Jesus was circumcised. There's your answer.

buffalo is correct, the orthodox church celebrate one of the 12 great feasts of the Lord as the circumcision of the Lord. But still in the new covenant this is not necessary

To add on. There is the divine ouisia and the human ouisia. God's ouisia is unknowable but his energies are knowable. The human ouisia is not the same as the divine ouisia and thus that doesn't necessitate that God has a foreskin (and it also depends on Who in the Trinity you are referring to, as only Christ became incarnate). The Godhead equally belongs to all three Persons of the Trinity who are a monad in essence and a triad in hypostases.

(Thess, you might need to speak English - I am a Christian, and even I only have a vague idea of what you're getting at. Others probably have absolutely no idea. If you're going to use fancy terms, define them please!)

English is a terrible language to speak in theologically but

ouisia = latin substantia = essence properly in english but potentially substance as well
hypostasis can be seen as person

so ouisia is considered with the what and hypostasis with the who

Except it's Ousia

Edited 6/2/2020 18:16:27

Michael Cera probably.

penis pocket

"To answer shortly, it's not the Bible and God's truth that caused those bad things, it is people's sin. You ask how it can be interpreted so many ways? Because people will always be able to interpret things to fit their ideals if they try hard enough."

My question is: why did God allow sin into the world and where did it come from. If God is sovereign, then he allowed his perfect creation to be marred by something unspeakably wicked and deadly. That is a strange thing and something the Bible and theology fail to address other than to say "it's a mystery."

Sorry, Dave but this doesn't look like you know what you are talking about. You are arguing against a statement which you have came up yourself. IDK what this is called in rhetorics. However it's quite a cheap way to win every argument if you can control what your opponent is saying.

Started reading the bible ~two weeks ago. I'm slightly familiar with some of the stories from it and have read small parts of the gospels a long time ago. Kind of hard to gain much affinity with it as of yet but only got to exodus.

What is the conciencous with removed books such as Enoch?

@Rikku Removed books are not seen as inspired by God or authoritative, which is why they're removed. They're also written later than canonical books of the bible.

Since you specifically mentioned Enoch, here's a more thorough analysis if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqhg4nr6Koc
You can skip the first minute, it's just an intro.

Edit: Since you just started reading the bible, I'd recommend first reading one of the gospels (John is frequently recommended), Acts (to get an idea of how the early church functioned), Romans (to understand Christian philosophy), and Hebrews (to understand the old and new covenants).

Edited 7/10/2020 20:28:04

"Sorry, Dave but this doesn't look like you know what you are talking about. You are arguing against a statement which you have came up yourself. IDK what this is called in rhetorics. However it's quite a cheap way to win every argument if you can control what your opponent is saying."

Ok, that's fair. Where do you think sin came from? Did God allow sin into the world or not? If you don't care to answer, that's ok.

Good luck, @Rikku.

@Dave the Okay: I was referring to your following sentence:

That is a strange thing and something the Bible and theology fail to address other than to say "it's a mystery."

The problem with that is that this just isn't true. The Bible never talks about the entrance of sin into the world as some strange mystery and I don't know about any Christian belief claiming anything like that. I'm not saying that every Christian denomination agrees here with each other however not matter the explanation you will most likely never hear an official "IDK, it's a mystery".

As Rikku has already read, Adam brought sin into the world. The New Testament picks this up and constructs the theology of the 2 forefathers, namely Adam as the man from earth and Jesus as the man from heaven.

The first occurrence of sin in the bible is the fall of Lucifer. Rikku isn't there yet however when thinking about when this has happened I'm quite sure you have to put the fall of Lucifer between the first 2 verses of the first book of the Bible. For this reason, I don't have any problems if the Earth should be super old.

About why God allowed for Adams rebellion, I believe that the Bible teaches that God is looking for a connection based on free choice.

Edited 7/10/2020 22:41:11

Hi there Norman. Yes I suppose "It's a mystery" was my way of articulating attempts to reconcile what is an age-old problem, namely "the problem of evil." And I have heard Christians say it, though I don't think it's an official proclamation of any denomination. There is a wikipedia article on the problem of evil and it it starts of thusly:

"The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God. As the first known presentation by the Greek philosopher Epicurus, as attributed and made popular by David Hume, puts it: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?""

Therefore I do think it's a mystery to think how and why sin entered the world and why an "omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God" would allow it to infect his perfect creation.

"Looking for a connection based on free choice" doesn't seem quite a satisfactory answer to me for many reasons. But here is one: if man is born fallen -- born with a sinful nature, and moreover born in to a destiny where he is predestined to either choose God or not choose God, then he is not really free, and free choice is an illusion.

@Dave That's the Islamic view of predestination (ie. Al-Lah predestines how much sin you commit and whether you go to heaven or not).

In Christianity, God does have to choose us first, but we also have to respond to that choosing (exception: Calvinists don't believe in free will). This is summarized as "taking up our cross and following [Jesus]" and involves giving up our own selfish desires to pursue the will of God. Also, everyone is judged according to what they know, so someone who has little or no knowledge of God will be judged much less than a preacher.

Who does God call? Let's see:
Luke 5:32 - "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." - Other places in the bible make it clear that no one is righteous, so Jesus is talking about those who acknowledge they're sinners, not those who are proud of their good works.
Matt. 11:28 - "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." - God calls those who are weak and have no confidence in themselves to keep His commandments.
God also calls those who are humble. If such a person exists, and they seek God with all their heart, they will find Him. In my own life, sin brought me to such a state, so I'd guess that's one of its purposes.

If there was no God, there would be no evil or good because there would be no objective standard of good and evil.

Hello!

I'm an Amish man, and I still have the whole sheath.

Hope this helps!

Manford
~A son of God~

This whole thread is full of heresy. I like it.

Iirc the correct term for what Dave was doing (debunking an ostensibly opposing viewpoint not actually from the opposition) is just the strawman fallacy. Seems like a textbook case