A Psalm of David

SatyamAbhidi said:
Michael means "like God".

The question then, is whether Jesus is God or just like God...

Well, he is like God, but expressed in time.
Click to expand...
Jesus incarnated. He was a divine being that condensed and descended into the human egg and was sealed. His human body was resurrected which is directly tied to human salvation. He can appear as he did when he was here on earth but also has the ability to raise that body up to a big giant spirit beings revealing who he really is. Michael does mean one who is like god. He is firstborn of all of the heavenly beings. He is not a metaphor for adam. He is a being that existed in the heavenly kingdom and is an individual that took on the human body and that human body is now immortal and why he is referred to as the last man adam.
 
Thomas said:
There is no 'prehuman incarnation' ... ?
And whoever suggested He 'was' Michael?
Click to expand...

He said he was the firstborn of god. That would be Michael but some suggest he is god incarnate who was calling his human body firstborn. By prehumen I meant to say what was his identity before his incarnation. A miracle happened when he was conceived. Remember Gabriel appeared to mary and the holy spirit overshadowed her. That is when the divine being entered the egg and was sealed.
 
Thomas said:
Well trying to actuate what you don't understand doesn't really help either.

My point is you're in no position to comment on Christian doctrine, as clearly you don't understand it.

I'd give your own trumpet a rest for a bit ... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I am not trying to actuate Christian texts.

I am expressing the same underlying unity.
 
SatyamAbhidi said:
I am not trying to actuate Christian texts.

I am expressing the same underlying unity.
Click to expand...
I think looking for unity is a good thing. I always say that each has their own religion and its meant to be that way but they are not suppose to contradict each other so looking for unity is commended.
 
Thomas said:
Angels are not born of God.


Then 'some'are wrong, and should pay more attention to Scripture! ;)
Click to expand...

Who says angels are not born of? Adam was created and referred to as being born of god. Why would you think that angelic beings are not born of god? They are most like god in order of creation. Michael is firstborn of all the heavenly host and his name even means one who is like god. The scriptures mention angels but do not really give you information about them because that is considered advanced studies. Everything is born of god. God has codes that make up his being and everyones codes can be found in god as the source. This is why everyone are children of god even if they were not directly born from him. Michael however is literally born of god. The heavenly kingdom where deities reside existed before the earthly universe and creation of it.
 
donnann said:
Who says angels are not born of? Adam was created and referred to as being born of god. Why would you think that angelic beings are not born of god? They are most like god in order of creation. Michael is firstborn of all the heavenly host and his name even means one who is like god. The scriptures mention angels but do not really give you information about them because that is considered advanced studies. Everything is born of god. God has codes that make up his being and everyones codes can be found in god as the source. This is why everyone are children of god even if they were not directly born from him. Michael however is literally born of god. The heavenly kingdom where deities reside existed before the earthly universe and creation of it.
Click to expand...

Jesus, for him, is the only begotten Son.

If the Angels are also begotten, then that statement is untrue.

Catholics love logic.

If the Angels are female, maybe it is possible? :p
 
SatyamAbhidi said:
I would suggest it simply maintains a common fantasy.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you would ... but then I still come down on the side of a fantasy founded on valid reasoning, rather than fantasy founded on ignorance.

Time and again, 'reasoned fantasy' turns out to be true – science is replete with discoveries that were once deemed too fantastic to conceive – whereas ignorance tends to remain ignorant.
 
Thomas said:
I'm sure you would ... but then I still come down on the side of a fantasy founded on valid reasoning, rather than fantasy founded on ignorance.

Time and again, 'reasoned fantasy' turns out to be true – science is replete with discoveries that were once deemed too fantastic to conceive – whereas ignorance tends to remain ignorant.
Click to expand...

Please explain how the reasoning is sound?

They have began with a bias and worked backwards to prove it.

This is the exact opposite of good reasoning.
 
Of course, the beauty of reason is that it doesn't need to contain any truth.

Its purpose is merely to prove a stance, the Sophists were masters of it.
 
SatyamAbhidi said:
Please explain how the reasoning is sound?
They have began with a bias and worked backwards to prove it.
This is the exact opposite of good reasoning.
Click to expand...
Not sure who you mean by 'they', but perhaps you could demonstrate for my enlightenment?
 
SatyamAbhidi said:
Of course, the beauty of reason is that it doesn't need to contain any truth.
Its purpose is merely to prove a stance, the Sophists were masters of it.
Click to expand...
Only if you're too dumb not to see it's false.
From where I'm standing, I can see your sophistry clear as day.
 
Thomas said:
Not sure who you mean by 'they', but perhaps you could demonstrate for my enlightenment?
Click to expand...

Every author of Abrahamic texts.

The basic premise they wish to prove and uphold is the oneness of God.

I say this very point is antagonistic.

Union includes everything or if isn't union.

What is the need to destroy every expression when each is saying the same thing?

They have too many stances, which shows they remain mental.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top