PDA

View Full Version : Paradoxes



David M
01-03-2014, 06:15 AM
Here is a list of Physics paradoxes produced by rdelmonico which I have copied from another thread.


Archimedes paradox
Aristotle's wheel paradox
Babinet's principle
Bell's spaceship paradox
Black hole information paradox
Bootstrap paradox
Bootstrap paradox in fiction
Carroll's paradox
Denny's paradox
Ehrenfest paradox
Elevator paradox
EPR paradox
Fermi paradox
Fluctuation theorem
Gibbs paradox
Painlevé paradox
Predestination paradox
Predestination paradoxes in popular culture
Rietdijk–Putnam argument
QGrandfather paradox
Gravitational singularity
Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin limit
Hydrodynamic paradox
Hydrostatic paradox
Klein paradox



Ladder paradox
Levinthal's paradox
Lombard's paradox
Loschmidt's paradox
Mpemba effect
Olbers' paradox (Why is the night sky not blindingly bright?)
uantum immortality
Schrödinger's cat
Supplee's paradox
Tachyonic antitelephone
Tea leaf paradox
Temporal paradox
Tolman's paradox
Trouton–Noble experiment
Twin paradox
Ultraviolet catastrophe
Cool tropics paradox
holographic principle
Irresistible force paradox
Algol paradox
Faint young Sun paradox
Archimedes paradox
Aristotle's wheel paradox
Carroll's paradox
D'Alembert's paradox


Denny's paradox
Elevator paradox
Feynman sprinkler
Painlevé paradox
Tea leaf paradoxArcher's paradox
Bentley's paradox
Olbers' paradox
Faraday paradox
Bell's theorem
Hardy's paradox
Klein paradox
Quantum pseudo-telepathy
Bell's spaceship paradox
Black hole information paradox
Ehrenfest paradox
Ladder paradox
Supplee's paradox
Simulation paradox
Twin paradox
Gibbs paradox
Loschmidt's paradox
Maxwell's Demon
Mpemba paradox
vacuum catastrophe


I looked at two paradoxes to begin with. Faraday's paradox has an explanation, therefore we could take that off the list to leave only those which remain unresolved.

The Fermi paradox whilst scientific, brings to mind philosophical and theological questions as to whether God has created any other life in this Universe that we know of and can see through telescopes. Are we the first life-forms to be created in this universe? God has created man with the intention of man having eternal life and God dwelling with man in the age to come. It does not sound like God needs to create another form of man? What we are told is (1 Cor 2:9);Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. This means we could be in for an eternity of surprises, when in the kingdom of God.


David

duxrow
01-03-2014, 07:37 AM
The lying prophet of 1Kings13:18 (a scriptural paradox or oxymoron) said that an angel told him to say it!
We don't get our faith from angels--we trust only in the Word of the Lord which is the sixty-six books of the Bible--- the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New. Which is not to say that angels can't be seen or heard, or be beneficial; but beware of anything or anyone who contradicts the Truth that is Jesus and The Word.

Are you adding to the Word? Leaving out something? Well of course we all do that to a certain extent every time we discuss it, but let's endeavor to keep the gist of what we're saying true to the entirety of Scripture. :thumb:

rdelmonico
01-03-2014, 08:04 AM
Amen

1st Kings 13
11 Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel; and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel: the words which he had spoken unto the king, them they told also to their father.

12 And their father said unto them, What way went he? For his sons had seen what way the man of God went, which came from Judah.

13 And he said unto his sons, Saddle me the ass. So they saddled him the ass: and he rode thereon,

14 And went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak: and he said unto him, Art thou the man of God that camest from Judah? And he said, I am.

15 Then he said unto him, Come home with me, and eat bread.

16 And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place:

17 For it was said to me by the word of the Lord, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest.

18 He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him.

19 So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water.

20 And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the word of the Lord came unto the prophet that brought him back:

21 And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord, and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord thy God commanded thee,

22 But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the Lord did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers.

23 And it came to pass, after he had eaten bread, and after he had drunk, that he saddled for him the ass, to wit, for the prophet whom he had brought back.

24 And when he was gone, a lion met him by the way, and slew him: and his carcase was cast in the way, and the ass stood by it, the lion also stood by the carcase.

rdelmonico
01-03-2014, 08:25 AM
Look up anthropic principle.
I was in a hurry when I found that list and was not able to proof it.
There are probably redundant things in it also I am sure the more recent discoveries and paradoxes are not on this list.
If you look at the Hubble deep field photos, you will notice that the most distant galaxies we see look the same as the closest ones, (strange).

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm75/rad802/design/Theuniverse-1.jpg (http://s293.photobucket.com/user/rad802/media/design/Theuniverse-1.jpg.html)

The outer circle represents the size of the universe at some point in time, but when we look out into space we see the curled or curved line because the universe was smaller when the light left that location.
The Fibonacci curve going down the left of the center line would be the path of light, starting from the center, and coming back up.
When the light began it's journey the path was only 2.5 billion light years but as space expands the path becomes longer, when the light reaches our position, it has traveled 6.375 billion light years.

This document shows how a beam of light will travel across space as space is expanding.
Space must have expanded at a rate much faster then light if the big bang theory is true and when we look out into the night sky everything we see is following this same type of path.

For 150 to 200 years the scientific community has been trying to convince you that everything can be explained as a natural phenomena.
But today science is becoming increasingly metaphysical.
Space/time is an information matrix that obeys the rules that were programmed into it. We see evidence of error correcting codes (adinkras). We see evidence that everything including consciousness is entangled. Why the scientific community has spent the last 200 years trying to convince us that reality is just a cosmic accident, I do not know. I see evidence of an agenda.
The scientific community is trying to convince you that the truth is relative and can not be proven to be otherwise.

The idea that truth is relative stems from our inability to understand the world around us.

There is the real truth and then there are the 10,000 manufactured versions engineered to dilute the possibility of discovery.

To believe in God requires faith. It is the same for the atheist who believes that the universe sprang out of nothing and happened to be so perfectly tuned that the spark of life could be ignited out of the dead matter from exploded stars.
We should look at life as a miracle every day that we wake up.
If there is another four billion years of life left on this planet as the scientists say, then really humanity is just a blip in the scheme of things.
If there is a God that cares about us then he will sort things out in his time.


Empty space is a frothing sea of potential. Space and time began together. Space expanded at a rate much faster than the speed of light. We have not figured out how to measure any of it.
If your torture the data enough you can get it to confess to anything.

David M
01-03-2014, 08:31 AM
Hello Dux


The lying prophet of 1Kings13:18 (a scriptural paradox or oxymoron) said that an angel told him to say it!
We don't get our faith from angels--we trust only in the Word of the Lord which is the sixty-six books of the Bible--- the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New. Which is not to say that angels can't be seen or heard, or be beneficial; but beware of anything or anyone who contradicts the Truth that is Jesus and The Word.

Are you adding to the Word? Leaving out something? Well of course we all do that to a certain extent every time we discuss it, but let's endeavor to keep the gist of what we're saying true to the entirety of Scripture. :thumb:

Jesus warns us of the false Christs (Matt 24:24 ) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

The apostle Paul is saying the same, but using different language;(2 Cor 11:14) And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. These are all human agents.

All the best
David

PS. I watched the following video; Shocking Documentary - How You Are Being Mind Controlled (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F1OibrCMWA) It is 96 minutes long. You can think of it is propaganda film from North Korea, making them look squeaky clean, but it shows the propaganda and lies and atrocities that have and are taking place around the world and it is all man's fault. God is dealing with it in his way. God has warned us of this, so as believers this comes as no surprise. The Day of the LORD is coming; that we are assured of.

David M
01-03-2014, 08:59 AM
Look up anthropic principle.
I was in a hurry when I found that list and was not able to proof it.
There are probably redundant things in it also I am sure the more recent discoveries and paradoxes are not on this list.
If you look at the Hubble deep field photos, you will notice that the most distant galaxies we see look the same as the closest ones, (strange).

I know the Big Bang has mathematical formulae by which to explain what was happening. Mathematical formulae are man-made. What if energy expanded before it was converted or distilled into matter? What if light did not exist until a very large expansion had taken place. That might explain how the universe did not expand faster than light, but that light was delayed in its formation after the expansion appearing as if the expansion had been faster than light.

Light is made up of photons, and photons are produced by electrons losing energy and going to a lower energy state. If it is thought stars are forming now, by the possibility of hydrogen gas clouds condensing under gravity (Even now while the universe is expanding), so what is to stop energy converting at the point where basic particles are made to make the hydrogen atoms? Without the atom, who is to say, there is any light? Where do the photons come from? We are made of atoms, our eyes can only see light. Outside the narrow band of the elctromagnetic spectrum, we cannot see with our eyes. We are reliant on different types of detectors (eyes) to see outside the visible spectrum.



David

rdelmonico
01-03-2014, 10:06 AM
On September 25, 2012, NASA released a further refined version of the Ultra-Deep Field dubbed the eXtreme Deep Field (XDF). The XDF reveals galaxies that span back 13.2 billion years in time, revealing a galaxy theorized to be formed only 450 million years after the big bang event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field

The universe has expanded to at least 30 times the distance (13.8 billion light years) of this original 450 million light year expansion. (450 million year old universe).
How much would these numbers change due to time dilation under some possible condition not yet considered?

rdelmonico
01-03-2014, 10:17 AM
Best explanation of the twin slit paradox and quantum entanglement.

The Quantum Conspiracy What Popularizers of QM Dont Want You to Know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

Best explanation of the vacuum catastrophe.
Nassim Haramein - Sacred Geometry and Unified Fields.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zc0ICPoqlM

The most elegant model of particle theory.
Garrett Lisi A theory of everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Gk_Ddhr0M

rdelmonico
01-04-2014, 05:33 AM
I know the Big Bang has mathematical formulae by which to explain what was happening. Mathematical formulae are man-made. What if energy expanded before it was converted or distilled into matter? What if light did not exist until a very large expansion had taken place. That might explain how the universe did not expand faster than light, but that light was delayed in its formation after the expansion appearing as if the expansion had been faster than light.

Light is made up of photons, and photons are produced by electrons losing energy and going to a lower energy state. If it is thought stars are forming now, by the possibility of hydrogen gas clouds condensing under gravity (Even now while the universe is expanding), so what is to stop energy converting at the point where basic particles are made to make the hydrogen atoms? Without the atom, who is to say, there is any light? Where do the photons come from? We are made of atoms, our eyes can only see light. Outside the narrow band of the elctromagnetic spectrum, we cannot see with our eyes. We are reliant on different types of detectors (eyes) to see outside the visible spectrum.



David

It is possible that reality condensed out of a collision in a higher dimension, (Brane theory).
The theory describes these branes as sheets, but what if they are more like bubbles and our universe is the contact surface between two bubbles?
What does the description of inflation in the early universe look like as the bubbles collide and the contact surface expands?

rdelmonico
01-04-2014, 06:15 AM
I have no dog in this fight, only curiosity.
Ed Fredkin thinks cellular automata theory provides the best clue as to what is going on.
Michio Kaku is the champion of string theory. Interesting note, the Hebrew sages from many centuries ago discovered in the Torah a description of the universe or creation having 11 dimensions. I would have to research this to give further details.
Brane theory is an extension of string theory.
Jim Gates' discovery of error correcting code (adinkras) is also connected to string theory.
Nassim Haramein is the champion of the Fractal-Holographic theory.
Richard Feynman suggested that all electrons were exactly alike because only one electron was looping through time and our universe was like a movie reel with the electron passing back and forth through the individual frames billions and billions of times. In a didital universe all the electrons would also be exactly alike.
Research is being done to determine whether or not space/time is smooth and continuous or quantized.
By analysing the light from gama ray bursts, we may be able to detect the graininess, or lack there of, in space/time.
The most recent data is pointing to a smooth and continuous model.

There are many strange things coming down the road.
It does not look like we will be given much more time to figure this stuff out.
Ancient Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times".

David M
01-04-2014, 06:41 AM
I have no dog in this fight, only curiosity.
Ed Fredkin thinks cellular automaton provides the best clue as to what is going on.
Michio Kaku is the champion of string theory. Interesting note, the Hebrew sages from many centuries ago discovered in the Torah a description of the universe or creation having 11 dimensions. I would have to research this to give further details.
Brane theory is an extension of string theory.
Jim Gates' discovery of error correcting code (adinkras) is also connected to string theory.
Nassim Haramein is the champion of the Fractal-Holographic theory.
Research is being done to determine whether or not space/time is smooth and continuous or quantized.
By analysing the light from gama ray bursts, we may be able to detect the graininess, or lack there of, in space/time.
The most recent data is pointing to a smooth and continuous model.

There are many strange things coming down the road.
It does not look like we will be given much more time to figure this stuff out.
Ancient Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times".
Thanks for this and previous posts. I do not think we should lose too much time considering every man-made theory. Salvation has always been on offer by God and has not depeneded upon man knowing how God created the universe.
Life is short and we only have one life-time to find the answer to eternal salvation.
Here is some advice we are given:

1. James 4:14 For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

2. Deut 10:12 what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,

3. Eccl 12:1 Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;

4. Eccl 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

5. Isaiah 55:6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:


All the best
David

rdelmonico
01-04-2014, 06:59 AM
Thanks for this and previous posts. I do not think we should lose too much time considering every man-made theory. Salvation has always been on offer by God and has not depeneded upon man knowing how God created the universe.
Life is short and we only have one life-time to find the answer to eternal salvation.
Here is some advice we are given:

1. James 4:14 For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

2. Deut 10:12 what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,

3. Eccl 12:1 Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;

4. Eccl 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

5. Isaiah 55:6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:


All the best
David

Understood

If righteousness = purity and light = energy and God is righteousness and also light then God is pure energy where entropy (times arrow pointing down) can not exist.
My people parish for lack of knowledge? Wisdom, the application of knowledge?


Still watching Job series.
Thanks
Rick

David M
01-04-2014, 08:55 AM
Understood

If righteousness = purity and light = energy and God is righteousness and also light then God is pure energy where entropy (times arrow pointing down) can not exist.
My people parish for lack of knowledge? Wisdom, the application of knowledge?


Still watching Job series.
Thanks
Rick
Thanks Rick. I am watching the series again. I look forward to your review of it if you care to give one. Like reading the Bible, the more comes out each time I read it and put more thought into it. The speaker puts forward his suggestions. If you have better suggestions, I am open to hearing them in order to get to the very best, which is as close to the truth as possible.

God is greater than his Creation. God cannot be constrained by his Creation. Maybe this single Universe contains all the the energy there is and we cannot see it. If it seems infinite to us, yet closed, God is in control nevertheless. God's control cannot be explained by science. Science has little it can control by comparison. Not only is God the source of all energy making up the Universe, God is the intelligence, which is in everything that demonstrates intelligent design.

All the best

David

PS. There is much more evidence presented in the book the speaker has produced on the Exposition of the Book of Job. If you do not want to buy the book, you can read it for free on Google books. This information comes out in one of the later parts in the series.

rdelmonico
01-04-2014, 09:12 AM
Thanks Rick. I am watching the series again. I look forward to your review of it if you care to give one. Like reading the Bible, the more comes out each time I read it and put more thought into it. The speaker puts forward his suggestions. If you have better suggestions, I am open to hearing them in order to get to the very best, which is as close to the truth as possible.

God is greater than his Creation. God cannot be constrained by his Creation. Maybe this single Universe contains all the the energy there is and we cannot see it. If it seems infinite to us, yet closed, God is in control nevertheless. God's control cannot be explained by science. Science has little it can control by comparison. Not only is God the source of all energy making up the Universe, God is the intelligence, which is in everything that demonstrates intelligent design.

All the best

David

PS. There is much more evidence presented in the book the speaker has produced on the Exposition of the Book of Job. If you do not want to buy the book, you can read it for free on Google books. This information comes out in one of the later parts in the series.

From what I gather so far, the main point seems to be:
Be still and KNOW that I AM God. There is the "I AM" (unconstrained).
The knowledge promised in the garden vs the knowledge offered by God.

David M
01-04-2014, 09:57 AM
From what I gather so far, the main point seems to be:
Be still and KNOW that I AM God. There is the "I AM" (unconstrained).
The knowledge promised in the garden vs the knowledge offered by God.
Hello Rick
You got the point as I did. God said to Moses (Exodus 3:14); And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. The point is; God said; I AM and the words are not constrained by what comes after them. God does not say; "I am <insert words here>". God is not constrained by any words that would limit him.

Jesus said (John 14:6); I am the way, the truth, and the life: This is one of the many "I am ..." statements said by Jesus. All the " I am ..." statements said by Jesus have constraints.

All the best
David

Richard Amiel McGough
01-04-2014, 10:50 AM
Here is a list of Physics paradoxes produced by rdelmonico which I have copied from another thread.


Archimedes paradox
Aristotle's wheel paradox
Babinet's principle
Bell's spaceship paradox
Black hole information paradox
Bootstrap paradox
Bootstrap paradox in fiction
Carroll's paradox
Denny's paradox
Ehrenfest paradox
Elevator paradox
EPR paradox
Fermi paradox
Fluctuation theorem
Gibbs paradox
Painlevé paradox
Predestination paradox
Predestination paradoxes in popular culture
Rietdijk–Putnam argument
QGrandfather paradox
Gravitational singularity
Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin limit
Hydrodynamic paradox
Hydrostatic paradox
Klein paradox
Ladder paradox
Levinthal's paradox
Lombard's paradox
Loschmidt's paradox
Mpemba effect
Olbers' paradox (Why is the night sky not blindingly bright?)
uantum immortality
Schrödinger's cat
Supplee's paradox
Tachyonic antitelephone
Tea leaf paradox
Temporal paradox
Tolman's paradox
Trouton–Noble experiment
Twin paradox
Ultraviolet catastrophe
Cool tropics paradox
holographic principle
Irresistible force paradox
Algol paradox
Faint young Sun paradox
Archimedes paradox
Aristotle's wheel paradox
Carroll's paradox
D'Alembert's paradox
Denny's paradox
Elevator paradox
Feynman sprinkler
Painlevé paradox
Tea leaf paradoxArcher's paradox
Bentley's paradox
Olbers' paradox
Faraday paradox
Bell's theorem
Hardy's paradox
Klein paradox
Quantum pseudo-telepathy
Bell's spaceship paradox
Black hole information paradox
Ehrenfest paradox
Ladder paradox
Supplee's paradox
Simulation paradox
Twin paradox
Gibbs paradox
Loschmidt's paradox
Maxwell's Demon
Mpemba paradox
vacuum catastrophe


I looked at two paradoxes to begin with. Faraday's paradox has an explanation, therefore we could take that off the list to leave only those which remain unresolved.

The Fermi paradox whilst scientific, brings to mind philosophical and theological questions as to whether God has created any other life in this Universe that we know of and can see through telescopes. Are we the first life-forms to be created in this universe? God has created man with the intention of man having eternal life and God dwelling with man in the age to come. It does not sound like God needs to create another form of man? What we are told is (1 Cor 2:9);Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. This means we could be in for an eternity of surprises, when in the kingdom of God.


David
Nicely formatted post David! It's good to see you taking control of the software. Well done. :thumb:

I think we should leave all the items in the list, and mark them depending on their status. E.g. WE could use the "strike tag" [ s ] to strike out any entries that were either poorly formulated or false. And we could put hyperlinks to the best explanations that we find on the net. Things like that. Unfortunately, I'm much too busy today to examine any of them. But they'll be here when I find time. That's what I love about this form of communication.

duxrow
01-04-2014, 11:18 AM
Wrap your head around this?

The generations leading to King David and his dynasty might be called "The King Line".

The Matthew genealogy would be that King Line, but the Luke genealogy would be "The Priest Line".

King David, followed by King Jesus? Since we are both kings and priests: Rev 1:6

This is NOT the way its usually thought of or taught, so do we call it Paradox? :winking0071:

Richard Amiel McGough
01-04-2014, 02:31 PM
From what I gather so far, the main point seems to be:
Be still and KNOW that I AM God. There is the "I AM" (unconstrained).
The knowledge promised in the garden vs the knowledge offered by God.
The "I AM" was inserted by the translators. It does not exist in the Hebrew of Psalm 46:10, which simply says KI ANOKI ELOHIM (For I GOD).

Richard Amiel McGough
01-04-2014, 03:03 PM
Hello Rick
You got the point as I did. God said to Moses (Exodus 3:14); And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. The point is; God said; I AM and the words are not constrained by what comes after them. God does not say; "I am <insert words here>". God is not constrained by any words that would limit him.

Jesus said (John 14:6); I am the way, the truth, and the life: This is one of the many "I am ..." statements said by Jesus. All the " I am ..." statements said by Jesus have constraints.

All the best
David
That's not true. The most famous occurrence had no "constraint" and was understood by the Jews as being a declaration by Christ that he is God who declared his name is "I AM" to Moses (that's why they picked up stones to kill him):

NKJ John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

This is an accurate word for word translation. Nothing follows the EGO EIMI (I AM) at the end of the sentence.

As an aside, this I found this verse very convincing demonstration of the Divinity of Christ when I was a Christian because it is confirmed by the Isaiah Bible Correlation. The Book of John is often thought of as the "I AM" Gospel because of the seven I AM statements made by Jesus. It's the 43rd book and so corresponds to Isaiah 43 which has the highest frequency of I AM statements from God. The distribution of I AMs in the NT correspond to the distribution in the NT portion of Isaiah. Here's the distribution, which I discuss in this article (http://www.biblewheel.com/InnerWheels/Isaiah/Isaiah43.php):


http://www.biblewheel.com/images/IAM_Isa43_John.gif

rdelmonico
01-04-2014, 04:40 PM
The "I AM" was inserted by the translators. It does not exist in the Hebrew of Psalm 46:10, which simply says KI ANOKI ELOHIM (For I GOD).

my mistake

David M
01-04-2014, 05:41 PM
Hello Richard


That's not true. The most famous occurrence had no "constraint" and was understood by the Jews as being a declaration by Christ that he is God who declared his name is "I AM" to Moses (that's why they picked up stones to kill him):

NKJ John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

This is an accurate word for word translation. Nothing follows the EGO EIMI (I AM) at the end of the sentence. I am not going to get into an argument with you about this. Those same words are most often translated "I am he". It is unfortunate the translators did not put the "he" in this verse for consistency. Why the inconsistency? Translators not sure? Therefore, translators are possibly showing some bias.


As an aside, this I found this verse very convincing demonstration of the Divinity of Christ when I was a Christian because it is confirmed by the Isaiah Bible Correlation. The Book of John is often thought of as the "I AM" Gospel because of the seven I AM statements made by Jesus. It's the 43rd book and so corresponds to Isaiah 43 which has the highest frequency of I AM statements from God. The distribution of I AMs in the NT correspond to the distribution in the NT portion of Isaiah. Here's the distribution, which I discuss in this article (http://www.biblewheel.com/InnerWheels/Isaiah/Isaiah43.php): Look at all the "I am" in Isaiah 45 and to see how emphatic God is about being singular; "I am the LORD, and there is none else". Four times God says that of himself in that chapter. Another three times in chapter 44 God says; "none beside me". In those two chapter you have for divine completion God saying that he is ONE and there is none else besides him.

All the best
David

rdelmonico
01-04-2014, 05:43 PM
Wrap your head around this?

The generations leading to King David and his dynasty might be called "The King Line".

The Matthew genealogy would be that King Line, but the Luke genealogy would be "The Priest Line".

King David, followed by King Jesus? Since we are both kings and priests: Rev 1:6

This is NOT the way its usually thought of or taught, so do we call it Paradox? :winking0071:
There are many correlations, I am sure I will forget something, so I will post a photo and a link to one of Chuck Misslers videos.
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm75/rad802/1q_zps2da4121f.png (http://s293.photobucket.com/user/rad802/media/1q_zps2da4121f.png.html)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZxwy4wDkTs

David M
01-04-2014, 05:54 PM
Nicely formatted post David! It's good to see you taking control of the software. Well done. :thumb:

I think we should leave all the items in the list, and mark them depending on their status. E.g. WE could use the "strike tag" [ s ] to strike out any entries that were either poorly formulated or false. And we could put hyperlinks to the best explanations that we find on the net. Things like that. Unfortunately, I'm much too busy today to examine any of them. But they'll be here when I find time. That's what I love about this form of communication.
Hello Richard
As you know, I have used the table tags before when considering the parallel accounts of the Olivet Prophecy and the parallel accounts of the events from the time of Jesus's resurrection to his ascension.

Can you please list somewhere the full list of tags available? I guessed there would be a strike tag, but did not try the obvious. The strike tag is not shown in my toolbar. I have tried other html tags without success. I will be using the strike tag in future.

All the best
David

Richard Amiel McGough
01-04-2014, 10:55 PM
Hello Richard
As you know, I have used the table tags before when considering the parallel accounts of the Olivet Prophecy and the parallel accounts of the events from the time of Jesus's resurrection to his ascension.

Can you please list somewhere the full list of tags available? I guessed there would be a strike tag, but did not try the obvious. The strike tag is not shown in my toolbar. I have tried other html tags without success. I will be using the strike tag in future.

All the best
David
Hey there David,

You can find all the info about the tags here (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode). You can navigate to that link by clicking the FAQ hyperlink just below the main menu bar at the top of the page, and then click the Board FAQ link on the page that comes up, and then got to the page about creating new posts, and the link to the BB Code (tags) is there. It's buried pretty deep! Glad you asked.

A note to everyone: If you have any questions about how to use the software, just ask! It's probably a lot fast than poking around all the links.

Richard Amiel McGough
01-04-2014, 11:30 PM
There are many correlations, I am sure I will forget something, so I will post a photo and a link to one of Chuck Misslers videos.
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm75/rad802/1q_zps2da4121f.png (http://s293.photobucket.com/user/rad802/media/1q_zps2da4121f.png.html)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZxwy4wDkTs
I did a lot of research on the patterns of the four Gospels. They follow a 3 + 1 pattern, with the first three being terrestrial (earth bound) and the fourth flying. I also found a lot of interesting correlations with the Canon Wheel, which is derived from the Bible Wheel when you label the seven canonical divisions. The pattern correlates well with the four cherubim, as explained in my old article The Fulfillment of Ezekiel's Prophecies of the Wheels (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Ezekiel_Wheels.php):

http://www.biblewheel.com/Art/MenorahBible_4Creatures.gif


And then they can be overlayed with the Canon Wheel:


http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/God_enthroned_4Creatures.gif

Richard Amiel McGough
01-04-2014, 11:46 PM
Hello Richard

I am not going to get into an argument with you about this. Those same words are most often translated "I am he". It is unfortunate the translators did not put the "he" in this verse for consistency. Why the inconsistency? Translators not sure? Therefore, translators are possibly showing some bias.

Hey there David,

No need to argue about anything. We are just sharing information. You will notice that the "he" in all those places where it is translated as "I am he" are in italics in the King James to indicate that it is not in the original text.

There are good reasons to conclude there is no "translation bias" going on here. We can just stick to the Greek, and note that the LXX (Greek version of the OT) which was in use by the Jews in the first century, has "ego eimi" frequently in the mouth of God. For example:

KJV Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he (EGO EIMI): before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

KJV Isaiah 43:25 I, even I, (EGO EIMI, EGO EIMI) am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

It is used in this same way, with no "constraint" as you say, by Jesus in many verses, such these verses:

KJV John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he (EGO EIMI), and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

KJV John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am (EGO EIMI).

KJV John 18:6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he (EGO EIMI), they went backward, and fell to the ground.

Many Christians are impressed by the last example, because they see it as Christ revealing his Divinity, which caused them to fall to the ground (as often happens in the presence of Deity).

Now it is particularly stunning that there is a geometric connection between the verse where Yahweh says "that you may know and understand that I am he" and where Christ says something very similar. Here is how I explained it in my article (http://www.biblewheel.com/InnerWheels/Isaiah/Isaiah43.php):

Searching the entire KJV for the phrase "that ye may know and believe" yields exactly two verses, Isaiah 43.10 and John 10.38. Beginning at John 10:37
John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
Isaiah 43.10 is the only other verse in all the Bible that contains this phrase.
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
I called this a "first order projective KeyLink" because it was the highest possible correlation between a two and a three dimensional object. So here is what's going on. The phrase "that ye may know and believe" occurs in two and only two verses of the entire King James Bible and these verses are geometrically related as a 2 dimensional shadow to the three dimensional object that casts it! Here now is a graphic image of what is going on here:



http://www.biblewheel.com/images/Isaiah4310Projection.gif





Look at all the "I am" in Isaiah 45 and to see how emphatic God is about being singular; "I am the LORD, and there is none else". Four times God says that of himself in that chapter. Another three times in chapter 44 God says; "none beside me". In those two chapter you have for divine completion God saying that he is ONE and there is none else besides him.

That's exactly correct. And that's why Trinitarians are absolutely emphatic about the absolute Unity of the Trinity. Three in One. That's the Christian Mystery. They see it as explaining how there can be persons in the world, made in the image of God. The idea goes something like this (I don't recall exactly): If God were not intrinsically intra-personal, there would be no divine basis for personality at all because God would not have had anyone to talk to for eternity.

Great chatting!

Richard

rdelmonico
01-05-2014, 05:10 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDl-CqkjhmY
Startling New Evidence That The Universe Is A Computer Simulation
I do not endorse their conclusions, but the research is interesting to say the least.



New 73-Letter Bible Code found
http://www.bibleprobe.com/biblecode.htm
Anyone care to comment on this?

David M
01-05-2014, 06:56 PM
Hello Richard
Thank you for the information

Hey there David,

No need to argue about anything. We are just sharing information. You will notice that the "he" in all those places where it is translated as "I am he" are in italics in the King James to indicate that it is not in the original text.

There are good reasons to conclude there is no "translation bias" going on here. We can just stick to the Greek, and note that the LXX (Greek version of the OT) which was in use by the Jews in the first century, has "ego eimi" frequently in the mouth of God. For example:

KJV Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he (EGO EIMI): before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

KJV Isaiah 43:25 I, even I, (EGO EIMI, EGO EIMI) am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

It is used in this same way, with no "constraint" as you say, by Jesus in many verses, such these verses:

KJV John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he (EGO EIMI), and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

KJV John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am (EGO EIMI).

KJV John 18:6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he (EGO EIMI), they went backward, and fell to the ground.

Many Christians are impressed by the last example, because they see it as Christ revealing his Divinity, which caused them to fall to the ground (as often happens in the presence of Deity). I am not one of the many Christians you are referring to (as you know), so you can expect me not to be impressed in the same way. The fact is; we can all say "I am .." the same as Jesus said the same words. I am not claiming to be the same as Jesus in any of the ways he said; "I am..". If we cannot draw a conclusive proof one way or the other by the words "I am ..", or "I a he", then the point can be moot for now until we find something stronger to support our viewpoint.


Now it is particularly stunning that there is a geometric connection between the verse where Yahweh says "that you may know and understand that I am he" and where Christ says something very similar. Here is how I explained it in my article (http://www.biblewheel.com/InnerWheels/Isaiah/Isaiah43.php):Jesus often quoted the scriptures and so the words of scripture were part of his vocabulary. We can see where Jesus is using the same language as used by the prophets. One example is that where Jesus says of the city of Capernaum (Matt 11:23) ; "And thou Capernaum which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down hades" You know where similar words are found; they are words said of the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre.


Searching the entire KJV for the phrase "that ye may know and believe" yields exactly two verses, Isaiah 43.10 and John 10.38. Beginning at John 10:37
John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
Isaiah 43.10 is the only other verse in all the Bible that contains this phrase.
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
I called this a "first order projective KeyLink" because it was the highest possible correlation between a two and a three dimensional object. So here is what's going on. The phrase "that ye may know and believe" occurs in two and only two verses of the entire King James Bible and these verses are geometrically related as a 2 dimensional shadow to the three dimensional object that casts it! Here now is a graphic image of what is going on here:



http://www.biblewheel.com/images/Isaiah4310Projection.gif




That's exactly correct. And that's why Trinitarians are absolutely emphatic about the absolute Unity of the Trinity. Three in One. That's the Christian Mystery. They see it as explaining how there can be persons in the world, made in the image of God. The idea goes something like this (I don't recall exactly): If God were not intrinsically intra-personal, there would be no divine basis for personality at all because God would not have had anyone to talk to for eternity. We are living in a time now when we can refer to things that were not possible in Bible times. Computers are a modern invention. Computer science can help us form a picture that might help us see the way God works and his power operates. I do not see God's power (Holy Spirit) being separate and autonomous from God. I do not see the Holy Spirit existing as a separate person. I do not see the Holy Spirit operating in the autonomous way Jesus did. We are told, God performed miracles through Jesus. If Jesus was God, Jesus would not have had to ask God, or pray to God every time he wanted to use God's power. It would have been his own power to draw on. That would been in-keeping, had Jesus created anything, but Jesus was not born and was unable to create anything before his genesis. If we were to see what we thought of as the Holy Spirit in operation, we could think it was the invisible God at work. In that way, it is not possible to separate God from the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit belongs to God. The Holy Spirit is his power. Can that power be somehow given to his Angels to use? We know nothing about what the Holy Spirit comprises of. It is a force/energy that cannot be measured scientifically. There is nothing much we can say about the Holy Spirit that in any way defines what it is. If God can distribute his power to his Angels, then the Holy Spirit can be divided, or shared. The Holy Spirit cannot be said to be one, when it can be divided. We can think of the way computer networks operate to come a little closer to understanding how the Holy Spirit might operate. Also, we can think of God's Angels as a network. This is a concept that millennia ago, was not in the mind of man. Therefore, we have to understand the imagery used in the Bible and relate that to something we can understand now. Maybe the images in the mind of the author of the scriptures, is not the image we have from the words used in translation. Until we make the correction, we are going to be confused. One thing we can understand in the same as was understood in the time of Jesus,is that of authority and delegation of authority. The Roman Centurion understood the authority that was delegated to Jesus.

All the best
David

Richard Amiel McGough
01-05-2014, 10:37 PM
Hello Richard
Thank you for the information

You are most welcome, sir! :tea:




I am not one of the many Christians you are referring to (as you know), so you can expect me not to be impressed in the same way. The fact is; we can all say "I am .." the same as Jesus said the same words. I am not claiming to be the same as Jesus in any of the ways he said; "I am..". If we cannot draw a conclusive proof one way or the other by the words "I am ..", or "I a he", then the point can be moot for now until we find something stronger to support our viewpoint.

You are correct, of course, that anyone could say "I am" (ego eimi). We have an example of that in this verse:

John 9:8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? 9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he (ego eimi).

It is curious that the words "ego eimi" are much more frequent in John than the other Gospels, even when not being spoken by Christ.

As for "something stronger to support our viewpoint" -I "came to faith in Christ" quite independently of any particular religious group. I was studying esoteric stuff like gematria (the alpha-numeric values of words) and general mystical tradition of the Kabbalah (which is Bible based) and it morphed, quite unexpectedly, into convincing evidence for Christ and the Bible. The first big discovery involved the patterns in Genesis 1:1, and then I started noticing curious connections with the NT. After a while, I discovered the Isaiah-Bible Correlation which I found extremely compelling, and finally the Bible Wheel which I considered absolute incontrovertible proof that the Bible was inspired by God. And of course all these amazing discoveries were vivified by a very real sense of Christ in my life. I had lots of dreams back then that were mystical and religious and my whole life was like walking through heaven on earth. Or that's how it seemed anyway. The truth of God and the Bible seemed utterly incontrovertible.

I say all this to give context to why I came to the specific beliefs that you have typically characterized as the "teachings of men" that I was "taught." That's not how it happened. One of the first Biblical Holographs that I discovered is called the Unity Holograph. It is based on the alphanumeric structure of Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) which is structured on nested multiples of the prime number 13 (which also is a "Star of David" number). Here are the basic values:

Shema: Here O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

1 x 13 = Echad (One)
2 x 13 = YHVH (The LORD)
3 x 13 = YHVH Echad (The LORD is ONE)
86 x 13 = 1118 = Sum of the Shema

Now the thing that really struck me is that 86 is the value of the word Elohim (God) so the sum of the Shema numerically reflects the meaning of the Shema, that is God (86) is One (13). And as I studied more, I found that the the three binary products of the three factors of 1118 = 2 x 13 x 43 yield the values of three primary names of God as follows:



Divine Name
Value
Prime Factors


The Father
559
-
13
43


God (Elohim)
86
2
-
43


The LORD (YHVH)
26
2
13
-



Now the really amazing thing is that these three names are the primary names of God in the Bible. Two are from the OT and one from the NT. Here is the diagram I designed to show how they all relate. I call it the "Unity Holograph" -

http://biblewheel.com/images/UnityHolograph.gif

Now I say all this to explain why I came to believe in the Trinity. The greatest commandment - the Shema - which states the unity of God, is explicitly built upon the number 13 which is the value of the word "one" and which is composed of a one and a three and it encodes the three primary names of God, one of which is The Father. And all this fit naturally with the NT statements about Christ as Creator and Lord, etc.

Now I didn't just "believe" anything that I was "taught". For example, it seemed to me that a better representation of the Trinity would be like three concentric circles, because the Son proceeds from the Father and the Holy Spirit from the Son:

Father > Son > Spirit.

And then of course, this all fit quite naturally with the connections between Isaiah 43 and Book 43 (John) and the I AM passages. And it went on and on ... so I became very confident that Christ was indeed a manifestation of God and not a mere human. And in none of this did I have to waste any time twisting words to force them to fit a doctrine that I had learned from men.



Jesus often quoted the scriptures and so the words of scripture were part of his vocabulary. We can see where Jesus is using the same language as used by the prophets. One example is that where Jesus says of the city of Capernaum (Matt 11:23) ; "And thou Capernaum which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down hades" You know where similar words are found; they are words said of the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre.

That's correct. And that's why we can be confident that Jesus would not take the Divine Name in vain and apply it to himself.



We are living in a time now when we can refer to things that were not possible in Bible times. Computers are a modern invention. Computer science can help us form a picture that might help us see the way God works and his power operates. I do not see God's power (Holy Spirit) being separate and autonomous from God. I do not see the Holy Spirit existing as a separate person. I do not see the Holy Spirit operating in the autonomous way Jesus did.

Where in the world did you ever get the idea that anyone teaches that the Holy Spirit is "separate and autonomous from God"??? No Trinitarian would ever say anything like that! On the contrary, the Trinity teaches that the Holy Spirit IS God!

And again, the "persons" are not considered "separate" in the way you are using that word. The Trinity simply does not teach that. I really get the impression you have no idea what the Doctrine of the Trinity actually teaches. Do you think you could accurately state it? If not, then how can you reject what you don't even understand?



We are told, God performed miracles through Jesus. If Jesus was God, Jesus would not have had to ask God, or pray to God every time he wanted to use God's power. It would have been his own power to draw on. That would been in-keeping, had Jesus created anything, but Jesus was not born and was unable to create anything before his genesis. If we were to see what we thought of as the Holy Spirit in operation, we could think it was the invisible God at work. In that way, it is not possible to separate God from the Holy Spirit.

Given your facility with words, I have no doubt you could explain away anything you chose! Think about that David. I mean this most sincerely. I cannot imagine any statement that you could not explain away if you so chose.

Great chatting!

:sunny:

Richard

David M
01-06-2014, 03:22 AM
Hello Richard

You are most welcome, sir! :tea: How polite. May this continue from both of us.


You are correct, of course, that anyone could say "I am" (ego eimi). We have an example of that in this verse:

John 9:8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? 9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he (ego eimi).

It is curious that the words "ego eimi" are much more frequent in John than the other Gospels, even when not being spoken by Christ.At least this can be one small step of agreement. John's gospel is the most difficult. It does not follow the pattern of the synoptic gospels and concentrates on matters to do with Jesus as the Son of God. We find things mentioned in John's gospel not mentioned in the other gospels. However, we can looking for supporting evidence in the ancient scriptures that make up the Old Testament.


As for "something stronger to support our viewpoint" -I "came to faith in Christ" quite independently of any particular religious group. I was studying esoteric stuff like gematria (the alpha-numeric values of words) and general mystical tradition of the Kabbalah (which is Bible based) and it morphed, quite unexpectedly, into convincing evidence for Christ and the Bible. The first big discovery involved the patterns in Genesis 1:1, and then I started noticing curious connections with the NT. After a while, I discovered the Isaiah-Bible Correlation which I found extremely compelling, and finally the Bible Wheel which I considered absolute incontrovertible proof that the Bible was inspired by God. And of course all these amazing discoveries were vivified by a very real sense of Christ in my life. I had lots of dreams back then that were mystical and religious and my whole life was like walking through heaven on earth. Or that's how it seemed anyway. The truth of God and the Bible seemed utterly incontrovertible. It is good you came to faith in Christ independently. I would like to know exactly what beliefs you came to independently. Recently, I have been watching and listening to material posted on Youtube and stumbled upon a lot of material presented by Steve Gregg in which he gives Bible exposition. I have just listened to one of his talks in which he explains the origin of Satan. I propose to post the link in an already established thread on the subject, so as to continue to discuss the subject of Satan in a more appropriate thread. I gather he was brought up in an Evangelical family. However, he has questioned the things he was taught and now that he has questioned these things and studied the Bible for himself, he cannot support the things many of the Evangelical churches teach. It is not surprising to me that more people are finding out the same, once they begin to actually read the Bible for themselves and not just accept what the "churches" have been saying. I look forward to continuing to thrash out with you the subject of Satan, so that we might eventually come to agreement on the subject. I think Satan, or the Devil is one of the fundamentals to understand and in so doing, opens the way to seeing other truths and getting rid of man-made ideas.


I say all this to give context to why I came to the specific beliefs that you have typically characterized as the "teachings of men" that I was "taught." That's not how it happened. One of the first Biblical Holographs that I discovered is called the Unity Holograph. It is based on the alphanumeric structure of Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) which is structured on nested multiples of the prime number 13 (which also is a "Star of David" number). Here are the basic values:

Shema: Here O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

1 x 13 = Echad (One)
2 x 13 = YHVH (The LORD)
3 x 13 = YHVH Echad (The LORD is ONE)
86 x 13 = 1118 = Sum of the Shema

Now the thing that really struck me is that 86 is the value of the word Elohim (God) so the sum of the Shema numerically reflects the meaning of the Shema, that is God (86) is One (13). And as I studied more, I found that the the three binary products of the three factors of 1118 = 2 x 13 x 43 yield the values of three primary names of God as follows:



Divine Name
Value
Prime Factors


The Father
559
-
13
43


God (Elohim)
86
2
-
43


The LORD (YHVH)
26
2
13
-



Now the really amazing thing is that these three names are the primary names of God in the Bible. Two are from the OT and one from the NT. Here is the diagram I designed to show how they all relate. I call it the "Unity Holograph" -

http://biblewheel.com/images/UnityHolograph.gif

Now I say all this to explain why I came to believe in the Trinity. The greatest commandment - the Shema - which states the unity of God, is explicitly built upon the number 13 which is the value of the word "one" and which is composed of a one and a three and it encodes the three primary names of God, one of which is The Father. And all this fit naturally with the NT statements about Christ as Creator and Lord, etc.

Now I didn't just "believe" anything that I was "taught". For example, it seemed to me that a better representation of the Trinity would be like three concentric circles, because the Son proceeds from the Father and the Holy Spirit from the Son:

Father > Son > Spirit.

And then of course, this all fit quite naturally with the connections between Isaiah 43 and Book 43 (John) and the I AM passages. And it went on and on ... so I became very confident that Christ was indeed a manifestation of God and not a mere human. And in none of this did I have to waste any time twisting words to force them to fit a doctrine that I had learned from men. Just from looking at the unity holograph, I see only God (Yehovah) is in it. That for me is the singularity of God. God and his power (Holy Spirit) are inextricably linked. You cannot have power without God, or that would make God powerless. There cannot be raw power without an intelligence behind it, otherwise the Universe that we know would not exist.


That's correct. And that's why we can be confident that Jesus would not take the Divine Name in vain and apply it to himself.More than anyone else, Jesus demonstrated humility. He did not apply things to himself. He knew that despite his appearance to have God-given power by which he was seen to perform miracles, the power was not his. Jesus did not take titles upon himself comparable to God, it was God who inferred on his only begotten son, the title of God. I believe we will see Jesus manifesting the full power of God when Jesus is ruling in the millennial age and God is appearing to be taking his Sabbath rest. At the end, Jesus surrenders the kingdom back to God (his Heavenly Father) and is subject (under God's authority) to God. That does not say Jesus is equal or the same as God. Jesus is eternal now. He was not eternal before he was born. Jesus is more like God now in that he is eternal, but then eternal life is to be given to the saints. That not make them equal with God who has all power.


Where in the world did you ever get the idea that anyone teaches that the Holy Spirit is "separate and autonomous from God"??? No Trinitarian would ever say anything like that! On the contrary, the Trinity teaches that the Holy Spirit IS God!This is from the Nicene Creed;
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.



And again, the "persons" are not considered "separate" in the way you are using that word. The Trinity simply does not teach that. I really get the impression you have no idea what the Doctrine of the Trinity actually teaches. Do you think you could accurately state it? If not, then how can you reject what you don't even understand? I suggest you post the new version of the Trinity as you see it defined if is now substantially different to what we read in the various creeds. I have given you one extract above.


Given your facility with words, I have no doubt you could explain away anything you chose! Think about that David. I mean this most sincerely. I cannot imagine any statement that you could not explain away if you so chose. When "push comes to shove", I expect you can do the same. On the other hand, I am not going to take the face value of words which could be wrong. It is evident that many assumptions are being made about things the Bible does not actually state. If my explanations of Bible passages appear to be made up, they will usually have a scripture reference to back them up. If I am stating an explanation you think is not given in the Bible, my explanations must be given the same latitude as those who are giving their explanations which I do not see as supported by scripture. Unless scripture is so categorical, as not to have any other interpretation/explanation, then my explanation, until proven wrong, is as valid as any other. That is why, I am only prepared to reason from scripture as we have it in our Bibles and we deal with the man-made errors that it contains. Once the errors are spotted and taken into account, it is the integrity of the whole that I take to be the Truth. Whether you believe it is another matter. First and foremost, we have to get to the Truth behind the words in the Bible. I believe the Bible is God's divinely inspired message. That belief could have started off as a supposition on my part, but in the years of study and appreciating the words written, it is not a supposition any more. God's word is Truth, and the parts that I do not fully understand, I have no reason to think are not the Truth. God is consistent. If that was a supposition once held, it is not a supposition now; the more so as as I see the meaning of difficult passages coming to light. I have seen enough in God's word that show him as consistent. If there is anything in the Bibles that we have at face value would which would seem to indicate God is not consistent, then that must mean, the original words have not been correctly understood or translated into words that accurately convey the truth. A most recent example of that I have heard comes from listening to Steve Gregg. In Ezekiel 28:13 the KJV says; the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes
As explained by Steve Gregg, this has lead many to think Satan had musical instruments attached to him and that Satan was the director or music in Heaven. Is that crazy or what? The NIV uses the words; Your settings and mountings were made of gold; In the context of the precious stones mentioned in the preceding verses, the NIV makes more sense. I am not saying the NIV is better than the KJV. No matter which translation we read, we will find errors. This example shows the way the KJV rendering of Eze 28:13 has been used by people, without proper knowledge of the scriptures, to support their fantasy ideas of what Satan is. We need to get all the false ideas exposed and eliminated. I shall be pleased to hear what your personal understanding of Satan is and see whether it matches up with mine.

All the best
David