If god is all powerful why does he allow sin?

First topic message reminder :

Apparently homosexuality is a sin - if you put a certain spin on the bible texts.

Yet it is claimed god is all powerful.

If he is all powerful why did he create homosexuality?

If he is all powerful why does he refuse to help those who believe that interpretation of the bible when they beg him to help them change?

Surely the evidence is that if god does exist he is one sadistic bugger.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Sorry there is no choice, for example lets take the position your deity exists, your deity can see all and thus can see the future and this future is never mentioned as being not set in stone but with choices.
This if it is set in stone, the people that got on the planes that were hijacked for 9/11 would have been predetermined the choice they bought tickets or needed to fly.
Now unless you are saying you can change the future what God already knows, then what you end up doing is already set and cannot change from that path, even before you are born. If someone survives is because with your faith this was forseen.

Thus to have a deity belief of a seeing the future set in stone means nobody would have any choices as they will end up making the choices that sets them on the many paths seen in the future

Thus no choice

I will answer that later but what if I told you that science says your future is predetermined too?

That's what Einsteins equations predict. I'll explain later.

Yes I am well aware of this concept also, being that it is just a concept and nothing more, some aspects will be predetermined, but also loosely based, like the fact at some point we all die.
The point is though Zack if the future is set in stone, with this deity being all knowing then nobody would have a choice, as all your future actions are already known, thus predetermined and programmed into everyone.


Cool catch you later, am off very soon myself

I think the best way to explain this is for example I have choices what to do tomorrow. Now being as the future is set in stone, how do I have a choice over what I end up doing tomorrow being as that is the future set in stone.
I will end up doing what is already known in the future and thus never had a choice, because the future was known and set in stone.
That means if something is so powerful it can see all and the future, all actions would be programmed into everyone due to the fact the future is thus already set.
Thus nobody has any real choice over their actions, even before they exist.


Have fun evening everyone

so so far i have shown that allah cannot be the same God as that of the Christians, allah has no son, so didges idea that all 3 abrahamic religions are the same God is crap...

then posted sources from the OT with references to the son of God..strike two...

didge wrong, no surprise there then.. :D 

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

that's not how islamic spirituality works fuzzmuck

the qur'an specifically states that Allah chooses who believes and who doesn't  

so its more like only people on the secret list are sent out secret invitations , everyone else doesn't even now there is a party and are then punished for not attending  

006.125
Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying,- He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allah (heap) the penalty on those who refuse to believe.

Yes, thank you for telling me how Islam works - by a non-Muslim. HA HA!

Verse 6.125 states that if you want God's help then you must put in the effort first. Of you don't put in the effort, you will be lead astray.

verse 6:125 is shown above

and nowhere does it state that we have any choice over whether we believe or not

let me break it down for you

006.125
Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam;

this is you and SM and prince and the rest of the ummah who have had your breast opened to Islam by allah

those whom He willeth to leave straying,- He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies:

this is me and Ben and mentor and shady and the rest of the kafirs who have had our breast closed to islam by allah

thus doth Allah (heap) the penalty on those who refuse to believe.

and now me and the rest of the kafir gang are being punished because Allah closed our breast to Islam

at no stage am i given the opportunity to believe because Allah has chosen to close my breast to Islam

thus not only am i denied any chance of believing im punished for not believing

heavenly father wrote:so so far i have shown that allah cannot be the same God as that of the Christians, allah has no son, so didges idea that all 3 abrahamic religions are the same God is crap...

then posted sources from the OT with references to the son of God..strike two...

didge wrong, no surprise there then.. :D 

Nobody has been able to prove anything because they are fabled stories.

You though now using your logic with Islam, you claim can now cannot be the same deity as Christianity and Judaism, would thus make also Christianity with Jesus not be the son of Yahweh, being as there is no claim to having a son in the Torah and Jews do not regard Jesus as the son of God, Being as in that faith there is only one God, not two like there is for Christianity, in some weird invented trinity concept. that would mean Jesus was only a man, if we use HF's logic of course on who can lay claim to a deity.
Born Again's don't do logic it seems

DOH


DOH

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:so so far i have shown that allah cannot be the same God as that of the Christians, allah has no son, so didges idea that all 3 abrahamic religions are the same God is crap...

then posted sources from the OT with references to the son of God..strike two...

didge wrong, no surprise there then.. :D 

Nobody has been able to prove anything because they are fabled stories.

You though now using your logic with Islam, you claim can now cannot be the same deity as Christianity and Judaism, would thus make also Christianity with Jesus not be the son of Yahweh, being as there is no claim to having a son in the Torah and Jews do not regard Jesus as the son of God, Being as in that faith there is only one God, not two like there is for Christianity, in some weird invented trinity concept. that would mean Jesus was only a man, if  we use HF's logic of course on who can lay claim to a deity.
Born Again's don't do logic it seems

DOH


DOH

Christianity is from the root of judaism so the proof of the OT references to the son of God shows both knew God had a son, unlike allah who has no son... :D :D :D :D :D :/pwn://: 

Irrelevant, so is Islam have many events sourced from Judiaism, thus no Jewish works claim the belief of other deities, and in this case a son, they do not have a Christian invented concept of the trinity. Thus with your argument over the son to claims who is the right deity, the deity in Question is the Jewish one, thus by your logic Jesus cannot be the son of this deity.

You really need to think before you post, as I have you wrapped up, due to the fact you made yet again another gaff this time with your illogical claim when using traditions as your source.

PhilDidge wrote:Irrelevant, so is Islam have many events sourced from Judiaism, thus no Jewish works claim the belief of other deities, and in this case a son, they do not have a Christian invented concept of the trinity. Thus with your argument over the son to claims who is the right deity, the deity in Question is the Jewish one, thus by your logic Jesus cannot be the son of this deity.

You really need to think before you post, as I have you wrapped up, due to the fact you made yet again another gaff this time with your illogical claim when using traditions as your source.

the OT talks of the coming son, the son of God, again, allah has no son, we know Christianity talks of the son of God, so both Christianity and the jews do not have the same God as allah...

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Irrelevant, so is Islam have many events sourced from Judiaism, thus no Jewish works claim the belief of other deities, and in this case a son, they do not have a Christian invented concept of the trinity. Thus with your argument over the son to claims who is the right deity, the deity in Question is the Jewish one, thus by your logic Jesus cannot be the son of this deity.

You really need to think before you post, as I have you wrapped up, due to the fact you made yet again another gaff this time with your illogical claim when using traditions as your source.

the OT talks of the coming son, the son of God, again, allah has no son, we know Christianity talks of the son of God, so both Christianity and the jews do not have the same God as allah...

But then you'd have to admit that Christianity doesn't have the same God as the Jews, since the Jews don't believe in Jesus and don't think God ever had a son either.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

the OT talks of the coming son, the son of God, again, allah has no son, we know Christianity talks of the son of God, so both Christianity and the jews do not have the same God as allah...

But then you'd have to admit that Christianity doesn't have the same God as the Jews, since the Jews don't believe in Jesus and don't think God ever had a son either.

there is OT scripture that refers too the son of God, the jews believed in a son of God just as the Christians do...

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Irrelevant, so is Islam have many events sourced from Judiaism, thus no Jewish works claim the belief of other deities, and in this case a son, they do not have a Christian invented concept of the trinity. Thus with your argument over the son to claims who is the right deity, the deity in Question is the Jewish one, thus by your logic Jesus cannot be the son of this deity.

You really need to think before you post, as I have you wrapped up, due to the fact you made yet again another gaff this time with your illogical claim when using traditions as your source.

the OT talks of the coming son, the son of God, again, allah has no son, we know Christianity talks of the son of God, so both Christianity and the jews do not have the same God as allah...

It Talks of many things but no son, as why were people around the time of Jesus expecting a Messiah, a king/priest leader and not a son of God?
That shows you now have no such notion of the belief that was and is held by Jews today This changed though with some of the apostles and mainly Paul with Christianity because many of the Jewish Crsiatians at this time also including followers, only saw him as a Messiah not a god.
Josephus as a historian does not mention or other writers a supposed son coming, again because to Jews Muslims, there is only one deity, to have a son, would be two.
Christians get around this inventing a concept

Thus whether you think it does or not the Torah and the Jews do not, thus, being as they are the core start to the faith, and they see Jesus 




Judaism generally views Jesus as one of a number of false messiahs who have appeared throughout history. Jesus is viewed as having been the most influential, and consequently the most damaging, of all false messiahs. However, since the mainstream Jewish belief is that the Messiah has not yet come and that the Messianic Age is not yet present, the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity in Judaism has never been a central issue for Judaism. At the heart of Judaism are the Torah, its commandments, the Tanakh, and ethical monotheism such as in the Shema — all of which predated Jesus.
Judaism has never accepted any of the claimed fulfillments of prophecy that Christianity attributes to Jesus. Judaism also forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God. Jewish eschatology holds that the coming of the Messiah will be associated with a specific series of events that have not yet occurred, including the return of Jews to their homeland and the rebuilding of The Temple, a Messianic Age of peace[5] and understanding during which "the knowledge of God" fills the earth, and since Jews believe that none of these events occurred during the lifetime of Jesus (nor have they occurred afterwards, except for the return of many Jews to their homeland in Israel), he is not a candidate for messiah.

look back to my earlier post it shows references to the son of God in the OT...

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

the OT talks of the coming son, the son of God, again, allah has no son, we know Christianity talks of the son of God, so both Christianity and the jews do not have the same God as allah...

But then you'd have to admit that Christianity doesn't have the same God as the Jews, since the Jews don't believe in Jesus and don't think God ever had a son either.

there is OT scripture that refers too the son of God, the jews believed in a son of God just as the Christians do...

But not in Jesus -- and Jesus is supposed to *be* God, to Christians. So obviously Jews don't worship the same God as Christians do, since they don't worship Jesus or acknowledge him as God's son.

They don't believe that God impregnated Mary at 14, the way Christians do. So how can you say Jews worship the same God as your faith does?

It's all blah blah blah and you've all moved too far from the question.

God allows sin because he allowed free will.

And that's it.

eddie wrote:It's all blah blah blah and you've all moved too far from the question.

God allows sin because he allowed free will.

And that's it.

excellent point and you are quite right.

heavenly father wrote:

eddie wrote:It's all blah blah blah and you've all moved too far from the question.

God allows sin because he allowed free will.

And that's it.

excellent point and you are quite right.

Well, here's a good question -- why did God allow free will?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

excellent point and you are quite right.

Well, here's a good question -- why did God allow free will?

because he didn't want to produce robots...

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

excellent point and you are quite right.

Well, here's a good question -- why did God allow free will?

because he didn't want to produce robots...

Why does God hate robots?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

because he didn't want to produce robots...

Why does God hate robots?

he wants people to chose to believe, not force them... :D 

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

excellent point and you are quite right.

Well, here's a good question -- why did God allow free will?

Did you ever read a book called 'The man who mistook his wife for a hat?'

In it, is a conversation with God where a man asks exactly that: Why did you give us free will?

Excellent story. I'll try and find it.

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

because he didn't want to produce robots...

Why does God hate robots?

he wants people to chose to believe, not force them... :D 

Why does that choice to believe have to include the ability to, say, exterminate millions of people? Surely God could have given us the ability to choose anything under the sun without also having to allow things like, say, the 9/11 attacks to happen.

Found it!

Going to start a thread re God and free will

eddie wrote:It's all blah blah blah and you've all moved too far from the question.

God allows sin because he allowed free will.

And that's it.

Hi eddie

If God exists according to the beliefs, then nobody has free will ,as he is all knowing and can see the future which does not have variable outcomes and is thus set in stone. So if such a deity existed, everything would be as a direct result from his creation, because as follows.
Tomorrow I have a choice of doing either A, B or C. The deity can see I choose C. Thus if the future is C, how then am I able to choose anything else, as already my mind will decide C because the future is set in stone, being part of a vast program mapping out every action we would do in life. Thus if I truly had free will or choice with this religious philosophy then I would be able to choose a different option, but to do that would prove this deity wrong and thus negate all existence. Hence why the belief in an all knowing deity would mean nobody has any free will, as everything and every tiny thing ,all people, animals, weather ect would all be planned well in advance, which also means the 3 Abrahamic faiths are based upon billions being created solely to act out a life. They would have no control over anything only to then have eternal suffering if designed to not believe or do wrongs.
You would have been better off without being created, so really, if this is what they believe, to be created dependent on how God has planned you as either sheep or cannon fodder, the later would and could  mean your creation is some poor game, where you suffer for eternity.
Seriously, if that is the deity, who would want to follow something so twisted, as like I say you would be better off not being created in the first place ?   

Thus this is another reason to show how you can show something does not exist, following defining characteristics of this deity

heavenly father wrote:look back to my earlier post it shows references to the son of God in the OT...

Does the Jewish faith believe of any coming of a son of god?

No, what you showed me was poor woefully made up interpretations of the original made up verses

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:look back to my earlier post it shows references to the son of God in the OT...

Does the Jewish faith believe of any coming of a son of god?

No, what you showed me was poor woefully made up interpretations of the original made up verses

no i showed you good scripture, the fact it destroys your claims is tough on you... :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

eddie wrote:It's all blah blah blah and you've all moved too far from the question.

God allows sin because he allowed free will.

And that's it.

Hi eddie

If God exists according to the beliefs, then nobody has free will ,as he is all knowing and can see the future which does not have variable outcomes and is thus set in stone. So if such a deity existed, everything would be as a direct result from his creation, because as follows.
Tomorrow I have a choice of doing either A, B or C. The deity can see I choose C. Thus if the future is C, how then am I able to choose anything else, as already my mind will decide C because the future is set in stone, being part of a vast program mapping out every action we would do in life. Thus if I truly had free will or choice with this religious philosophy then I would be able to choose a different option, but to do that would prove this deity wrong and thus negate all existence. Hence why the belief in an all knowing deity would mean nobody has any free will, as everything and every tiny thing ,all people, animals, weather ect would all be planned well in advance, which also means the 3 Abrahamic faiths are based upon billions being created solely to act out a life. They would have no control over anything only to then have eternal suffering if designed to not believe or do wrongs.
You would have been better off without being created, so really, if this is what they believe, to be created dependent on how God has planned you as either sheep or cannon fodder, the later would and could  mean your creation is some poor game, where you suffer for eternity.
Seriously, if that is the deity, who would want to follow something so twisted, as like I say you would be better off not being created in the first place ?   

Thus this is another reason to show how you can show something does not exist, following defining characteristics of this deity

Phil see my thread, why did god give us free will  :D 

why does God knowing the result mean you have no choice?

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Does the Jewish faith believe of any coming of a son of god?

No, what you showed me was poor woefully made up interpretations of the original made up verses

no i showed you good scripture, the fact it destroys your claims is tough on you... :D 

Really, ha ha, so why is it Jews have never believed in such a concept as a son of God or expected one, let alone as they argue Jesus coming was not the right time for a messiah. Being as they also hold the monopoly on these ancient works. Thus again you are like Gospel writer Matthew trying to make verses talking about something else stand with out the other sentences or verses and create a new meaning, that is agin absurd and you do the same with the Quran.


So if the Jews do not believe in a son of their deity ever coming, using your logic, Jesus could not be the son of this God. Like I say, the views of Jesus divinity, was brought about mainly from Paul, which is why you follow really Pauline teachings and his views on the words and actions spoken from Jesus, someone who he claims to have met in a vision.

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

no i showed you good scripture, the fact it destroys your claims is tough on you... :D 

Really, ha ha, so why is it Jews have never believed in such a concept as a son of God or expected one, let alone as they argue Jesus coming was not the right time for a messiah. Being as they also hold the monopoly on these ancient works. Thus again you are like Gospel writer Matthew trying to make verses talking about something else stand with out the other sentences or verses and create a new meaning, that is agin absurd and you do the same with the Quran.


So if the Jews do not believe in a son of their deity ever coming, using your logic, Jesus could not be the son of this God. Like I say, the views of Jesus divinity, was brought about mainly from Paul, which is why you follow really Pauline teachings and his views on the words and actions spoken from Jesus, someone who he claims to have met in a vision.

lol...the OT has references to the son of God, xso why wouldn't the jews believe there was one... :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

no i showed you good scripture, the fact it destroys your claims is tough on you... :D 

Really, ha ha, so why is it Jews have never believed in such a concept as a son of God or expected one, let alone as they argue Jesus coming was not the right time for a messiah. Being as they also hold the monopoly on these ancient works. Thus again you are like Gospel writer Matthew trying to make verses talking about something else stand with out the other sentences or verses and create a new meaning, that is agin absurd and you do the same with the Quran.


So if the Jews do not believe in a son of their deity ever coming, using your logic, Jesus could not be the son of this God. Like I say, the views of Jesus divinity, was brought about mainly from Paul, which is why you follow really Pauline teachings and his views on the words and actions spoken from Jesus, someone who he claims to have met in a vision.

lol...the OT has references to the son of God, xso why wouldn't the jews believe there was one... :D 

The fact remains, however, that your faith, HF, believes that God got a 14-year-old girl pregnant and that she gave birth to ... your God. You do worship Jesus, do you not? And the Jews do not? How can you then say that you worship the same God that Jewish people do?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

lol...the OT has references to the son of God, xso why wouldn't the jews believe there was one... :D 

The fact remains, however, that your faith, HF, believes that God got a 14-year-old girl pregnant and that she gave birth to ... your God. You do worship Jesus, do you not? And the Jews do not? How can you then say that you worship the same God that Jewish people do?

mary did have a child by the Holy spirit yes, 14 year old...really....

the only way to the father is through the son, that is true and what I believe, so do many messianic Jews... :D 

the OT speaks of the son of God, the jews knew that but they did not accept Jesus as that son but none the less they knew there was a son...

and still allah has no son... :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Really, ha ha, so why is it Jews have never believed in such a concept as a son of God or expected one, let alone as they argue Jesus coming was not the right time for a messiah. Being as they also hold the monopoly on these ancient works. Thus again you are like Gospel writer Matthew trying to make verses talking about something else stand with out the other sentences or verses and create a new meaning, that is agin absurd and you do the same with the Quran.


So if the Jews do not believe in a son of their deity ever coming, using your logic, Jesus could not be the son of this God. Like I say, the views of Jesus divinity, was brought about mainly from Paul, which is why you follow really Pauline teachings and his views on the words and actions spoken from Jesus, someone who he claims to have met in a vision.

lol...the OT has references to the son of God, xso why wouldn't the jews believe there was one... :D 

Does the Torah?

No, does the Old testament?

No

Was anybody expecting a human deity to descend onto them or just a Priest/king Messiah ?


The later, you have taken off two sentences off works and tried woefully to claim they are refernces.

DOH

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

lol...the OT has references to the son of God, xso why wouldn't the jews believe there was one... :D 

Does the Torah?

No, does the Old testament?

No

Was anybody expecting a human deity to descend onto them or just a Priest/king Messiah ?


The later, you have taken off two sentences off works and tried woefully to claim they are refernces.

DOH

the OT has references to the son of God...

Jewish literature

Although references to "sons of God", "son of God" and "son of the LORD" are occasionally found in Jewish literature, they never refer to physical descent from God. The phrases "son of God" or "son of the LORD" are never used in the Tanakh rather the LORD speaks to the king, telling the king that he is his son. The more correct usage in all of these passages is "son of the LORD". In addition there are two instances where Jewish kings are figuratively referred to as a god.[12]:150 The king is likened to the supreme king God. These terms are often used in the general sense in which the Jewish people were referred to as "children of the LORD your God". When used by the rabbis, the term referred to Israel or to human beings in general, and not as a reference to the Jewish mashiach. In Judaism the term mashiach has a broader meaning and usage and can refer to a wide range of people and objects, not necessarily related to the Jewish eschaton.



Hence why Jews have never expected a son of a deity to come.


DOH

Isaiah 9:6-7
New King James Version (NKJV)
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

heavenly father wrote:Isaiah 9:6-7
New King James Version (NKJV)
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Jewish literature

Although references to "sons of God", "son of God" and "son of the LORD" are occasionally found in Jewish literature, they never refer to physical descent from God. The phrases "son of God" or "son of the LORD" are never used in the Tanakh rather the LORD speaks to the king, telling the king that he is his son. The more correct usage in all of these passages is "son of the LORD". In addition there are two instances where Jewish kings are figuratively referred to as a god.[12]:150 The king is likened to the supreme king God. These terms are often used in the general sense in which the Jewish people were referred to as "children of the LORD your God". When used by the rabbis, the term referred to Israel or to human beings in general, and not as a reference to the Jewish mashiach. In Judaism the term mashiach has a broader meaning and usage and can refer to a wide range of people and objects, not necessarily related to the Jewish eschaton.



Hence why Jews have never expected a son of a deity to come as these works are Jewish not Christian, thus you have interpreted the mean of verses wrong.

Jews do not believe in a so n of God and now your poor logic has made it also the case then he was only a man, because we have to refer back to the original root faith on this


DOH

 :/pwn://: 

derrr read it...

Isaiah 9:6-7
New King James Version (NKJV)
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

a son is given and that son is mighty God...lol

 :D :/pwn://: 

Hilarious, you have not read the part on the meaning of the term son of God in Judaism, the people who wrote the works


DOH


You really are not only clueless but desperate every time on debates and never answer the fact now Jews have been expecting another deity, a son


DOH


Still you crack me up how strong faith can turn people so utterly clueless

Isaiah 9:6-7
New King James Version (NKJV)
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

a son is given and the son shall be called mighty God...I assume you can read...
 :D :/pwn://: 

The Old testament comes from Jewish writings, so they will have the answers not you ha ha, hilarious, I said Born agains just make things up


Read again what such a concept means

They never refer to physical descent from God. The phrases "son of God" or "son of the LORD" are never used in the Tanakh rather the LORD speaks to the king, telling the king that he is his son. The more correct usage in all of these passages is "son of the LORD". In addition there are two instances where Jewish kings are figuratively referred to as a god.[12]:150 The king is likened to the supreme king God. These terms are often used in the general sense in which the Jewish people were referred to as "children of the LORD your God"t


DOH

PhilDidge wrote:The Old testament comes from Jewish writings, so they will have the answers not you ha ha, hilarious, I said Born agains just make things up


Read again what such a concept means

They never refer to physical descent from God. The phrases "son of God" or "son of the LORD" are never used in the Tanakh rather the LORD speaks to the king, telling the king that he is his son. The more correct usage in all of these passages is "son of the LORD". In addition there are two instances where Jewish kings are figuratively referred to as a god.[12]:150 The king is likened to the supreme king God. These terms are often used in the general sense in which the Jewish people were referred to as "children of the LORD your God"t





DOH

lol read it yourself

Isaiah 9:6-7
New King James Version (NKJV)
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

for un to us a child is born, who is that child..

a son is given, the son from God..

and he is the mighty God...

lol its all there.... :/pwn://: 

Hilarious so now, no Jews ever expected any son of a deity, and these verses are explained not meaning a son of a deity and still HF is confused.
Again no Jewish work refers to a son of this deity coming being as top them there is only one God, so even here your argument has fallen flat on the misunderstanding you have of Jewish works and on the Jews themselves who state Jesus was a false messiah, so why did they not say he was a false God?


Oh my, this just gets better by the minute watching HF get evn more into a muddle

Hee Hee

PhilDidge wrote:Hilarious so now, no Jews ever expected any son of a deity, and these verses are explained not meaning a son of a deity and still HF is confused.
Again no Jewish work refers to a son of this deity coming being as top them there is only one God, so even here your argument has fallen flat on the misunderstanding you have of Jewish works and on the Jews themselves who state Jesus was a false messiah, so why did they not say he was a false God?


Oh my, this just gets better by the minute watching HF get evn more into a muddle

Hee Hee    

remember the jews denied that Jesus was the messiah so they are not likely to be keen on the idea that they forced the Crucifixion of their messiah,

Isaiah 9:6-7
New King James Version (NKJV)
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

read it, it is all there..

a child born, Jesus...

a son given, the son of God...

who is the son, mighty God.

the single passage says it all..  :/pwn://: 

From Hebrew itself:


For a child has been born
to us, a son has been
given to us, and the
authority was placed upon
his shoulder, and [He, the]
Wondrous Adviser, Mighty
God, Eternal
Father/Patron, called his
name: Rule



http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa9_56.pdf


    

Dear me, how desperate, there is nothing to suggest a son of God

Thank you again for making this so much fun educating you on your faith again

Also on the link:



The passage Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7] is an important "proof text" in the portfolio of Christian
missionaries, one that is claimed to foretell the advent of Christianity’s Messiah,
Jesus.

A detailed analysis of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 9:5-6 within its proper context
demonstrates how this passage describes historical events that occurred during the
era in which these words were spoken by Isaiah, and is not a messianic prophecy.



Boom and another poor claim by the Born Again's bites the dust

PhilDidge wrote:Also on the link:



The passage Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7] is an important "proof text" in the portfolio of Christian
missionaries, one that is claimed to foretell the advent of Christianity’s Messiah,
Jesus.

A detailed analysis of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 9:5-6 within its proper context
demonstrates how this passage describes historical events that occurred during the
era in which these words were spoken by Isaiah, and is not a messianic prophecy.



Boom and another poor claim by the Born Again's bites the dust

Isaiah 9:6-7
New King James Version (NKJV)
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

you can see what it says it is all there...lol...

even in the original text it says the same...

6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

original king james//lol

Hilarious and yet again desperate, also that verse does not refer to Jesus, it refers to a Messiah ho will unite and rule Israel, Jesus failed that part


so again you get it woefully wrong

DOH

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

lol...the OT has references to the son of God, xso why wouldn't the jews believe there was one... :D 

The fact remains, however, that your faith, HF, believes that God got a 14-year-old girl pregnant and that she gave birth to ... your God. You do worship Jesus, do you not? And the Jews do not? How can you then say that you worship the same God that Jewish people do?

mary did have a child by the Holy spirit yes, 14 year old...really....

the only way to the father is through the son, that is true and what I believe, so do many messianic Jews... :D 

the OT speaks of the son of God, the jews knew that but they did not accept Jesus as that son but none the less they knew there was a son...

and still allah has no son... :D 

Yes, she was only 14, and yes, "the only way to the father is through the son," Jesus, which means that Jews who do not worship Jesus don't worship the same God as Christians do.