|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/21/2008 8:23:21 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3115
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Like I have said time after time, I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you that God subjected Himself to time. God "subjected Himself to time" for 33 years when He became the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Except for that unique span of history, God is no more subject to time than He is to space or matter. God must be transcendent to His created physical reality in order to have created physical reality!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/21/2008 9:28:55 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Like I have said time after time, I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you that God subjected Himself to time. God "subjected Himself to time" for 33 years when He became the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Except for that unique span of history, God is no more subject to time than He is to space or matter. God must be transcendent to His created physical reality in order to have created physical reality!
That is pure doctrines of men. By your understanding, You are saying God did not keep the laws about times and seasons of his own covenant with Israel. It is completely opposite of what scriptures teach. What in the world is your degree in Dr? Are you a Doctor of phantasy?
If God "transcends" time, why don't you produce the scriptures that say such, and end the controversy? Because you cannot. It is speculation and wishful thinking. Oh, yeah, 'almost forgot, it is "popular doctrine" isn't it? Something about "everyone knows..." Kinda' like "everyone" once knew the world is flat. Spare me from your concepts of "orthodoxy" and "popular" doctrines. I'll stick with what scripture teaches. And yes, Scriptures teach that God always "is." And "IS" is the present tense of the verb "to be" requiring time in which to be. THAT is the scientificaly provable way it is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/21/2008 9:39:54 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3115
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
If God "transcends" time, why don't you produce the scriptures that say such, and end the controversy? I'm sorry you cannot comprehend and apply the definition of "eternal", theo_book. Thus I am unable to engage you any more with meaningful discussion. Perhaps when you're ready to set aside your linguistic biases you will be able to understand what I've been posting.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/21/2008 10:23:37 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
If God "transcends" time, why don't you produce the scriptures that say such, and end the controversy? I'm sorry you cannot comprehend and apply the definition of "eternal", theo_book. Thus I am unable to engage you any more with meaningful discussion. Perhaps when you're ready to set aside your linguistic biases you will be able to understand what I've been posting.
So now you equate love of truth with "linguistic bias." Where did you study "language" Doctor? Did they not teach you about nouns and verbs and modifiers? Do you not understand that the strength of a message is found in the strength supplied by the words selected by which to convey that very message?
The very source of heresies is the fact that men make errors in language, and compound the errors by the strength of "what everyone knows," and further compound the error by forcing other men to agree by the power of armed might. THAT is how Catholicism enslaved a world; by the power of inquisition and the cry of "heresy."
I will yield the point gladly if you can supply the evidence for God's being without using verbs of action to do so. "Exist" is an intransitive verb meaning "To have actual being; Be."
"Be;" is a verb, or an auxilliary verb,, present 1st person singular = "am." 2nd person singular = "are." 3rd person singular = "was." plural "were." meaning "To exist or live."
Verb: Any member of a class of words that are formally distinguished in many languages as in english, by taking the past ending in -ed, that function as the main elements of predicates that typically express action.
Action; a noun describing a process by which change is accomplished. Action applies to the doing. Act applies to the result of doing.
Act; a state of realization as opposed to potentiality; to function or give expression to.
Existing itself is an action, and actions require time in which to be accomplished. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Because of a doctrine that speaks untruthfully about some aspect of God's existence? I would rather have the truth.
Eternal is a word translated from another word which is limited in scope to the meaning "throughout time." It does NOT mean beyond time, which is the meaning necessary for YOUR understanding to be true. Look it up.
"Qedem" is translated "eternal" but references past tense time, not beyond time.
"Ow-lam" is translated with reference to the "everlasting God." [Gen 211:33] But the word is also translated "eternity" and found 334 times in O.T. and is used to describe time so far distant as to be out of memory. "The same became mighty men of old, men of renown." [Gen 6:4]; the everlasting hills [Gen 49:26]; everlasting priesthood throughout their generations [Exo 40:15] Note, throughout their generations limits the meaning ot everlasting in this reference, especially since the priesthood ws replaced by that of Jesus; any time [Lev 25:32]; remember the days of old [Deu 32:7]; the everlasting hills [Deu 33:15]; the other side of the flood in old time [Josh 24:2]; nations were of old [1 Sam 27:8]; an ancient nation [Jer 5:15]; ungodly increase always [Psa 73:12]; days of old [Psa 77:5]; I will sing ... forever [Psa 89:11]; those long dead [Psa 143:3]; ancient landmarks [Prov 22:28; 23:10]; earth [Ecc 1:4]; former times [Ecc 1:10]; previous civilizations [Isa 44:7]; ancient waste places [Isa 58:12]; Moses' day [Isa 63:11]; SINCE the beginning of the world [Isa 64:4]; days of Egyptian bondage [Jer 2:20]; prophets [Jer 28:8]; ancient dead [Lam 3:6]; the point is "ow-lam" does not mean eternity, it means "a very long time."
All terminology found in scripture relating to eternal things or eternity ALWAYS come from words that mean a very long time.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/21/2008 1:57:34 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
God "subjected Himself to time" for 33 years when He became the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
BINGO!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/21/2008 2:04:57 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
What in the world is your degree in Dr? Are you a Doctor of phantasy?
TB, do not accuse me of being hostile and incapable of having a kind hearted debate when you say something like this. This was personally disrespectful to drmark's profession, and to me, this sounds a bit hypocritical, don't you think? I don't mind having a heated debate, but don't cry when some of the heat is thrown your way.
quote:
And yes, Scriptures teach that God always "is." And "IS" is the present tense of the verb "to be" requiring time in which to be. THAT is the scientificaly provable way it is.
You're absolutely correct. The span in which time existed is the amount of time that God "was" or "is". God always "was", as long as time exited, but that dosent prove that time always exited. It just proves that God existed at least as long as time has.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/21/2008 2:13:14 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
What in the world is your degree in Dr? Are you a Doctor of phantasy?
TB, do not accuse me of being hostile and incapable of having a kind hearted debate when you say something like this. This was personally disrespectful to drmark's profession, and to me, this sounds a bit hypocritical, don't you think? I don't mind having a heated debate, but don't cry when some of the heat is thrown your way.
quote:
And yes, Scriptures teach that God always "is." And "IS" is the present tense of the verb "to be" requiring time in which to be. THAT is the scientificaly provable way it is.
You're absolutely correct. The span in which time existed is the amount of time that God "was" or "is". God always "was", as long as time exited, but that dosent prove that time always exited. It just proves that God existed at least as long as time has.
Sorry my friend, I just had to share the animus that was coming my way. Go back and read the thread and you will see who it was that started the "heat," with calls of "Heresy" and false doctrine.
You are now listed among us "heretics" and don't even know it. At least you can see the logic of my conclusion. That is progress of a sort. Nice to see someone else recognizes that God existed as long as time existed. THAT has been my claim all along. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/21/2008 2:16:18 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
TB, do not accuse me of being hostile and incapable of having a kind hearted debate when you say something like this. This was personally disrespectful to drmark's profession, and to me, this sounds a bit hypocritical, don't you think? I don't mind having a heated debate, but don't cry when some of the heat is thrown your way.
It just seems such a waste to me when someone can get a Doctor's degree and not understand the fundamentals of English grammar, and misses the basic message of the verbs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/21/2008 3:46:41 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3115
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
THAT has been my claim all along. It just seems such a waste to me when someone can spend 3 months and 234 posts and still not understand the fundamentals of English grammar, and misses the basic message of the words "transcendent" and "eternal".
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/21/2008 4:53:05 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
THAT has been my claim all along. It just seems such a waste to me when someone can spend 3 months and 234 posts and still not understand the fundamentals of English grammar, and misses the basic message of the words "transcendent" and "eternal".
What was your scriptural reference again, for "transcendent?"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/21/2008 5:01:12 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
THAT has been my claim all along. It just seems such a waste to me when someone can spend 3 months and 234 posts and still not understand the fundamentals of English grammar, and misses the basic message of the words "transcendent" and "eternal".
Which fundamentals of English Grammar do you reference? Teach me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/22/2008 9:18:17 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
It just seems such a waste to me when someone can spend 3 months and 234 posts and still not understand the fundamentals of English grammar, and misses the basic message of the words "transcendent" and "eternal".
Do you speak of the basic message of the WORDS, or do you address the basic message of the DOCTRINES?
Please, doctor, proceed to educate me in the fundamentals of English, so I will not miss the basic message of the word "eternity." I am not really interested in the fundamentals of "transcendental" unless you can produce a scriptural reference for it.
You have publickly accused me of "still not understand the fundamentals of English grammar, and misses the basic message of the words "transcendent" and "eternal," so the opportunity is now in your reach. Teach me this "fundamental" of English which you claim I lack, or admit you are bluffing and not a gentleman.
It is in the same category of your wild accusations of "Blasphemy" and "Heresy." The reality is, you are referencing doctrines not scriptures. For someone to disagree with your precious doctrines, it is blasphemy or heresy, and neither is appropriate because you lack the basic understanding of scripture. And no every1neeedsgod, I do not need to show more respect for a man who has no respect for others. If he does have respect, let him post the fundamentals of English he claims I do not understand.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/22/2008 1:20:10 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
If he does have respect, let him post the fundamentals of English he claims I do not understand.
He already has. Doing it again would be a bit monotonous and foolish. Eternal simple means as long as time is. "Eternity" does not prove time is as old as God. An eternal God simply proves God is as old as time, since He created it!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/22/2008 1:55:41 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
If he does have respect, let him post the fundamentals of English he claims I do not understand.
He already has. Doing it again would be a bit monotonous and foolish. Eternal simple means as long as time is. "Eternity" does not prove time is as old as God. An eternal God simply proves God is as old as time, since He created it!
What you have posted is a definition and application of a word. What DrMark said was I do not understand fundamentals of English. The two are not the same. Please, allow DrMark to answer for himself.
And if in fact, as you say, he "already has" please give the post number in which he did so.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/22/2008 6:33:49 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3115
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
theo_book, are you deliberately trying to be antagonistic or is it just your personality? e1ng has answered you just as I would. Except, I should add an apology for parodying your post #233. Perhaps the "fundamentals of English grammar" is a bit non-specific but the point still remains that the Eternal Triune God is transcendent to the time He created based on common sense, linguistic meanings, and centuries of doctrinal tradition. If you want to write your own textbook of theology, be my guest. Just don't expect many buyers given your apparent inability to accept simple Biblical truth!
And please stop the sophomoric argument that the word "transcendent" is not in the Bible. Neither is the word "Triune" and I trust you accept that essential Christian concept! Many fundamental Christian doctrines are not specifically written out word-for-word in Scripture. God expects us to use the minds He created us with, don't you agree.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/22/2008 7:24:47 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
theo_book, are you deliberately trying to be antagonistic or is it just your personality?
Probably just my personality in conflict with what I consider unjust attacks. I apologize for behaving the same way I see others doing.
quote:
e1ng has answered you just as I would. Except, I should add an apology for parodying your post #233. Perhaps the "fundamentals of English grammar" is a bit non-specific but the point still remains that the Eternal Triune God is transcendent to the time He created based on common sense, linguistic meanings, and centuries of doctrinal tradition.
Yes, I would say "fundamentals of English grammar" is not only non-specific, it is non-applicable. Our disagreement is over doctrine, not the fundamentals of english grammar. THAT is why I said such terrible things and cast them your way. I do apologize for my remarks, and I very much do have respect for anyone who works to earn the accolades of scholarship. I should not have denigrated your accomplishments in that line of endeavor.
The linguistic meanings are actually the crux of the issue, are they not? Allow me to phrase what I believe is the issue between us. I look to the original languages to see how they are applied not only in referent material, but how they are used in other scriptures.
Mic 5:2 has been used for example, to prove Jesus is from eternity. The trouble is, Mic 5:2 does not prove that issue. I was caught in a debate upon an occasion, and defended to the utmost, those doctrines which I beleived with all my heart, only to find that the claims made for many of the references do not resolve the issues attributed to them.
Mic 5:2 uses "ow-lam" to describe a very long time ago, but it is translated in some translations, "eternity." And the way Owlam is used in scripture does NOT mean eternity. (See post # 229 for a list of how "ow-lam" in scripture). It references long gone generations of men, old landmarks, ancient mountains, everlasting hills, Moses' day, mighty men of old, and a host of other applications that have one thing in common; they do not mean eternity. So to build a doctrine and defend it with walls of doctrine made with untempered mortar is not my forte. I determined that when I defend a doctrine, it will be with defendable references, not doctrines of men.
When someone hurls "blasphemy" or "heretic" my way for questioning doctrinal references that do not make the case, I bristle. Again, I apologize for my reaction.
And I will most certainly agree, and that publickly, your position is what is commonly agreed upon as "orthodox" doctrine. It is just that the term means nothing to me. I was raised a Catholic, and studied my way out of the errors and murderous atmosphere found therein, so when "heretic" is shouted my way I cringe, and look around very quickly to see if "they" are breaking down the doors. It is a reaction I must work on.
I also do not understnad how logic will change the meaning of words. You have argued that logic is a factor in the meaning of words (If I understand your position correctly) and with that I disagree. I think if logic leads one to a premise or position, one must select words that reflect properly that premise of position. You do not change the meaning of words based upon the premise or position under defense.
quote:
And please stop the sophomoric argument that the word "transcendent" is not in the Bible.
That was not my argument. My argument is what is your reference that leads you to that argument or conclusion. I think we all agree not every word we use in argument is found in the vernacular of scripture. Many are the arguments however, that are built upon solid bases in language, and grammar, and a logical arrangement of thoughts.
I just do not see "transcendentalism" and thought you might supply the referent material.
quote:
God expects us to use the minds He created us with, don't you agree.
Most certainly with a disclaimer; "Come, let us reason together" must be tempered with a little bit of "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." [Prov 3:5]
< Message edited by theo_book -- 6/23/2008 3:35:58 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/22/2008 7:30:44 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
And I will most certainly agree, and that publickly, your position is what is commonly agreed upon as "orthodox" doctrine. It is just that the term means nothing to me. I was raised a Catholic, and studied my way out of the errors and murderous atmosphere found therein, so when "heretic" is shouted my way I cringe, and look around very quickly to see if "they" are breaking down the doors. It is a reaction I must work on.
Well TB, you don't have to be worried about I or drmark being Catholic, because I doubt he is, and I am MOST CERTAINLY not. I am in the same boat you're in.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/22/2008 7:48:39 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well TB, you don't have to be worried about I or drmark being Catholic, because I doubt he is, and I am MOST CERTAINLY not. I am in the same boat you're in.
It is a reaction I simply must get over.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/22/2008 8:35:29 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
It is a reaction I simply must get over.
I have to say I know how you feel, just applied a bit differently.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/22/2008 11:01:37 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3115
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
your position is what is commonly agreed upon as "orthodox" doctrine. It is just that the term means nothing to me. It should mean something to you. The only doctrine worth believing is "orthodox"! All others are false. Look, can we least agree that Scripture states God is eternal? Can we agree that eternal means unlimited by time? Transcendent means surpassing ordinary limits. Doesn't that simply show that "eternal" is another way of saying "transcendent to time"? There's really no need to get into esoteric philosophical discussions on the meaning of "is"! If you believe God exists both inside and outside the limits of space and matter, then why is it so hard to accept that He exists both inside and outside the limits of time?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/23/2008 7:48:12 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
your position is what is commonly agreed upon as "orthodox" doctrine. It is just that the term means nothing to me. It should mean something to you. The only doctrine worth believing is "orthodox"! All others are false. Look, can we least agree that Scripture states God is eternal? Can we agree that eternal means unlimited by time? Transcendent means surpassing ordinary limits. Doesn't that simply show that "eternal" is another way of saying "transcendent to time"? There's really no need to get into esoteric philosophical discussions on the meaning of "is"! If you believe God exists both inside and outside the limits of space and matter, then why is it so hard to accept that He exists both inside and outside the limits of time?
If you will take the time to look at all the religious despots of Christian history, you will find that what is considered "orthodox" has ALWAYS followed a period of controversy, during which "orthodoxy" has been assigned based upon a vote of the representatives of the party which is in power. THAT does not make it right or correct, it makes it "orthodox."
And "orthodox" is a word made by men to demonstrate the value of doctrines approved by men. It has nothing to do with truth, God's approval, or scriptural teaching. Look at all the heresies of Catholicism, all of which have worn the approval of "orthodoxy" at one time or another. There is no single "orthodox" system of religious practice. The Catholics have theirs, Baptists have theirs, Episcopalians have theirs, and etc. So who decides what is orthodox? Men who are in power.
You have said "The only doctrine worth believing is "orthodox"! All others are false." That makes YOUR doctrine false by a margin of several thousand to one if I accept that concept of orthodoxy. EVERY denomination considers their own form of heresy to be orthodox.
It is a non-argument.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/23/2008 8:25:58 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Look, can we least agree that Scripture states God is eternal?
Not if you do not understand that "eternal" is a translation of a word, not the meaning of the word. Look at the Hebrew word that is translated
"eternal," and that only ONCE in the old testament.
Deu 33:27 The ETERNAL God is thy refuge, and underneath are the EVERLASTING arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.
Isaiah 60:15 Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an ETERNAL excellency, a joy of many generations.
qedem {keh'-dem}
Meaning: 1) east, antiquity, front, that which is before, aforetime 1a) front, from the front or east, in front, mount of the East 1b) ancient time, aforetime, ancient, from of old, earliest time 1c) anciently, of old (adverb) 1d) beginning 1e) east adv 2) eastward, to or toward the East
Usage: AV - east 32, old 17, eastward 11, ancient 6, east side 5, before 3, east part 2, ancient time 2, aforetime 1, eternal 1, misc 7; 87
QEDEM is a reference to ancient times, not eternity. Even "earliest time" does not mean eternity. You are defending a translation of a word, not a concept found within the word.
Beyond that, "Eternal" is only found in the New Testament, and is a reference to being "through the ages" or "till the ages of the ages."
quote:
Can we agree that eternal means unlimited by time?
Sure, if you understand it is TIME that is unlimited, or at least not counted or measured. I understood you to be saying it is beyond the parameters of time.
quote:
Transcendent means surpassing ordinary limits. Doesn't that simply show that "eternal" is another way of saying "transcendent to time"?
Well Doc, there's the beginning of the issue. Doesn't that assume
"eternal" is ordinary? I would agree if you are saying "transcendent means surpassing ordinary limits" and then limit the description of the ordinary limits to that which is ordinary to men. God certainly transends the time of men, and even the times of men. But to say he transcends time itself, there is where it becomes "orthodoxy" instead of scripure. Time itself transcends the ordinaryness of men. God still requires time in which to be. And THAT my friend, is where the issue takes on a life of its own.
quote:
There's really no need to get into esoteric philosophical discussions on the meaning of "is"!
Nothing esoteric about the meaning of verbs of being. It is no secret that "to be" is an action requiring time. Why do you accuse me of
"esotericism?" I have used only arguments from scripture. And THAT is as far from esoteric as you can get.
And it is precisely over the meaning of "is" (third person singular present tense of verb "to be;" "he, she, it is.") that you are placing your argument. You argued that "being" does not require time in which to be. Come on my friend, let us at least be fair. Rewording the argument to something different will not help resolve the issue.
Remember the argument profferred by Jhud about "God changes not, change in time doesn't apply to an unchanging infinite being." (Post #6)
It is ALL about the meaning of "being" and the proper understanding of being and "time." Jhud's argument was wrong in that it allows no ageing of an ageless God. But even Daniel was inspired to describe God as "Ancient of days." Only those who have a preconceived concept of an old God have a problem with perceiving him as once being not as old.
Consider something here. One cannot be eternal until eternity is past. They can only be uncountedly old. Even the words used to describe God as "eternal" in the Hebrew and Greek do not give the meaning used by "orthodoxy" to prove God is eternal. To be eternal, all time must have already passed, and it has not. "Eternal" is potential, not kinetic.
That is precisely why "aiwnos" and "aiwnas" are used to describe eternal life. "Eternal" in this context means age lasting for all ages. And that is the BEST the language can offer. All else is esoteric orthodoxy, decided by those in power.
quote:
If you believe God exists both inside and outside the limits of space and matter, then why is it so hard to accept that He exists both inside and outside the limits of time?
Well, you see, that is the point. I do not believe God lives inside and outside of space, and I only perceive God living inside and outside of matter in the way men live in houses of matter, and can go outside into the yard. So also God lived in his temple in Jerusalem. THAT was living inside matter.
It may be that he is inside every rock, tree, and every other thing, but I do not know of it. If you know of a reference that shows that please share it.
But why would God need to live outside of space? Or do you consider when God created heaven he created space. Well you see, that is just wrong. Nothing is said about God creating space. (Oh dear, here we go again).
< Message edited by theo_book -- 6/23/2008 3:42:28 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 6/23/2008 8:59:28 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3115
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
"orthodoxy" has been assigned based upon a vote of the representatives of the party which is in power. THAT does not make it right or correct, it makes it "orthodox." Orthodox = sound or correct in doctrine, especially theological or religious doctrine which conforms to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church.
The prefix "ortho" comes from the original Greek meaning "straight, upright, or correct". It has nothing to do with majority voting by whoever is in power. Just because a powerful majority labels something "orthodox" does not make it so, t_b! Just because you have your own unique way of defining words does not make your understanding orthodox! I really have no further discussion to offer since you persist in your private world of meanings.
quote:
(Oh dear, here we go again). No, here you go again. I've seen enough to once again realize the importance of denominational tradition in developing a correct understanding of essential Christian doctrine. I wish you well on your journey of faith, theo_book. God bless!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
