But this is exactly what Philippians 2 says.You cannot give up your nature. God cannot become not God.
Find out how Christians are supposed to act in the following study
https://christianforums.net/threads/charismatic-bible-studies-1-peter-2-11-17.109823/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
But this is exactly what Philippians 2 says.You cannot give up your nature. God cannot become not God.
Preceding verse:Yes, well, Deuteronomy 4:2: "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." Proverbs 30:6: "Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar."
But, ignoring those relevant verses, I was speaking to God Is My Judge and I don't know if he is Catholic or not.
No it doesn't.But this is exactly what Philippians 2 says.
I think Adam and Eve were divine...Before The Fall.You think Adam and Eve were divine? That is, you think Adam and Eve were gods? How remarkable. Will we thus be gods in heaven?
Though I think Gen. 3 is irrelevant, I do agree that the New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus gave up his divinity when he came to Earth. Nowhere does the Bible say he was "fully God and fully man".
Agreed! Imagine that! The bottom line is, no denominational doctrine can contradict the written word . If devised by means of Revelation, then it still will not contradict the written word. God's kingdom is not a house divide. For God is the Author and interpreter of His book. Catholics tend to have a problem with that.Yes, well, Deuteronomy 4:2: "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." Proverbs 30:6: "Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar."
But, ignoring those relevant verses, I was speaking to God Is My Judge and I don't know if he is Catholic or not.
Oh and I'm a she. : ^) Oh found my nose again, how 'bout you? Lol!Yes, well, Deuteronomy 4:2: "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." Proverbs 30:6: "Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar."
But, ignoring those relevant verses, I was speaking to God Is My Judge and I don't know if he is Catholic or not.
No He didn't give up His divinity, that makes no sense. He simply did not think it important to boast. But all His actions were proof of His Divinity. Sometimes actions speak louder than words.You are sadly mistaken to feel that Genesis is irrevelant.
And I agree with you that Jesus was only fully man when He waked the earth. He gave up His divinity to come save us.
He's got it back now of course. He might've saved His Jesus the man outfit. Lol.
Precisely! You've just hit on my main argument against Christianity. It violates its own scriptures.Do not add or take away from the decrees God was about to teach the Israelites not the whole BIble, otherwise you are dismissing the whole of Jesus' teaching in the NT.
Uhm you know that "a divinity" is a synonym for "a god" right? So by saying Adam and Eve were divine you are calling them gods. I see nothing to indicate Adam and Eve were gods though.I think Adam and Eve were divine...Before The Fall.
No created being is God. Angels are divine creatures and they are not God. Adam & Eve were most certainly divine before the fall. If they weren't exactly where did the fall part come into play? What did we lose. God said you will die the same day you eat from that tree. Well they ate from from the tree, and Adam lived to be 930 years old or thereabouts? So Adam did not die in the flesh obviously. But He did die spiritually.
What else can that mean except they lost their divinity?
No we wont be gods in Heaven. We were created to serve God. And He's the best Boss I've ever had. We are the Body of Christ (spiritualy) --HE is the Head. The Head is the boss. The Head tells the foot where to go. We aint God! Only one God! No man comes unto the Father except He go through Jesus Christ first.
Why are you so hostile agains Jesus?
Since you did not indicate that on your profile, and since "God is My Judge" is probably not your real name (and even if it was your real name, it does not tell me your gender), there's no way I could have known that. That said, I need to get in the habit of using "they".Oh and I'm a she. : ^) Oh found my nose again, how 'bout you? Lol!
What does that have to do with adding or taking away? Whether it is past, present or future, we are not to add or take away. And in context of the present argument put before by T. E . Smith, it is universally applicable regardless of time or space.Preceding verse:
"Now, Israel, hear the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land the Lord, the God of your ancestors, is giving you."
Do not add or take away from the decrees God was about to teach the Israelites not the whole BIble, otherwise you are dismissing the whole of Jesus' teaching in the NT.
Nor do I but I was giving you the Catholic position. This is the Catholic forum
I disagree.What does that have to do with adding or taking away? Whether it is past, present or future, we are not to add or take away. And in context of the present argument put before by T. E . Smith, it is universally applicable regardless of time or space.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?Precisely! You've just hit on my main argument against Christianity. It violates its own scriptures.
Christianity claims to hold to the Tanakh (what they call the Old Testament) and the New Testament. However, since the New Testament adds to the Torah, the New Testament contradicts the Torah's command not to add. Accordingly, the New Testament is entirely inconsistent with the Torah, and one cannot have both. But the NT also depends on the Torah, so without the Torah, there would be no NT. It thus follows that the NT must be rejected. (I also go a step further and reject the Torah.)How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Your opinion.I disagree.
And what I disagree with is just your opinion.Your opinion.
Christianity claims to hold to the Tanakh (what they call the Old Testament) and the New Testament. However, since the New Testament adds to the Torah, the New Testament contradicts the Torah's command not to add. Accordingly, the New Testament is entirely inconsistent with the Torah, and one cannot have both. But the NT also depends on the Torah, so without the Torah, there would be no NT. It thus follows that the NT must be rejected. (I also go a step further and reject the Torah.)
No, rather it's God's. I didn't coin the phrase in question nor did I put it forth to you. I simply agree with God's word. I have no need to convince you of anything, I just like debating. Those who are not simply here to debase will actually gain in knowledge. I'm sound in faith. I'm simply passing time and sharpening my intellectual prowess. If you have actual legitimate reproof against God's word share it. I don't get angry I settle accounts. Simply disagreeing any 1st grader can do and is not proving your point. And trust me , not my first rodeo, I haven't been debunked yet.And what I disagree with is just your opinion.
Christianity claims to hold to the Tanakh (what they call the Old Testament) and the New Testament. However, since the New Testament adds to the Torah, the New Testament contradicts the Torah's command not to add. Accordingly, the New Testament is entirely inconsistent with the Torah, and one cannot have both. But the NT also depends on the Torah, so without the Torah, there would be no NT. It thus follows that the NT must be rejected. (I also go a step further and reject the Torah.)
I'll keep to it. Let's discuss The Immaculate Conception. Now before you go flipping off at the keyboard, I believe she is the Immaculate Conception. I just believe it in a different way. A way that I can prove and do not need the use of Apocrypha books written two centuries after the fact. I will show with Canon -66, 73, 75, 81 whichever, what it truly means. If you are up to the task I think it will be quite engaging.I disagree with your analysis but this is going off topic so I won't explain further. If you wish to argue against the whole basis of Christianity then please take it to the main part of the Forum.
The topic is Understanding Mary - Mother of God.
Please keep to it.
No contradiction.Christianity claims to hold to the Tanakh (what they call the Old Testament) and the New Testament. However, since the New Testament adds to the Torah, the New Testament contradicts the Torah's command not to add. Accordingly, the New Testament is entirely inconsistent with the Torah, and one cannot have both. But the NT also depends on the Torah, so without the Torah, there would be no NT. It thus follows that the NT must be rejected. (I also go a step further and reject the Torah.)