@carnivorum said
Duons, that is dual coding genes, prove beyond any doubt intelligent design, and with that an Intelligent Designer.

For the finer details look here: https://tinyurl.com/God-won

I gotta see this debate.

@pettytalk said
Therefore you disagree with Mr. Maxwell, as I do. The Devil does have a Father, and perhaps the correct interpretation of the Greek for John 8:44 is indeed that the Father is also a liar. But since Jesus also said that God is Good, He's a Good liar. And a good liar is one who makes others believe the lies, otherwise he would not be a good liar.

Could be that a few Jews g ...[text shortened]... l have a need to know. To know good and evil; to know the truth about them, which will set you free.

"...The Devil does have a Father, and perhaps the correct interpretation of the Greek for John 8:44 is indeed that the Father is also a liar. But since Jesus also said that God is Good, He's a Good liar. And a good liar is one who makes others believe the lies, otherwise he would not be a good liar."

Brazen lie if I ever heard one.

The scripture teaches "..God, that cannot lie,.."; therefore the contradiction you assert is a lie, told by a liar and believed by fools.

@pettytalk said
The nuances of translating the Greek New Testament.

The following is from this source https://concordiatheology.org/2021/11/five-things-new-testament-translations-dont-want-you-to-know/

1. The Devil Has a Father? (Jn 8:44)

In John 8:44, Jesus says of the devil, ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος, ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλεῖ, ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ὁπατὴρ αὐτοῦ. The ESV renders this, “Whe ...[text shortened]... egarding John 8:44? It does make a hell of a difference, when it comes to the Devil, and his father.

Quite the twist.

Satan has a creator. Everything does. God is not Satan's father simply because he wasn't created in God's image and likeness, man was. God is the father of the human race.

Satan is merely the father of the lie. To render the interpretation as meaning more or less than what it says is only very poor exegesis, as there are no other textual references that gives support to what is just another attempt of starting with a presumptive idea and cherry picking a verse and garbling up its plain meaning to make it say something else.

All your cutting and pasting notwithstanding.

After all it's what Satan does. He adds to and takes away from the Word of God.

@divegeester said
I find you very interesting;

- Multiple accounts which you lied about (@Secondson)
- angry and abusive when under pressure
- liberal use of biblical text to throw spite filled insults
- claims to be spiritually mature yet not allowed to teach in your church - instead a taxi driver for the old ladies
-Trump supporter (like KellyJay)
- Biblical literalist who be ...[text shortened]... f good and evil” and of “life” with roots and leaves etc

Yes, you are quite interesting Joesphw.

Unlike you I don't carry a grudge. You obviously keep a list of grievances. No doubt a list for each of those you are contemptible of.

Oddly, they just so happen to be Christians that believe God and not man.

Your argument is with God, but since you can't touch him you berate those that believe him.

You're sounding more and more everyday like any other...

@divegeester said

Suzianne hasn’t got a clue and so just pours out scorn.

It is you who is without a clue. It's a shame you can't follow the thread.

@divegeester said
You’re posting history of exchanges with myself would indicate otherwise.

You're obviously perturbed because no wants to discuss anything with you.

After all everything you say is just petty personal insults, which makes you uninteresting.

@suzianne said
Seems obvious, yeah?

This is the 'FMF and divegeester' method of forum douchebaggery. Act like you have NO freaking idea what is being said. One wonders why he posts if he doesn't get it. The next step is to double-down on asking again and again and again and again and... what is being talked about. This is called 'acting as if the OP has no point.'

Well defined suzianne.

@moonbus said
@mlb62


"Ghost" is an infelicitous choice of words, because it suggests to most people the immaterial remnant of a once-embodied personality (something like 'Nearly Headless Nick' in Harry Potter). "Holy spirit" is a slightly better formulation insofar as one takes the word "spirit" as in "the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law." In Christian theology (don't ask m ...[text shortened]... no Christian theology. Think of a wholly de-personalized power indwelling in a person who has faith.

"Without Greek philosophy, there would be no Christian theology."

God, as defined in the scriptures, is responsible for the existence of everything.

After creation a will arose against the will of God. Since then everybody seems to think they know how everything works better than God, to the extent that they think they can define God himself.

To do so they must eradicate from their thinking any possibility that God superintended the transmission of his will in written form.

I'd hate to be the one bucking against God's will just because I think I'm smarter than him, and can't rationalize beyond the interests of my own will.

@divegeester said
The Jesus I believe in is the one described in the Bible.

That's what I've been saying, except you don't appear to know who that is, especially since, after cherry picking through the Bible to find what supports your preconceptions, you've discarded rest of what doesn't agree with you.

You're reduced to having only opinions, and nobody wants to debate over those.

@divegeester said
Why is it odd; you asserted something and I’m asking you specifically about what you said.

You need to think for yourself. My "assertions" are clear. Not my fault you can't understand plain English, much less the scriptures.

@divegeester said
I’m aware that I grind your gears SecondSon.

That's your illusion. I am not phased.

@divegeester said
You are correct; I have no knowledge.

You are a public nuisance geester! 🤣

@divegeester said
So what and whom are your referring to when you say people don’t recognise the real Jesus?

How odd it is that you should ask.
But then again, maybe not.
And then again it depends on how you define "recognize".

When the instead-of-christ waltzes in, will you recognize him for who and what he is, or will you, like so many, believe the lie?

@pettytalk said
But where in Scripture does it suggest that Jesus received a better education? And does Scripture also mention, directly or indirectly, anything related to Jesus' education in linguistics? Keep in mind that we are focusing on Jesus, the man, and must set aside the 'speaking in tongues' for this discussion.

To my knowledge the scriptures don't teach that Jesus "received" a better education than his human contemporaries.

I can assume though that Jesus' intellect was second to none.

And seeing as how the scriptures were his primary focus, and how his understanding of them was without equal, I believe Jesus did not suffer from confusion or lack of wisdom.

Jesus was "full of grace and truth", which trumps knowledge any day.

Luke2:40
And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

@pettytalk said
The question of whether Jesus spoke Greek has been debated among scholars.

Are there any scholars here which can shed light on what the debate was all about?

As a primer, the following was gleaned by Wikipedia:

There exists a consensus among scholars that the language of Jesus and his disciples was Aramaic. Aramaic was the common language of Judea in the first cen ...[text shortened]... ve to Judea. It is reasonable to assume that Jesus was well versed in Hebrew for religious purposes.

Without debating the issue, I agree with the scholarly consensus.

On the other hand I might ask what language could Jesus not speak seeing as he was filled with the fullness of the Holy Spirit?

The population of Jerusalem was estimated to be around 500 thousand, but swelled to possibly 3 million during the feasts with Jews and gentile proselytes speaking many different languages from all over the civilized world.

Question is, did Jesus converse directly with others not conversant in Aramaic, or did he use an interpreter?

Beyond all that is just speculation. I'll stick with what I know.