The John 3:16 & 4:16 flaw?

Originally posted by willofthewisp
"The problem is that Jesus was not supposed to be human; he could supposedly heal the sick with a touch, turn water into wine, rise from the dead, walk on water and so on. This doesn’t sound too human to me unless you’re Chris Angle."----Da Pittman

I guess you haven't heard of the Nicene Creed. It is basically a recited statement of what certain Christian churches believe. Part of it goes, "For our sake and for our salvation, he came down from Heaven...and became fully human." The hymn Beautiful Savior also addresses this with the lyric "son of God and son of man." It's hard for a lot of people to grasp that Jesus was fully God AND fully human. Even some of his last words were him saying, "I'm thirsty."

Belief is not the issue. If people said "I have faith in my belief, and don't need proof", then there would be no issue. The point is some people need proof, and there is none, so they make it up , and then rationalize their invention.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
I guess you haven't heard of the Nicene Creed. It is basically a recited statement of what certain Christian churches believe. Part of it goes, "For our sake and for our salvation, he came down from Heaven...and became fully human." The hymn Beautiful Savior also addresses this with the lyric "son of God and son of man." It's hard for a lot of people to grasp that Jesus was fully God AND fully human. Even some of his last words were him saying, "I'm thirsty."

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Well there is a problem there that he is not fully human or a god, you can’t be 100% of one thing and a 100% of another.

Don't forget the big loop hole. 😉

turn water into wine??????.......big deal people turn grapes into wine all the time

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Well there is a problem there that he is not fully human or a god, you can’t be 100% of one thing and a 100% of another.

I would say that we can...since we have chromosomal pairs............................................................am I wrong?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would say that we can...since we have chromosomal pairs............................................................am I wrong?

Oh! So! Wrong! 😂

Not that I'll convince you, but things that defy our imaginations happen all the time. If you're God, why couldn't you make yourself fully God and fully human? Just because humans can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Not that I'll convince you, but things that defy our imaginations happen all the time. If you're God, why couldn't you make yourself fully God and fully human? Just because humans can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible.

Sure, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny might also be real.

You laugh, but what we once thought impossible and fantasy is now real. Who would have thought just 300 years ago that we would be able to fly? Although with the state of the airlines nowadays, that dream might fade away, lol.

You seem very analytical and I like that, but the problem a lot of people have with anything in the Bible is that it stretches their concept of what is possible. Virgin births are impossible, turning water into wine is impossible, etc. It's not about what we're familiar with and our current state. Faith in God and religions in general tackle the unexplained. They deal with things that exist beyond science. If God has limits, then why consider him God or even worship him? If he is incapable of doing anything for us, then there is no point to worship. Yet the Bible has lasted and Christianity has lasted and people today still testify that God in some way has touched their lives. You can't explain how such a varied group of people as the entire Christian population manage to believe [nearly] the same basic truths: God created us, we have all sinned, and God came down as a human to die for our sins and rose again. Mass hallucination is not an explanation. Neither is just deception since you will find just as many educated, well-read Christians as you will "hicks." There are even people who believe in God but are generally skeptical about other things.

That's a lot more than Santa and the Easter bunny have done...let me know how many adults you know that will speak as passionately about these two as they do about God.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
You laugh, but what we once thought impossible and fantasy is now real. Who would have thought just 300 years ago that we would be able to fly? Although with the state of the airlines nowadays, that dream might fade away, lol.

You seem very analytical and I like that, but the problem a lot of people have with anything in the Bible is that it stretches their concept of what is possible. Virgin births are impossible, turning water into wine is impossible, etc. It's not about what we're familiar with and our current state. Faith in God and religions in general tackle the unexplained. They deal with things that exist beyond science. If God has limits, then why consider him God or even worship him? If he is incapable of doing anything for us, then there is no point to worship. Yet the Bible has lasted and Christianity has lasted and people today still testify that God in some way has touched their lives. You can't explain how such a varied group of people as the entire Christian population manage to believe [nearly] the same basic truths: God created us, we have all sinned, and God came down as a human to die for our sins and rose again. Mass hallucination is not an explanation. Neither is just deception since you will find just as many educated, well-read Christians as you will "hicks." There are even people who believe in God but are generally skeptical about other things.

That's a lot more than Santa and the Easter bunny have done...let me know how many adults you know that will speak as passionately about these two as they do about God.

Please keep in mind that I'm a Buddhist. Have you ever read any Buddhist text? Most likely not. The Sutras are filled with imposable imagery that cannot be taken literally; no Buddhist would take them literally. Books like the Lotus Sutra are designed to challenge your preconceived notions and open your mind to fundamental truths about being human. The way they are written is a means to the end. When I read the bible, I can tell it was written in the same way as the Sutras (mostly the OT). So, I never take any of it literally, and always search for the underling message that has to do with being human in this life.

Originally posted by anaconda
turn water into wine??????.......big deal people turn grapes into wine all the time

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would say that we can...since we have chromosomal pairs............................................................am I wrong?

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Not that I'll convince you, but things that defy our imaginations happen all the time. If you're God, why couldn't you make yourself fully God and fully human? Just because humans can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
You laugh, but what we once thought impossible and fantasy is now real. Who would have thought just 300 years ago that we would be able to fly? Although with the state of the airlines nowadays, that dream might fade away, lol.

You seem very analytical and I like that, but the problem a lot of people have with anything in the Bible is that it stretches their concept of what is possible. Virgin births are impossible, turning water into wine is impossible, etc. It's not about what we're familiar with and our current state. Faith in God and religions in general tackle the unexplained. They deal with things that exist beyond science. If God has limits, then why consider him God or even worship him? If he is incapable of doing anything for us, then there is no point to worship. Yet the Bible has lasted and Christianity has lasted and people today still testify that God in some way has touched their lives. You can't explain how such a varied group of people as the entire Christian population manage to believe [nearly] the same basic truths: God created us, we have all sinned, and God came down as a human to die for our sins and rose again. Mass hallucination is not an explanation. Neither is just deception since you will find just as many educated, well-read Christians as you will "hicks." There are even people who believe in God but are generally skeptical about other things.

That's a lot more than Santa and the Easter bunny have done...let me know how many adults you know that will speak as passionately about these two as they do about God.

I have not read Buddhist text and I will admit my knowledge of the religion is limited to what we covered in high school and in The Philosophy of Religion course I took. But we do have the common trait of reading for meaning. Of course there are underlying messages in the Bible. In two of the books, Esther and Song of Solomon, God is not even mentioned in the text once. And yet the reader has to determine why they were included. Maybe God is present in some way. Revelation is written almost entirely in a poetic format with so much symbolism it cannot be taken literally. Nor is it meant to be. Even Jesus told parables to get his points across.

The Bible was also meant to challenge our way of thinking. When Jesus walked the earth, he did quite a few things that made people sit up and think about life in general and their take on it. But if that was its only mission, there would be no need to include a death/resurrection. We would already have the words Jesus spoke to make us rethink how we live. Because of politics, misunderstandings, betrayal, and God's will, Jesus was put to death. Even the most scientific archaeologists will admit Jesus was a real person. And yet approximately 500 people interacted with him after his death. Why include this? If the Bible was just meant to make us think, it wouldn't matter if Jesus rose from the dead or not. Being dead, he could have just slipped into the role of a great human being, right up there with Gandhi and Mother Theresa. But the Bible's real purpose is a way for God to reach out to us, as he always has. Christianity is the only faith I know of that constantly talks about God trying to get close to us rather than us getting close to him. And that's what it's all about: the love of God for his people.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
I have not read Buddhist text and I will admit my knowledge of the religion is limited to what we covered in high school and in The Philosophy of Religion course I took. But we do have the common trait of reading for meaning. Of course there are underlying messages in the Bible. In two of the books, Esther and Song of Solomon, God is not even mentioned in the text once. And yet the reader has to determine why they were included. Maybe God is present in some way. Revelation is written almost entirely in a poetic format with so much symbolism it cannot be taken literally. Nor is it meant to be. Even Jesus told parables to get his points across.

The Bible was also meant to challenge our way of thinking. When Jesus walked the earth, he did quite a few things that made people sit up and think about life in general and their take on it. But if that was its only mission, there would be no need to include a death/resurrection. We would already have the words Jesus spoke to make us rethink how we live. Because of politics, misunderstandings, betrayal, and God's will, Jesus was put to death. Even the most scientific archaeologists will admit Jesus was a real person. And yet approximately 500 people interacted with him after his death. Why include this? If the Bible was just meant to make us think, it wouldn't matter if Jesus rose from the dead or not. Being dead, he could have just slipped into the role of a great human being, right up there with Gandhi and Mother Theresa. But the Bible's real purpose is a way for God to reach out to us, as he always has. Christianity is the only faith I know of that constantly talks about God trying to get close to us rather than us getting close to him. And that's what it's all about: the love of God for his people.

Also, I do not believe in magic or supernatural. My ideas about God are different from yours in that I do not believe that God is separate from us.

I'm telling you this so you can understand why I say what I say. Nothing more...

Who has the fun, is it always the man with the gun?
Someone must have told him, if you work too hard you can sweat

There's always the sun
There's always the sun
Always, always, always the sun
- Stranglers

Originally posted by anaconda
Who has the fun, is it always the man with the gun?
Someone must have told him, if you work too hard you can sweat

There's always the sun
There's always the sun
Always, always, always the sun
- Stranglers

That has to be the worst set of lyrics you have ever posted. 😘

Oh, shaky, please don't be under the impression you offended me. I love learning about different religions. I was a psychology major in college and I love knowing what different people think. It's fascinating how the whole world has the same questions and yet there are so many different answers to them.

I don't want you to misunderstand me, though. I don't think God is separate from us. He's different from us, which is what I think you mean, but correct me if it's not. I feel I have a close, personal connection to God.

Please tell me your beliefs. This is a place where we're all supposed to come and be able to discuss them intelligently. I'm a little disappointed so many people don't bother to think or understand when they come here.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
I have not read Buddhist text and I will admit my knowledge of the religion is limited to what we covered in high school and in The Philosophy of Religion course I took. But we do have the common trait of reading for meaning. Of course there are underlying messages in the Bible. In two of the books, Esther and Song of Solomon, God is not even mentioned in the text once. And yet the reader has to determine why they were included. Maybe God is present in some way. Revelation is written almost entirely in a poetic format with so much symbolism it cannot be taken literally. Nor is it meant to be. Even Jesus told parables to get his points across.

The Bible was also meant to challenge our way of thinking. When Jesus walked the earth, he did quite a few things that made people sit up and think about life in general and their take on it. But if that was its only mission, there would be no need to include a death/resurrection. We would already have the words Jesus spoke to make us rethink how we live. Because of politics, misunderstandings, betrayal, and God's will, Jesus was put to death. Even the most scientific archaeologists will admit Jesus was a real person. And yet approximately 500 people interacted with him after his death. Why include this? If the Bible was just meant to make us think, it wouldn't matter if Jesus rose from the dead or not. Being dead, he could have just slipped into the role of a great human being, right up there with Gandhi and Mother Theresa. But the Bible's real purpose is a way for God to reach out to us, as he always has. Christianity is the only faith I know of that constantly talks about God trying to get close to us rather than us getting close to him. And that's what it's all about: the love of God for his people.

You can feel for a heartbeat without stethoscopes. Also, the Romans weren't stupid. If you read just how crucifixtion works, it's about impossible to survive, and when they took Jesus down, they still weren't sure he was dead so they stabbed him for good measure.

But my point was that if the Bible's purpose is just to offer us philosophy, there would be no need for a resurrection story at all, regardless of whether or not it was true.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
You can feel for a heartbeat without stethoscopes. Also, the Romans weren't stupid. If you read just how crucifixion works, it's about impossible to survive, and when they took Jesus down, they still weren't sure he was dead so they stabbed him for good measure.

But my point was that if the Bible's purpose is just to offer us philosophy, there would be no need for a resurrection story at all, regardless of whether or not it was true.

However, there are accounts, from the time of Jesus, of people who survived crucifixion. Crucifixion was not always a form of execution. The Romans used disembowelment as a favored form of execution.

I have yet to find a source where crucifixion was just a way to torture someone. It was deemed so painful that Roman citizens couldn't even be executed that way. It was reserved for rebels, slaves, pirates, and the like. If you didn't die of the flogging, exhaustion, or dehydration, you died on the cross. It is basically a very painful impalement. Although it is possible to survive crucifixion, very few records exist of that happening and with all the pressure to kill Jesus, if he survived crucifixion, they would have killed him some other way.