Create a new version of paste:

New Paste

Syntax Highlighting

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]

Optional Paste Settings

Category:

Tags:

Syntax Highlighting:

Paste Expiration:

Paste Exposure:

Folder:

PasswordNEW

Disabled

Burn after read NEW

Paste Name / Title:

Hello Guest

You are currently not logged in, this means you can not edit or delete anything you paste. Sign Up or Login