Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- Do you REALLY believe the entire Bible is God's Word? Which Bible, and who told you that?
- What is your primary evidence for that, or for your claim that some "Mark" is a writer of it inspired by the Holy Spirit? I'll wait for that. But first.
- 1 Kings 8:27
- But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!
- 1 Samuel 2:2
- There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.
- Hosea 11:9
- I will not execute the fierceness of My anger;
- I will not return to Ephraim to destroy him again.
- For I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst [who will not revoke My covenant],
- And I will not come in wrath or enter the city [in judgment].
- Luke 2:52
- And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man
- How does God grow in wisdom with God?
- A man grows in wisdom with God.
- How does God enter a temple, when even the heavens cannot contain Him?
- How can He be a man when it is known through reason and revelation that He is not a man, there is nothing like unto Him.
- What did you claim was a fallacy, misrepresenting a position and then arguing against it?
- Like when you falsely claim that we admit your doctrine is present in your scriptures?
- The mind has room for believing it has conceived an idea which is and can be real, when that idea can not ever be real.
- Semantic consequences and implications do not conclude something's existence.
- Logic predicates for rational impossibilities (that which the mind has room for, but has no room for existing as real; something that exists without a coherent essence or identity);
- one such predication would be the law of non-contradiction
- (ex. a given proposition can not be both "false" and "not false"; there is no coherent identity to such propositions)
- Thus, such a 'difficult to grasp', 'complex' concept like a 'many-vertices-circle'
- is not something that can be actualised into existence, as, while having semantic implications,
- still lacks coherent essence or identity.
- Certainly, there can be no mechanism for accepting this concept over the validity of a basic, euclidean circle (which is without vertices).
- Like there are no grounds for rejecting a rationally coherent description of a circle,
- there also stands no grounds for rejecting the credibility of a coherent and rational description of God's attributes that He reveals from Himself.
- These attributes are prevalent in the Qur'an, but also in the Tanakh,
- in unequivocal statements that have a long tradition of being comprehended by the Prophets and
- those people that they introduced these teachings & prophetic traditions to.
- These statements can not be rejected for statements that are contrary to what is established
- (otherwise they are contradictory and logically inconsistent & incoherent, and lose their form of identity)
- or rejected for statements that are not given authority from God,
- or rejected for equivocal and implicit statements
- with interpretation of the vague
- (that can easily be interpreted consistent with prior unequivocal statements—and indeed, have a long history of being interpreted in a unitarian sense).
- That is—you should not be able to reject the clear and unequivocal statements such as those in the Tanakh,
- that are consistent and have a long tradition of rational mechanisms for their validation—
- for equivocal statements
- that contradict the established unequivocal statements
- & that can only arrive contrary to the unequivocal statements
- after centuries of men developing trinitarian traditions.
- [Attach Trinity Citations]
- [Attach Stanford Trinity Citation]
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
