God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[Dyakovo]

So God isn't all powerful. Got it

Omnipotence does not mean you can do things that go against your nature. God, being a righteous and a God of justice cannot simply forgive humans because they deserve punishment. God cannot also lie, because He is always truthful, it goes against His nature, but it does not make Him not omnipotent.

1: So forgiveness isn't in "God's" nature. Got it.
2: Actually, yes it does mean that. Being omnipotent means you can do anything and everything. If you can't, you're not omnipotent

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It has as much basis as an omnipotent being claiming he cannot lie because it's somehow against its "nature".

Isn't it fun when we change words like that.

Very. After all, language is subjective. If I want omnipotent to mean not omnipotent, then that's what it means.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Except for that time he lied to Adam by saying he would die within the day of eating the forbidden fruit.

Without explaining what it means to die. How would Adam even understand the concept?

Do you even know the language that Adam and Eve, and God at that moment spoke with? It is clear in the original Ancient Hebrew language of Genesis that the "die" in that verse is figurative, heck the literal Hebrew even says "dying you shall die", implying a more progressive death.

I'm not saying that Adam and Eve spoke Hebrew though.

[Mavorpen]

Except for that time he lied to Adam by saying he would die within the day of eating the forbidden fruit.

That's it, I already knew you what you're going to say there. God did not lie to Adam by saying to him that he will surely die when he will eat the forbidden fruit. The death there is spiritual death related to sin, rather than literal physical death.

Prove it.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

That's it, I already knew you what you're going to say there. God did not lie to Adam by saying to him that he will surely die when he will eat the forbidden fruit. The death there is spiritual death related to sin, rather than literal physical death.

Prove it.

SEE ABOVE

[Mavorpen]

Prove it.

SEE ABOVE

I asked you to prove it, not make more conjecture with no evidence.

[The Archregimancy]

In balance for the backup I gave you earlier, I'll note that with my professional hat on I disagree with you fairly strongly here.

Matthew is probably the least likely of the Gospels to have been written by its purported author or individuals in close contact with the purported author.

The best we can say is that the author of Matthew was an anonymous Hellenised Christian Jew from the first generation of the Christian community. The tradition ascribing authorship to Matthew - and incorrectly stating that the existing version is a Greek translation of a Hebrew original - seems to date to Papias' Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (now lost) as subsequently recorded in Eusebius' History of the Church. No reliable academic textual criticism would make a confident attribution of the manuscript to the former tax collector known as Matthew the Apostle.

I'm not sure, incidentally, whether this is necessarily the best thread to be discussing this since the present topic seems to now be fairly narrowly on issues of Christian history rather than the broader topic of the existence or otherwise of a deity; but I'll leave it to others to make the decision there.

With due respect, I don't know, when you as both an Eastern Orthodox Christian and an archaeologist put the boundary on whether to consider the Church Fathers' statements as factual or not.

I'm perfectly comfortable politely disagreeing with Christian tradition on the basis of my academic profession.

In the case of Gospel authorship, I agree with the overwhelming consensus of mainstream scholarship when it comes to the observation that Matthew's Gospel most likely wasn't written by its traditional author. The main problem is that Papias - as quoted by Eusebius - is clearly unreliable on the issue of authorship since the Gospel very clearly wasn't originally written in Hebrew, but rather in Greek.

In that sense, I consider Gospel authorship to be a small-t tradition and not Tradition, a distinction that will perhaps be lost on many people posting in the thread, but likely not on you.

Also, permit me a moment to savour the paradox of you accepting my expertise when I agree with you (Alexander) and then suddenly attempting to cast doubt on my intellectual biases when it comes to a subject where I don't (authorship of Matthew). I get that a lot from people posting in this type of thread; from all sides. So long as I agree with someone, they not only accept my expertise on the subject but actively welcome my support; the moment I don't, suddenly I'm terribly unreliable and biased.

[Risottia]

God cannot also lie, because He is always truthful, it goes against His nature, but it does not make Him not omnipotent.

Are you talking about the God of Abraham by any chance? The one in the Bible?

Because I seem to remember a passage in Genesis where said deity looks a bit less than truthful.

[Dyakovo]

Without explaining what it means to die. How would Adam even understand the concept?

Do you even know the language that Adam and Eve, and God at that moment spoke with?

Do you?

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Omnipotence does not mean you can do things that go against your nature. God, being a righteous and a God of justice cannot simply forgive humans because they deserve punishment. God cannot also lie, because He is always truthful, it goes against His nature, but it does not make Him not omnipotent.

1: So forgiveness isn't in "God's" nature. Got it.
2: Actually, yes it does mean that. Being omnipotent means you can do anything and everything. If you can't, you're not omnipotent

I've already talked this omnipotence thing in NSG already, I just can't remember whom person is that, or where and when did it happen. One thing I observed is you critics of Christianity seem always catapulting the same arguments everytime.

1). Anyway, it's not that forgiveness is not in God's nature, it's that righteousness is also in His nature. Mankind is sinful that it does not deserve forgiveness, and it would be unrighteous to do so.
2). If that's the definition of the "omnipotence" word, just like I conversed with somebody another here already, then, it's not the omnipotence the Judeo-Christian God possesses and just certainly would not exist. The Bible is clear that God cannot lie, nor can He tempt man to sin, saying clearly God cannot do things against His nature. And that, general omnipotence is illogical, if you're omnipotent and you can do everything, can you make yourself so that you can no longer do everything?

[Risottia]

Except for that time he lied to Adam by saying he would die within the day of eating the forbidden fruit.

That's it, I already knew you what you're going to say there. God did not lie to Adam by saying to him that he will surely die when he will eat the forbidden fruit. The death there is spiritual death related to sin, rather than literal physical death.

And omnipotence isn't literal physical omnipotence, it's just spiritual omnipotence, as in "well, I don't really feel like doing it now, but I could if I would, right?"
And truth isn't literal truth, it's just spiritual truth, as in "Darth Vader killed your father, Luke".
And the Bible isn't literal revelation, it's just spiritual truth, as in "I was a bit high on wine yesterday, I might have said stuff here and there that doesn't quite add up but it does in a sort-of-deeper sense of whatever".

Gotcha.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

With due respect, I don't know, when you as both an Eastern Orthodox Christian and an archaeologist put the boundary on whether to consider the Church Fathers' statements as factual or not.

I'm perfectly comfortable politely disagreeing with Christian tradition on the basis of my academic profession.

In the case of Gospel authorship, I agree with the overwhelming consensus of mainstream scholarship when it comes to the observation that Matthew's Gospel most likely wasn't written by its traditional author. The main problem is that Papias - as quoted by Eusebius - is clearly unreliable on the issue of authorship since the Gospel very clearly wasn't originally written in Hebrew, but rather in Greek.

In that sense, I consider Gospel authorship to be a small-t tradition and not Tradition, a distinction that will perhaps be lost on many people posting in the thread, but likely not on you.

Also, permit me a moment to savour the paradox of you accepting my expertise when I agree with you (Alexander) and then suddenly attempting to cast doubt on my intellectual biases when it comes to a subject where I don't (authorship of Matthew). I get that a lot from people posting in this type of thread; from all sides. So long as I agree with someone, they not only accept my expertise on the subject but actively welcome my support; the moment I don't, suddenly I'm terribly unreliable and biased.

No I don't, I just find it hilariously ironic that an Eastern Orthodox archaeologist "debunked" the Church Fathers.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

That's it, I already knew you what you're going to say there. God did not lie to Adam by saying to him that he will surely die when he will eat the forbidden fruit. The death there is spiritual death related to sin, rather than literal physical death.

And omnipotence isn't literal physical omnipotence, it's just spiritual omnipotence, as in "well, I don't really feel like doing it now, but I could if I would, right?"
And truth isn't literal truth, it's just spiritual truth, as in "Darth Vader killed your father, Luke".

Gotcha.

And one problem of NSG atheists, is they suddenly turn hilariously rude. Hilariously.

[Risottia]

And omnipotence isn't literal physical omnipotence, it's just spiritual omnipotence, as in "well, I don't really feel like doing it now, but I could if I would, right?"
And truth isn't literal truth, it's just spiritual truth, as in "Darth Vader killed your father, Luke".

Gotcha.

And one problem of NSG atheists, is they suddenly turn hilariously rude. Hilariously.

You can't be offended. It's not literal rudeness, it's just spiritual one.

[Mavorpen]

1: So forgiveness isn't in "God's" nature. Got it.
2: Actually, yes it does mean that. Being omnipotent means you can do anything and everything. If you can't, you're not omnipotent

I've already talked this omnipotence thing in NSG already, I just can't remember whom person is that, or where and when did it happen. One thing I observed is you critics of Christianity seem always catapulting the same arguments everytime.

That's because you guys never actually refute them, so the arguments continue to stand unanswered.

1). Anyway, it's not that forgiveness is not in God's nature, it's that righteousness is also in His nature. Mankind is sinful that it does not deserve forgiveness, and it would be unrighteous to do so.

Nice circular logic. Mankind doesn't deserve forgiveness because it's sinful. It's therefore sinful and doesn't deserve forgiveness because it's sinful.

2). If that's the definition of the "omnipotence" word, just like I conversed with somebody another here already, then, it's not the omnipotence the Judeo-Christian God possesses and just certainly would not exist.

That's because the Judeo-Christian God is logically nonsensical.

The Bible is clear that God cannot lie,

No it isn't.

nor can He tempt man to sin,

Of course he can. He created both sin and the serpent who tempted Eve.

saying clearly God cannot do things against His nature. And that, general omnipotence is illogical, if you're omnipotent and you can do everything, can you make yourself so that you can no longer do everything?

Thanks for explaining why your God is illogical.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

SEE ABOVE

I asked you to prove it, not make more conjecture with no evidence.

I pointed to you the Ancient Hebrew literature, that the "death" in Gen 2:16-17 obviously means a figurative and spiritual death in the original Ancient Hebrew language, with the literal Hebrew phrase meaning "dying you shall die". And that, even pre-Christian Jewish commentators noted this as indicating spiritual, not physical death.

That's evidence, not conjecture, if you think I'm making these things up, you're a dick. Or, that you want me to throw bibliographic references, quotes and a link to a website?

[Mavorpen]

I pointed to you the Ancient Hebrew literature, that the "death" in Gen 2:16-17 obviously means a figurative and spiritual death in the original Ancient Hebrew language,

No, you didn't. You didn't point me to any literature.

with the literal Hebrew phrase meaning "dying you shall die".

Source that please.

And that, even pre-Christian Jewish commentators noted this as indicating spiritual, not physical death.

And this.

That's evidence, not conjecture, if you think I'm making these things up, you're a dick. Or, that you want me to throw bibliographic references, quotes and a link to a website?

No, it's conjecture.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

And one problem of NSG atheists, is they suddenly turn hilariously rude. Hilariously.

You can't be offended. It's not literal rudeness, it's just spiritual one.

Nah, and I am spiritually not insulted other by your spiritual, uh, non-literal figurative hilarity.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

I pointed to you the Ancient Hebrew literature, that the "death" in Gen 2:16-17 obviously means a figurative and spiritual death in the original Ancient Hebrew language,

No, you didn't. You didn't point me to any literature.

with the literal Hebrew phrase meaning "dying you shall die".

Source that please.

And that, even pre-Christian Jewish commentators noted this as indicating spiritual, not physical death.

And this.

That's evidence, not conjecture, if you think I'm making these things up, you're a dick. Or, that you want me to throw bibliographic references, quotes and a link to a website?

No, it's conjecture.

http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/jerry722.html#fig - You might as well take a peek at this case study on Jeremiah 7:22

As a further demonstration, let us now consider an ancient example from outside the Bible. First, here is a cite from the Scriptures that is sometimes regarded by critics as problematic:

1 Samuel 15:8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.

Critics find it odd that a people here recorded as being "utterly destroyed" come back making trouble just a few chapters later in 1 Samuel. But compare this to an inscription offered by the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses III [taken from Moshe and Trude Dothan, Peoples of the Sea, 27]:

I slew the Denyon in their islands, while the Tjekker and Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Washesh of the sea were made non-existent, captured all together and brought on captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore.

Cleary when Ramsses tells us his enemies were "made non-existent," he was not meaning this literally, since he goes on to indicate that they were captured. In ancient context, then, such claims as 1 Samuel 15:8 makes are not to be taken literally either. They are no more absolute statements than those of football fans who celebrate a team's win by shouting, "We're #1!" -- even if the team has lost more games than it has won.

Here, a comparison with Ancient Egyptian literature of the time, Ancient Near Eastern language is figurative and symbolic. In the same way, the "death" in Genesis refers to figurative death, a hyperbole or exaggeration coherent with the literature and language at that time, such as Ancient Egyptian literature, where Pharaoh Rameses tells his enemies were "made non-existent" but not really, they're just captured. Ancient Near Eastern literature is full of exaggerations and hyperboles.

[The Archregimancy]

No I don't, I just find it hilariously ironic that an Eastern Orthodox archaeologist "debunked" the Church Fathers.

I, of course, see it differently; though I wouldn't hold out much hope of convincing you otherwise.

Again, it's a small-t tradition, not Tradition; and since Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea both cast doubt on traditions on authorship of several individual books of the New Testament, I'd say I'm in reasonably good company.

Tradition may move slowly in the Orthodox world, but it isn't necessarily static and unchanging either.

[Mavorpen]

http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/jerry722.html#fig

Direct, professional, sources, please. I'm not interested in a blog.

[Neutraligon]

Do you even know the language that Adam and Eve, and God at that moment spoke with?

Do you?

Does it matter? If death is the result of eating the apple, and there was no death before eating the apple then how would adam understand what god meant when he said he would die?

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Do you?

Does it matter? If death is the result of eating the apple, and there was no death before eating the apple then how would adam understand what god meant when he said he would die?

Adam and Eve knew more than you think, they're not naive fools. God would not use words Adam and Eve does not know, the fact that the used the word "die" is already a good point Adam and Eve knows death.

In the previous chapters, we see Adam and Eve giving all the animals coherent names, certainly, they must be smarter than we thought. And the fact that it occurs before the Fall means their intellect is still intact. And that, God hotwired them two with grammatical and linguistic ability in the first place, it seems that Adam and Eve knew more than previously believed.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/jerry722.html#fig

Direct, professional, sources, please. I'm not interested in a blog.

You know what, it's not a blog at all. ........

[Mavorpen]

Direct, professional, sources, please. I'm not interested in a blog.

You know what, it's not a blog at all. ........

Yes it is.

Regardless, give me a direct professional source. In other words, something peer reviewed is ideal.