[_ Old Earth _] The Christianity In Science

[Gary]

Read the gospels. There are many passages that support it. I don't have the time at the moment.

The fact that this is even being questioned is very surprising.

I'm just looking for one. Surely it can't be that difficult to throw out a verse or two. If in fact they do exist.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Was Jesus 100% a man? Yes or no?

Do you not understand this Scripture?
The fullness of the Godhead makes him out to be a man like no other, therefore, cannot be compared with another man.

 

[jasonc]

we have the creationist version of the trinity and now we have the theistic evolutionist version of it. never saw it that way but I do now.

 

[Rick W]

Original sin is a different matter, so I won't go there here.

However, I am talking about how we as humans are limited in our power. Not just Jesus looking like a human, but him actually being one.

Also, how do you reconcile Jesus not being tempted with this Scripture?

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Hebrews 4:15 (NIV)

I guess I am nitpicking, but I think I get your point in that Jesus was never drawn to sin, even though the temptations were presented?

Yes, He did not succumb to temptation.

Christ performed many miracles no human could come close to doing. One doesn't do that by actually being 100% fully man.
Physically yes. By nature no. Jesus was with God in the beginning. And I don't think he forgets things.

 

[Rick W]

we have the creationist version of the trinity and now we have the theistic evolutionist version of it. never saw it that way but I do now.

Please try to keep that from going any further in this discussion ok? DI doesn't have anything to prove as far as His Christian beliefs are concerned. None of us do.

 

[Rick W]

It's been a great discussion so far but I gotta run.

Later

 

[Gary]

Later.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

It's been a great discussion so far but I gotta run.

Later

Oh oh, who's gonna keep us all under control?

 

[Gary]

Oh oh, who's gonna keep us all under control?

I volunteer.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Do you not understand this Scripture?
The fullness of the Godhead makes him out to be a man like no other, therefore, cannot be compared with another man.

Are you answering no?

I see you cannot answer a simple yes or no question.

 

[Gary]

Speaking of answering questions...

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Yes, He did not succumb to temptation.

Christ performed many miracles no human could come close to doing. One doesn't do that by actually being 100% fully man.
Physically yes. By nature no. Jesus was with God in the beginning. And I don't think he forgets things.

Acts 2:22 says that God performed these mighty works through Jesus, so that negates that point.

This sounds like Docetism, where Jesus only appeared to be human.

The two natures of Christ is something you should study more.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Speaking of answering questions...

You'd think you would notice a pattern by now.

 

[Gary]

You'd think you would notice a pattern by now.

I have.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I have.

That I'm responding to everyone but you...

 

[Gary]

That I'm responding to everyone but you...

I have and I know there's a reason for that. It's ok. I understand. No one likes to be put on the spot.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Are you answering no?

I see you cannot answer a simple yes or no question.

yes no yes no yes no pick one

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

In all seriousness Doulos, why don't you give us your take on the Christianity in science, since, by the way, is the title of this thread.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

In all seriousness Doulos, why don't you give us your take on the Christianity in science, since, by the way, is the title of this thread.

I already have.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I have and I know there's a reason for that. It's ok. I understand. No one likes to be put on the spot.

No one likes to respond to a person who never contributes substance beyond a youtube video, and then makes such ridiculous assertions.