That is an ad hominem attack. That is another ploy of the Waybrain. If your opponent starts to make too much sense, then just insult him.

What the Hey, I agree that Matthew 4:10 doesn't say that we can only worship God. But what verse from the OT was our Lord referring to? Do you even know? I guess that I will give you some benefit of the doubt.. afterall the verse reference is not too common. You have to go way back to an obscure reference in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS!!!! But like I say, I shouldn't assume that you have ever read those. That would be way too presuming of me. I will quote it for you since it might be hard for you to find: Exodus 20:1-4 1Then God spoke all these words, saying, 2“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3“You shall have no other gods £before Me. 4“You shall not make for yourself £an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. Notice that verse 3 says that you should have "no other gods before Me" and then verse 5 reads, "You shall not worship OR serve them..." Jesus WAS saying we should ONLY WORSHIP GOD!!! He was quoting the OT, silly! Someone will ask why Jesus's words sound a little different. Let us not forget, Jesus quoted from the "translation" of his day: The Septuagint. A little got lost in the translation, but we know that Jesus knew and his hearers at the time knew the reference to the OT to which He was referring. It was only the most revered part of the Hebrew scriptures!! Also, it can be well-documented that Jesus would often paraphrase old testament passages to make points knowing full well that his hearers knew the rest of the passage he was paraphrasing. Bible teachers do that today. Paul the Apostle did it too. Certainly in Matthew 4, Jesus knew that Satan knew the reference. Jesus didn't need to get into the hebrew GRAMMAR with the devil to convince him. He just made reference to the SUM AND SUBSTANCE of the word of God from Exodus 20. The principle here is that whenever the NT gives us a quote from the OT, then we should find the reference the quote is from and then read the context of the original verse so we can know what is meant by the person doing the quoting in the NT. I challenge you to demonstrate to me proof that those passages were "forged"! This is SO typical of Way thinking! This is the typical strategy: If the Bible clearly says something that you disagree with, then call it a figure of speech. If you can't find a way to call it a figure of speech, then call it a forgery (you don't need proof for that). If all else fails, just ignore the verse and hope no one ever brings it up. If they do, tell them that they are possessed. (What the Hey hasn't gotten to the last tactic yet, but I thought I would predict it just in case.) One more note, 1 John 5:7 was a forgery. Everyone agrees with that. So don't throw that one at me. But, you were not quoting 1 John 5:7 were you. What evidence do you have that the verse you quoted was a forgery?

Cman, if you want good answers to good questions (which yours seem to be), then you will need to give us a good enough amount of time to respond. I, for one, do not live in front of the monitor. So far, all of the points that What the Hey has brought up have been things I have already prayed through, studied through, and came to a resolution about. But, the exact question you brought up from Hebrews 9:28 is new to me. Thus, I reserve the right to modify my answer later, but let me tell you what this verse does NOT say. Just because Jesus will come in the future without sin does not mean that his first coming was with sin. Just because Jesus will come in the future "unto salvation" does not mean that his first coming was not also "unto salvation". At first consideration of your question I can say that this verse must be understood in the context of Hebrews 9, which is all about Christ fulfilling the duties of the high priest in atoning for our sins. He DID appear with sin (i.e. a sin offering) before the true Holy of Holies. There, after "ascending" to this heavenly temple but before appearing to the eleven and later finally ascending several days later, He offered his own blood (a sin offering) for the salvation of mankind. When He returns He will not need to offer up a sin offering. This has already been accomplished. "Unto Salvation": Our salvation comes in tenses (as I point out in a different thread). Our future salvation (of our bodies) has not occured yet, although it has already been paid for. I am not sure, but perhaps this verse from Hebrews 9 is talking about the future tense of our salvation. At that time our bodies will be redeemed when we are resurrected. Now, I will stop on this tangent. Perhaps we can continue it on another thread. So what!!!?!?!? There is only ONE God!!! Are you suggesting that the Father was engaging in Idolatry? God Forbid!! (exactly)

This issue is a hotly debated issue among trinitarians. I do think it is a secondary point because of the following. Whether or not the Bible calls Jesus "God" is not dependent on whether or not Jesus could sin. If the Bible calls Jesus God, which I contend that it does so clearly repeatedly, then our job is not to use this one issue that we don't understand as justification for the re-writing and twisting of all of the several clear verses declaring Christ's Deity. Another thing VPW did teach correctly is this: we should NEVER interpret clear verses in the light of unclear verses. Instead, we should interpret unclear verses (or concepts) in the light of clear verses (or concepts). I added the phrase "or concepts" in light of my previous post about how the Bible should be used as a manual in interpreting itself. That being said, let us get back to the sub-topic at hand: Clear statements of scripture: 1) Jesus was tempted in all points, but he never sinned (Hebrews) 2) God cannot be tempted to commit evil (James) 3) Jesus is called God (again in Hebrews 1:8 spec, but in several other verses we have made mention of and will again in the future. What is unclear from a direct reading of scripture: How was Jesus tempted? Could Jesus have sinned? (it is clear that he didn't sin, but did he have the ability?) Personally, I think that the second question here is not clearly answered in scripture. I am satisfied with the following conclusion on this matter: "Whether or not Jesus had the ability to sin, it seems clear that he had the ability to NOT sin." It was not Jesus's ability to sin that made him a suitable redeemer... but it was his ability to live a perfect life resisting sin.

I wasn't making that conclusion.. I was only pointing out that your logic would take you there if you followed your stated logic all the way through. I agree that Jesus was sinless. I think that metecho means something different than you do, for other reasons, but that is off topic. Since we agree that Jesus was sinless, I don't think we need to go there right now. So I won't go down that road at present. Now you are the one who is reading INTO this verse (from Numbers) what you understand from the rest of scripture. That is okay. We shouldn't take verses out of the context of the rest of the Bible. But, notice that you sacrifice your original argument here. If YOU say that Numbers 23 is only referring to a certain type of man which you say that Jesus was not, then how can you use this verse to say that Jesus could not be God?? If you have other verses we should discuss them, but I think you just put Numbers 23 to rest. It doesn't prove your point. According to how YOU just interpreted it, it merely says that God is not a man that takes part fully in Adam's Flesh and Blood. Since you say Jesus did not partake fully, then God could be Jesus. I agree. I agree, but his pure blood doesn't mean that He was not God either. You haven't shown this from scripture. So what, so are you and so am I. 1 Thessalonians says that we are spirit, soul, and body. Just because the Bible declares that God is Spirit doesn't preclude Him from being other things as well. This, my friend, is an argument from silence, and it won't fly. The Bible never calls God an Adam but so what. I never claimed that being an Adam made Jesus God. He is God also, but these are not mutually exclusive. Hold the phone! If you are going to place limits on what God can do, then you are going to have to give me verses on that. The only thing that I have ever read that God cannot do is lie.

and yet, Jesus Himself willingly received worship in the Bible, go fig! take a gander at these verses: Matthew 2:11 Matthew 14:33 Matthew 28:9 Matthew 28:17 John 9:38 But when others were worshiped, like other men or angels, they would rebuke the one doing the worshiping: Acts 10:25 is just one example but there are others too. Starbird, the verse you quoted is one of the strongest evidences in the Bible that Jesus is God.

cman-- Let us be clear. Do you believe that Jesus has ever sinned?