I will in this MyTake proven exhaustively two key facts:
1) Jesus of Nazareth is NOT one and the same as the God the Father, and Jesus of Nazareth is NOT the Only Begotten Son of God.
2) There actually IS an "Only Begotten Son of God", who's existence is rationally derivable, but he has never become a mortal man.
In addition to claiming to being "The Only Begotten Son of God", Jesus of Nazareth actually claimed to be one and the same as God the Father (The Greatest Conceivable Being). There are problems here everywhere. The Greatest Conceivable Being is not rationally required to be able to perform nonsense actions and other logical inconsistencies, because those are not real entities. An eternal Being cannot logically become a mortal being and experience physical death, and then supposedly reclaim immortality. Moreover, the Greatest Conceivable Being is not contained by his own Creation, and so the Greatest Conceivable Being could not be contained in the form of a mortal body anyway, and Solomon actually said so in the Old Testament, "The Heaven and the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain Thee (God)."
Jesus claimed God the Father was "in Heaven" but this contradicts the Old Testament Prophets, and it contradicts logic. God is not a part of his own Creation, therefore God does not sit on a throne "in heaven" and God is not even "in heaven" at all. God exists outside of and independently of his own Creation, and no aspect of God's own eternal existence is a created entity.
The Real Only Begotten Son of God would not need to eat or sleep or even breathe as Jesus did, and the Real Only Begotten Son of God would not misquote the Law of Moses as Jesus did on several occasion, redefining "false witness", redefining "adultery" and redefining the terms of the EVERLASTING Covenant of the Old Testament, and so on. There cannot rationally be a New Covenant for several reasons, but mainly because the Old Covenant is EVERLASTING and because the Copernican Principle actually forbids God from changing His covenant. So there is no such thing as a "New Covenant" between God and Man, as that would require God to change his moral nature, which both the Copernican Principle and the original Covenant forbid.
So does God actually have an "Only Begotten Son of God?" The short answer is "yes" and this is derivable through Objective Reason.
Why would God produce an Only Begotten Son?
The burden of Proof is on the person making the claim, therefore when God claims to be the actual Creator of all reality outside himself, he is morally required to provide rational evidence to all other Free Moral Agent Beings at some point during the history (or future)of existence itself. God, being being both all-knowing and perfectly righteous, knows that He is in fact morally required to prove his own identity. There is only one conceivable proof of the identity of the Greatest Conceivable Being, and that proof has two aspects.
1) The Greatest Conceivable Being must create every conceivable reality.
2) The Greatest Conceivable Being must create the greatest conceivable Creation. And the Greatest conceivable Creation would be a Created Being as close to being God himself as Logically possible.
It is not possible for God to perfectly clone himself. For example, even a clone would lack some of the properties of the original God. A clone could not be past eternal. And a clone could not be the First Cause. And a clone could not bear the property of Almightiness. and a clone could not bear the property of being uncaused. Etc and so on. So the maximum Created Being must be finite in every attribute. Even though this being would be "the closest being to God other than God himself," it would obviously not be one and the same as God himself (as Jesus claimed he was). Again, the Only Begotten Son of God cannot be equal to God in any conceivable attribute, nevermind the claim of being equal to God in all attributes made by Jesus himself and made by Paul of Tarsus. Paul claimed that Jesus was, "The entirety of the Godhead Dwelling Bodily", which is an Ontological Impossibility and is certainly contradicted by the Gospels when we see "The Father" (Allegedly) Speaking to Jesus (allegedly from heaven). In the Gospels when we actually "hear" the Father, he is never one and the same as Jesus, he is a separate Being implied to be strictly greater than Jesus, EXCEPT in the passage where Jesus, in the Gospel of John, speaking to Philiip claimed to be equal to the Father.
The Only Begotten Son of God cannot create every conceivable reality, for several reasons. The Son of God is not Almighty. The original God already has created every conceivable reality, so the Son of God cannot duplicate the original work, as that would be inconceivable that someone other than the True Creator could create reality is an inconceivable claim. Therefore the Only Begotten Son of God cannot be the Creator. Therefore the doctrine of the Trinity is falsified without even referencing the frauds of the man Jesus. I'll say that again, the Only Begotten Son of God cannot be the Creator. The only begotten Son of God can theoretically procreate (perhaps) but he cannot theoretically Create, because he does not bear the property of being the First Cause and he does not bear the property of Almightiness, and by definition there is only one conceivable Being that could bear the property of Almightiness, and that is The True Creator, and NOT the Creator's Son or Daughter, etc.
the Doctrine of the Trinity cannot be correct, because it claims all three "persons" of God are past-eternal, for example. But I just proved that the Only Begotten Son of God, as an actually Created Entity, CANNOT be past eternal, because no created entity can ever be past eternal, and moreover creation is also not a past eternal sequence of finite creations either. Creation is a past-finite event which is theoretically measurable. Not even an Almighty God can actually be involved in a past-infinite series of Creations, because there must actually be such a thing as the Beginning of his First Creation, which must actually be a past-finite event. So Jesus or the Holy Spirit, as Created Beings, could not be past infinite, and therefore the doctrine of the Trinity is blasphemy.
In order to actually be the "Son" of God, he must by definition be a Created Being, and a Created Being cannot be past infinite, and a Created Being cannot be the First Cause, and a Created Being cannot be Almighty, and a Created Being obviously cannot be uncaused. So the Only Begotten Son of God cannot be one and the same as God himself, and he cannot be equal to God in ANY attribute: Lacking Almightiness would automatically disqualify that claim, and the Son of God obviously lacks the property of Almightiness.
So in order to Prove his own identity, God must create the Greatest Conceivable Creation, so reality itself must be "maximized", and that means God must in fact create the Greatest Conceivable Created Being, and that happens to be "The Only Begotten Son of God".
Yes, the Only Begotten Son of God logically and morally must exist, but Jesus of Nazareth is not that Being.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
1Opinion
Why are you assuming that God makes sense?
The Universe we live in obeys the Copernican Principle and is Maximally Righteous. The Universe never lies and never breaks any conceivable law of logic, nor any conceivable law of any higher reality conceivably containing the Universe. Therefore the Universe is perfectly righteous and Objectively Moral. In order to be perfectly righteous, every conceivable attribute of the Universe that can possibly contriribute to Righteousness must be perfect and maximized.
Therefore the Universe we live in is MAXIMIZED in every conceivable way.
The Universe we live in cannot happen by accident (Dr. Kaku, 2017) nor can it come from nothing (Descartes).
Since the Universe is provably past-finite, that means it must have been Created. And since the Universe obeys the Copernican Principle, that means whoever Created the Universe must be obeying the Copernican Principle.
therefore the First Cause is actually the Personhood of the Copernican Principle, and the First Cause is actually the Personhood of Logic. Also, since the Universe is a Maximized reality, the First Cause must be Almighty, because only an Alimighty being could conceivably create a Maximized Reality... and in fact no reality at all can be created by anything less than Almighty. Since the Universe is perfectly Rigtheous, only a Perfectly Rigtheous Being could have created it, and Almightiness already implies perfect righteousness anyway.
the First Cause must be uncaused.
The First Cause must be Almighty.
The First Cause must be self-motivated.
The First Cause does NOT bear internal mechanics or dynamics because God is NOT a mechanism (contrary to Swaggart). God is a singular entity and no aspect of his existence is a created entity, and no aspect of his existence is subject to any law outside of himself.
God technically does not "have" love.
God IS the Personhood of Love.
That is why the commandment says, "Thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself." Your bare minimum moral duty to every other Free Moral Agent being that exists in reality is to love them exactly as you love yourself.
Only an Almighty, perfectly intelligent and perfectly righteous being can create a perfectly righteous and maximized reality, such as the Universe or Multiverse (Dr. Kaku, 2017).
For example, Protons are the best they can conceivably be under the same laws and constants and under the same history of the Universe, and there is no conceivable way that can possibly exist in reality to improve on the design of a Proton in this Universe.
However, every conceivable attribute of the Universe will eventually disintegrate, while never once breaking its own laws, because the Universe is a mortal creation. Protons have a ridiculously long half-life, but given enough time they eventually decay into degenerate photons, as does everything else. And then in a ridiculously, ridiculously long time, ever photon will move so far apart from everything else that there will be no mechanics between any two particles in the entire Universe, and at that point all conceivable physics will end and the Universe itself will die.
However, the Universe is maximized, there is no conceivable Universe that could be more perfect given the same laws and constants. The Universe goes on in every direction for an unknown but finite distance. The "Observable Universe" is 13.8 Billion light years radius, however, radius has already expanded to, I think, 96.5 Billion Light Years by the time the light from the original boundary of the observable universe reaches our telescopes, so when scientist look at an object that appears to be 13.8 billion light years away in a telescope, that object is actually already 96.5 billion light years away due to space-time expansion. The Universe is created as future-eternally expanding, so as to ensure that it does not collapse into a black hole.
But God isn't a part of creation, of our universe. He can enter into and interact with it, but is separate from what He created. Therefore how can we assume that God in His nature can be understood logically, especially since we can only know God insofar as God is willing to reveal Himself? "I am who I say I am"
I appreciate the effort your putting into your responses though. Don't get me wrong. I just wanted to ask because I want to get to know God more and I'm interested in your perspectives
Because the Laws of the Universe do not change (Copernicus) we can assume that the Laws of Higher Reality do not change. If the Laws of a Higher reality did change, then the laws of our Universe would automatically change.
therefore we can assume that the law of God does not change. Therefore God is Logical and does not perform nonsense or logic breaks, as that would violate the Copernican Principle, and would be observable in our own Universe. Since there is no nonsense or logic breaks in our Universe, this means no higher layer of reality performs nonsense or logic breaks.
Therefore the attributes of God's singular existence can be determined by Reason alone, because God, as the First Cause, is in fact the personhood of logic (John 1:1).
Also I do agree that love is central to God's nature. The Trinity makes it such that God in His persons are constantly giving unto each other facilitating a perfect relationship with Himself, or something like that lol. The Trinity is an example of a mystery of who God is.
the more correct way to say this is that God is a singular entity, "Almighty".
Perfect Love comes from his Almightiness.
Perfect Logic comes from his Almightiness.
Perfect Wisdom comes from his Almightiness.
Perfect Righteousness comes from his Almightiness.
Perfect Wrath against evil comes from his Almightiness.
the Personhood of God comes from his Almightiness, because Free Moral Agency is an attribute of Almightiness, and in spite of being bound by his own Righteousness, being Almighty, God is more "Free" than any other Free Moral Agent, because he is not subject to any law outside of his own singular existence..
However, again, no aspect of God's own existence is a created entity, and God cannot break Logic because he is in fact the personhood of Logic..
Every conceivable thing that can possibly exist in any conceivable reality must come from the First Cause. Threrefore the First Cause is inherently efficiently Almighty in every conceivable way that can possibly exist.
For example, all conceivable space-time realities that can possibly exist must be past-finite (Guthe et al, Aquinas) and all conceivable Vector Spaces that can possibly exist must be past-finite (Guthe et al).
Therefore every conceivable Space-Time continuum that can possibly exist must have been Created by a pre-existing eternally UNCAUSED reality that is Almighty and perfectly righteous, because the Universe we live in is already perfectly righteous and maximized in every conceivable way that can possibly exist in a space-time reality having the same number of dimensions and the same laws and constants.
In a differentials class you are taught that an Abstract Vector Spaces goes on forever in every direction, as part of the proof that it is a Vector Space.
However, in reality, no Vector Space that actually exists in any conceivable reality that can possibly exist can actually be infinite in any of it's dimensions (Guthe et al). Therefore no space-time continuum can possibly be past-infinite (Guthe et al).
An accident cannot conceivably create a perfectly righteous and maximized reality.(Aquinas).
Nothingness cannot create anything at all. (Descartes).
Only an Perfectly righteous Almighty Being could create a perfectly righteous and maximized reality.
Therefore all space-time continuums are created by a pre-existing Almighty, perfectly righteous intelligence, namely "God"..
Only a Free Moral Agent could conceivably create a Created Free Moral Agent.
A Robot cannot create a free moral agent, because a robot is a deterministic system. the minds of human beings are not deterministic systems (Dr. Kaku, 2017). The Minds of Human Beings exist in the "wiggle room" of Quantum Theory and String Theory, we are Metaphysical Minds that live in physical bodies. so our bodies are subject to the Laws of Physics, but our Minds are not subject to the laws of physics.
the Uncertainty Principle does NOT create Free Will, but rather quite the opposite. The Uncertainty Principle is created by Free Moral Agency, and is one of the physical, tangible evidences that Free Will actually exists in the physical Universe.
Free Moral Agency is not a mechanical or dynamical construction, that would be a contradiction, as those are Physics concepts, and Free Moral Agency does not function at the physical level, Free Moral Agency is a Metaphysical concept that over-rides the laws of physics, yet never violates the Copernican Principle, as the Laws of the Universe have always allowed Free Moral Agency to exist within the "wiggle room" of Quantum theory and String Theory (Dr. Kaku, 2017).
the only conceivable way that a Created Being could be a Free Moral Agent is if it were actually directly created by an even greater Free Moral Agent who is NOT a Created Being, because a mechanical or dynamical system CANNOT possibly evolve into a Free Moral Agent.
As for "Original Sin".
A Perfectly Righteous, Almighty Creator is bound by his own righteous and his own almightiness to create the best creation he can possibly create. God does not half-ass create.
Therefore all Created Beings are created Perfectly Righteous and Perfectly Innocent in every conceivable way that a Created being's righteousness or innocence can be quantified.
Human Beings are not created in a "fallen" or "Original Sin" condition. Human beings become an EVIL sinner when they willfully, knowingly choose to do evil for the first time. as a non-eternal, non-Almighty Being, CREATED Free Moral Agents have the unique ability to sin against God's Righteousness. God himself cannot conceivably sin against his own righteousness, but Human Beings are capable of sinning against anything and anyone, especially God.
But nobody's sin is to blame on anyone other than that person's own self. Your parents are not at fault for your wrong-doings and God is not at fault, and the government is not at fault, and your upbringing or education is not at fault. You are singularly responsible for every good or evil thing you have ever done, because Free Moral Agency is not subject to the laws of mechanics. Therefore, being a self-motivated being, your evil actions, when you do wrong, cannot possibly be caused by anything outside of yourself.
Because most accidents are conceivably avoidable by taking more care and precaution, and most forms of ignorance are conceivably avoidable by THINKING about the situation, that means crimes of accident or ignorance are not an excuse for breaking the law of man, and they are not an excuse for breakign the law of God.
A sin of ignorance or accident is still a sin, and they knew that 3600 years ago, as you are still morally responsible for whatever damage you have done, and you are responsible to pay the other party the maximum theoretical value of whatever damage you have done (Moses et al). And you are responsible to pay some sort of sacrifice or penalty as an actual punishment on top of the value of the damage of the crime. Your good works to your neighbor to restore the damage is not even the punishment. That is your bare minimum moral duty to your neighbor, "Thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself." the punishment is done on top of the value of the damage you caused. And they had a sacrifice in the Law of Leviticus for ignorance and accidental sins, because you actually must repent to God of a sin of ignorance or accident, even if it was in fact conceivably and possibly a "real" case of ignorance or accident.
The word "Begotten" means that he (Jesus for example) must be a Created being. So the "Only Begotten Son of God" cannot possibly be past-eternal (contrary to Jesus, Paul, and Swaggart).
And God himself cannot conceivably become a Mortal Man (Balam et al), because if he became a real created being, a created being cannot be the First Cause and a created being cannot be Almighty. So if he did become a man, that would be the end of his eternal existence, as a man cannot conceivably "reinvent" the property of Almightiness and reclaim Godhood from a condition of mortality, especially since the Universe every mortal being lives in side of is not infinite in ANY conceivable way that can possibly exist in reality, and his (Jesus) allegedly perfect life, death, and resurrection could in no way change that fact.
If God did "somehow" become a man, that would be the end of his Almightiness and the end of his perfect righteousness and he would cease to be God immediately, and all of reality, which comes from God's Almightiness, including Logic and Metaphysics; All Reality would disintegrate and cease to exist.
So because God is incapable of performing a Logic Break, and because God is incapable of sinning against his own righteousness, God CANNOT become a Mortal man. As the maximally perfectly righteous Being that can possibly exist in reality, God is morally obligated, by his own righteousness, to maximize his own perfectly righteous works.
Therefore killing himself on a Cross (allegedly) would be a sin against his own righteousness, even if he could conceivably, possibly do that, which he cannot conceivably possibly do that.
Since a dead mortal being must be subject to the laws of death, if God did become a man and die on a cross, he COULD NOT raise himself from the dead as a dead mortal man, and because the REAL God is a SINGULAR Being (Moses, Job,) there could be no other Almighty God (Job) beside the hypothetically dead God-man to hypothetically raise the dead God-man from the Dead.
Therefore Jesus of Nazareth was a False Prophet of the worst sort, and all of his disciples were false prophets, and they were all rightfully put to physical, agonizing death by the Jews and Romans for the crime of knowingly being False Prophets.
Although John was not put to death by anyone, and Paul was technically not put to death for religious reasons. Paul was put to death because of his own testimony of being a multiple murderer, and because he foolishly appealed to Caesar, the Romans judged him according to their law. Their law didn't care about the incarnation of Jesus, because they wrongfully believed in the incarnation of god-men. However, their law said that murder was a Capital Crime under any circumstances, so the Romans eventually convicted Paul of murder based on his own testimony of persecuting Christians before he allegedly saw the ghost of Jesus, and so the Romans beheaded him for the Capital Crime of Murder, as murder is considered an unforgivable sin by any rational human being, and therefore no claim to moral epiphany is an excuse to get out of capital punishment, which is why we have the "Son of Sam" law in the United States today, because he claimed to convert to christianity as an excuse to get out of Capital Punishment.
No religious or moral epiphany is a moral excuse to get out of Capital Punishment, or even Hell itself, as God himself does not and cannot forgive Capital Crimes.
When Moses killed the Egyptian, he was wrong for doing that, however he was NOT guilty of the capital Crime of "Murder". the Egyptian was practicing an ILLEGAL form of Slavery (Man Stealing) and therefore according to the Law of God, the Egyptian DESERVED PHYSICAL DEATH. However, Moses was not, at that time, in a moral or legal office of leadership. It was not Moses' place to kill anybody for any sin. Therefore Moses committed "Manslaughter", although the Egyptian deserved physical death for his sins, Moses had no moral or legal right to carry out the sentencing himself. And that is a crime against both man and God, and when the two Hebrews pointed that out to Moses, he panicked and realized somebody in the government would figure out he had killed the man, and he would (rightfully) either go to prison for the rest of his life or be put to death, depending on what the Governor or Pharaoh would have done, and so he fled into the wilderness.
Monarchy was ILLEGAL in Israel. the False Prophet Samuel pointed that out to the people, and then he wrongfully put the issue to a Popular Vote (The Law of God is not a matter of vote or opinion) and he pointed that out, and then he wrongfully "anointed" Saul King. Then a few years later he wronfully anointed David King.
The Real God CANNOT anoint a man King over another man, as the real God does not justify monarchy. The only form of Government justifiable by Objective Moral Reason is a Republic with tangibly, rationally QUALIFIED leadership, not a Monarchy and sure as hell not a Democracy.
A shepherd boy is NOT rationally qualified to be a ruler, even if he did somehow miraculously kill a giant... as he did not meet the physical and moral requirements to be a leader according to Israel's own law, nor according to any conceivably rational law that man can weight out for themselves.
In order to be a leader in Israel you had to be:
1) 50 Years old.
2) A Doctor of the Law, which means you have an actual FORMAL life-long professional education in legal precedent in interpreting the Torah.
3) Have the Law committed to memory verbatim and able to recite it from memory verbatim on demand (which Jesus failed to do on several occasions, proving he was not inspired and infallible).
4) Lawfully wedded or a Eunuch (Virgin). Adulterers and fornicators, such as Saul, David, or Solomon, Donald Trump, etc, are not morally qualified to lead a nation, EVEN if they meet every other qualification. as perpetual LIARS and law-breakers they are not morally qualified to judge another human being's guilt or innocence nor make new laws.
5) Cannot be a debtor of have committed any significant sin against another known person at any time.
6) Cannot have any known mental or physical defect of any kind, as a mentally ill or deranged person is not intellectually qualified to lead even if they somehow manage to be morally qualified ot lead in that condition. And because every person above the age of 12 years old in Israel was required to take arms and fight in a war, including every priest and every other ruler, in fact the rulers were required to be on the front lines in warfare according to the Law; the ruler was required to be in physically perfect health. If you had so much as a boil that did not heal correctly, you COULD NOT be a Priest even if you met the other qualifications, and you COULD NOT be a Judge, attorney, Prosecutor, or Juror in a criminal trial or any other legal matter, even if you met all of the other qualifications.
The Books of Kings and Chronicle never proves that God ever anointed or Justified a King over Israel, even though the books claim that certain kings did that which was right in the eyes of God and certain kings did evil in the eyes of God, there is no proof, other than what God himself could know, that the author is an authentic source regarding anyone else's righteous or sinful behavior... in particular since several other books of both the Old Testament and the entire New Testament are written by False Prophets.
For example, even though the Book of Daniel perfectly predicted the future across several hundred years, it has been a very long time since the last time one of Daniel's Prophecies actually came to past. it is even conceivable that the last two chapters of his book are False Prophecy, because one of them is incomprehensible and doesn't give any known or formal name to any of the nations involved in the tangled mess it weaves, and the Other chapter has gone on from 2500 years without being fulfilled, although the text admitted it was supposed to be a very long time in the future, and that "knowledge would be increased and people would travel and run to and fro".
IN our generation, knowledge has expanded exponentially due to Computer Science, internet, and other discoveries. So it may be that Daniel's Prophecy is about to be fulfilled, or it may be coincidence, only time will tell..
But it is conceivably possible that even Daniel himself ended up Falsely Prophesying at the end of his book, in spite of being the only known, provably True Prophet with tangible historical evidence. I hope that is not the case, that he turned from God at the last moment, but it is conceivably possible, being a Free Moral Agent, that he in fact did Falsely Prophesy. Again, I hope that is not the case, but it cannot be ruled out at this time. The Law of Moses requires that a True Prophecy actually come to pass. A true prophesy cannot fail, it must cover every conceivable outcome that could be effected by Free Moral Agency, and one of the outcomes predicted must come to pass, or the speaker is put to physical agonizing death for Falsely Prophesying in the name of Any God..
A True Prophesy cannot be an approximation of what comes to pass, or "close to the truth".
A True Prophecy is required to come to pass VERBATIM or the speaker is put to immediate physical agonizing death, by burning at the stake, followed immediately by eternity in Hell.
So when Psychics use tarot cards to allegedly predict your attributes or your future, or any false pastor in any religion, or any lay-person allegedly Prophesies and claims to be giving a "word from God" or otherwise predicting the future, or speaking to the dead or anything like that, if what they say about your character is not absolutely true, or if what they predict does not come to pass VERBATIM they are a FALSE PROPHET and deserve physical, agonizing death and immediate hell fire for the capital crime of falsely claiming to be speaking for any God or God-like entity.
A True Prophecy gives every conceivable outcome that Free Moral Agency can produce, and gives you a choice (either direclty or by implication) to choose to do right or wrong, and it predicts every conceivable outcome that can possibly happen based on that choice ot do right or wrong. And although not all of the prophecies in the Bible appear to be that way, God being All-knowing already knows what decision you will make, but you are given an implicit choice anyway. But because God already knows the outcome that WILL happen, most prophecies in the Bible do not directly give a choice, but the choice is still there implicently. So when Daniel prophesies the madness of Nebuchdnezzar, ti is because God already knows the outcome Nebuchadnezzar (wronfully) chose, which was the idolatry of self-worship, God fulfilled Daniel's prophecy and drove Nebuchadnezzar insane for seven years. Daniel's prophesy came to pass VERBATIM, during Daniel's own lifetime. And while several of Daniel's prophesied did not come to pass during his own lifetime, there has never been a provably false prophecy found in the Book of Daniel, in spite of the fact that Atheists falsely claim the book was written after the fact, because they cannot be an atheist while attempting to rationally admit that a PROVABLY True Prophet of God ever existed. Again, Daniel is the only PROVABLY True Prophet in the Bible.
Although one of the chapters of Daniel's book is incomprehensible at this time, that does not prove it is a False Prophecy. It may be that "somebody" in some future time, perhaps after it comes to pass, will be able to comprehend it and say, "Oh by the way, that has eventually come to pass after all".
As for the other chapter, predicting the exponential growth of knowledge and travel across 2500 years is impressing and correct, but the entire chapter has not yet come to pass. Isaac Newton attempted to calculate when that chapter of Daniel should come to pass, and arrived with the year 2065, assuming Jeremiah's "day is a year" symbology is consistent with the Book of Daniel. If Newton is correct, then this prophecy MAY come to pass in my lifetime.
Newton was not claiming to speak for God, as Newton was a "Classical Deist" and did not actually believe in Prophecy or Divine intervention anyway*, however, so he is NOT a false prophet fi this does not come to pass, as making a mistake in interpreting a prophecy does not make you a false prophet, whether or not the prophecy itself is true; It just means you have imperfect knowledge, because you are not Almighty.
*Newton believed God was a purely Deistic Being, who created reality in motion and then stopped creating reality and just let reality do it's own deterministic thing forever without ever interfering again. Thus Newton rejected the notion of Miracles or Divine Intervention, based on the (likely flawed) argument that God should have completed all of his works to begin with.
I would argue that because Free Moral Agency exists, and man does evil things or otherwise stupid things that are not inherently evil (beyond being foolish anyway), then God's eternal, Perfect Righteousness dictates that he in fact Divinely intervene from time to time, either in the form of a Prophecy or a Miracle, or both. In my view, Prophecy and Miracles therefore come from God's Righteousness needing to correct the wrong's of created beings' Free Moral Agency.
For example, as I've shown earlier, God's Almightiness and Righteousness taken together requires him to MAXIMIZE every attribute of everything he creates.
Therefore God is bound, by his own Righteousness, ot Maximize the Righteousness of his Creation. Since inanimate objects and deterministic systems CANNOT break the law, they cannot be guilty of sin, so God has already maximized the righteousness of those systems
Therefore God is bound, by his own righteousness and nothing else, to give every Created Free Moral Agent the MAXIMUM opportunity to do good and to avoid doing evil. Therefore Divine Intervention and Miracles and Prophecy are morally and logically justifiable by God's own Righteousness as a means to MAXIMIZE the opportunity for Free Moral Agents to repent of their sins and do right in the eyes of God.
If God did not show Divine Evidence of His existence and Divine Evidence of his Law, then the opportunity to repent of your sins would not be maximized, and again, his Almightiness and his righteousness require that he give every created being the maximum opportunity to be righteous.
A Free Moral Agent can only maintain it's sinless perfection if that Free Moral Agent is in fact Almighty.
A created being cannot be Almighty, as an Almighty Being cannot come into being by accident, and even an Almighty Being cannot create another Almighty Being, as I have already pointed out.
Therefore all Created Free Moral Agents are destined to become sinners, evne though they are in fact created sinlessly perfect. Because only God himself can maintain his own existence perfectly so as to never sin under any circumstances. Man is therefore not guilty of physical death or hell for every conceivable sin (contrary to Swaggart) that man can possibly commit, but only for "Capital Sins". You canont be sent to Hell for telling a "little white lie" that Santa Clause and 8 reindeer fly around on Christmas eve, even though that is a lie, it is not a Capital Crime worthy of physical death, and anything not worthy of physical death cannot be worthy of eternity in hell. And since the Law of God does NOT say "thou shalt not lie" (contrary to Jesus) There is no commandment to punish you for telling a lie that Santa clause is real, even though it is a fraud and you should not do that. The Law of God says, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." and not to falsely prophesy. You are legally permitted to lie as a spy for the military or government in law enforcement, for the purpose or protecting your identity or trapping a criminal who is committing a crime worse than lying, for example (Joshua).
A police officer should not be permitted to TEMPT another person to commit a crime, however. For example, that "bait car" gag should not be legal. And bating women to commit WILFUL prostitution should not be legal. Will full prostitution should be LEGAL because the only sin she has committed is premrital sex, and God cannot reasonably send 90% of humanity to Hell for committing premarital sex. If God were so pathetic that 90% of his Creation deserved eternal Hell, then God could not conceivably be a Maximially Righteous Being. Moreover, in the bible WILFUL Prostitutes, NOT related to idolatry or False Prophecy, are actually spared by the priests and lawful rulers even in the Old Testament. So the Commandments against prostitution must be interpreted as being against "Temple Prostitutes" Worshiping an Idol or other False God.
In the story of Judah, the woman Tamar gets mad at Judah's sons for not rightfully marrying her, so she becomes a prostitute and deceives Judah into bedding her (she wore a veil so he didn't know her identity) and they had sex together. So they are both equally guilty. Since Judah didn't have anything on his person to pay her with, he gave her his staff and his signet ring.
Then when Judah found out that his daughter-in-law as a Prostitute he illegally commanded her to be put to death. However, Tamar presented Judah's staff and signet ring as evidence of her innocence, because technically in giving her these things he had engaged himself to her, as the giving of a ring is the most commonly accepted token of marriage. So Judah spares her and says, "You are more righteous than me."
So even though he did not intend to "marry" her, according to the Law of Moses, which hadn't been written yet at this time, Judah is REQUIRED to marry Tamar, and if Judah refuses to marry Tamar he is to be put to death as being more guilty than her of any wrong-doing, and for refusing to care for his own child.
And since "Man Stealing" (Slavery EXCEPT as punishment for a crime) is already illegal and carries a Death Sentence to the "owner" in the Law, any form of "forced prostitution" SHOULD obviously be illegal, and carry a Death Sentence to the "owner", not the woman, and not just a few years in prison.
Any form of Slavery, EXCEPT slavery as punishment for a crime, is FORBIDDEN in the Old Testament.
The 14th Amendment to the constitution does NOT forbid involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime, it STILL RIGHTFULLY specifically allows SLAVERY as punishment for a crime, ALTHOUGH that is almost never done in modern America, except at Angola prison in Louisiana as far as I know, and the U. S. Supreme Court has upheld the Forced Involuntary Servitude at Angola.
On the other hand, Forced Prostitution CANNOT be a legal punishment for a crime, as procreation is intended by both God and any rational being, to be an act of marital love.
Being a wilful prostitute as a form of idolatry or false prophecy IS a capital crime.
Being a wilful prostitute NOT worshiping an idol or falsely prophesying is NOT a capital crime, not even in the bible. there are SEVERAL instances in the Old Testament of RIGHTEOUS rulers sparing wilful prostitutes, and not even accusing them of any wrong-doing at all, and of course Jesus famously spared several adulteresses, because the Law of Moses did not find them worthy of physical death, and Jesus claimd to uphold the Law, he could not break the law in front of other people, else he would have been put to death, much less the Law of the Real God.. And of course in spite of all the good things Jesus did, he was ultimately a False Prophet and rightfully crucified to death.
Being a forced prostitute is not a sin at all for the prostitute, but is a capital crime for all persons involved in the prostitutes slavery or the sex act itself, other than the prostitute being forced against their will..
In the Law of Moses, when a person commits a Capital Crime, their own family is required to execute them. Not somebody else.
So in the story of Jesus defending the Adulteress, one fo the things the priests and lawyers did wrong is it was not their place (according to the Law of Moses) to punish the woman, even if she did in fact deserve physical death. Even if she did deserve physical death, her own family were the ones lawfully commanded to carry out the sentence, not the priests and lawyers. So they were hypocritically going to stone her against the law anyway... and every evidence is that they hypocritically tempted and entrapped the woman. Jesus wrote something, unknown, on the ground, possibly a sentence from the Law of Moses, and then he told them, "whoever is without sin cast the first stone at her."
So the priests had no moral justification to stone her, and are not legally qualified in God's eyes to carry out the death sentence even if she did deserve to die, and they are forced to admit they have no moral or legal justification to stone her, and they all drop the stones and walk away.
In addition, if she did commit a sin worthy of physical death, the man involved would have been worthy of physical death too, and the accusers did not present the man. The Law of Moses requires that both the man and woman be put on trial, if they are being accused of a capital crime. You cannot accuse one member of a wilful sexual union of a crime without accusing the other member. So for example, every woman who had sex with tiger woods outside of his originally VOWED MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE committed the same sin that tiger woods committed, and owes his ex-wife a financial penalty, in God's eyes. If Tiger Woods is guilty of the sin of adultery, because he took a vow to God to be be monogamous, then every woman who had sex with him while he was in a vowed condition of monogamy is guilty in God's eyes of a capital crime, as is Tiger Woods.
"thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shall perform unto the Lord thine Oaths."
A vow to God of Monogamy is IRREVOCABLE. Thus in God's eyes, Tiger Woods is still married ot the woman, and owes her half of his entire life's income until the day he dies, and in fact owes a death penalty, because he broke in IRREVOCABLE vow to God himself. And every woman who sinned against her owes either a death penalty or half of their entire life's income until the day they die.
If you willfully and knowingly cause another person's Lawful Vow to be broken, you are guilty of whatever punishment that person is guilty of, because you are a co-conspirator in breaking the vow, whatever it may be.
Because Monogamous Marriage is technically the ONLY lawful vow to God, breaking marriage covenant is obviously a serious offense. If all members of a Marriage are wilfully consenting to Polygamy, then none of them are bound by any law governing a Vow of Monogamy.
The only person who can release you from a vow to God is God himself specifically speaking to you and releasing you from the vow, even if you regret giving the vow, you cannot be released from it by changing your mind.
A vow of celibacy is NOT a lawful covenant with God, as the Law of God never commands anyone to give a vow of celibacy, not in the Law of Moses, and not in Nature itself. While willfully becoming a Eunuch is not a sin, it is never commanded under any circumstances in the Law of Moses. The Celibacy of Catholic priesthood is an unlawful commandment, which has no Biblical justification and no rational Objectively Moral Justification.
In the Old Testament, if you make an ILLEGAL vow to God, God still holds you accountable even to an ILLEGAL vow to God.
For example, in the Old Testament, Israel was commanded NOT to make a treaty with the nations around them. Not that God was against Treaties, he didn't say "don't make a treaty with anybody". the reason for this commandment is because ALL of the surrounding nations practiced human sacrifice cult worship as the prevailing religion, and obvoiusly a Righteous God could not honor that.
However, Israel ended up breaking the commandment and making a treaty, and an irrevocable Vow to God, including offering sacrifices to God as part of the treaty, with several of the surrounding nations. Then a few days later, Israel broke the treaty they made and attacked one of those nations.
So God, says, "you know what, by breaking a Blood Covenant, you just ruined MY reputation, so I'm going to CURSE everyone involved in breaking the vow, even though it was an illegal vow in the first place."
So technically, God will POSSIBLY hold you accountable to some vows, even if they are illegal or irrational vows, if his perfect righteousness determines that you should be held accountable to the Vow.
for example, any Blood Covenant or Sacrificial Covenant is equal to a Marriage Covenant. When you create a Blood Covenant to God or to another person or nation, God holds you accountable to a Marriage Vow to all persons involved in the Covenant, even if it is in fact an illegal vow.
Because God's eternal Righteousness i sincapable of sinning, and because God's eternal Righteousness is the only thing morally qualified to judge another Free Moral Agent, God has the power to judge even an illegal vow. So while human Free Moral Agency has the power to make an illegal covenant, it's still a sin to make an illegal covenant. But even though the illegal covenant is wrong, God will POSSIBLY punish you by holding you accountable to the illegal covenant you have made, if his Righteousness determines that is the morally justifiable thing to do.
For example, if you accidentally give a marriage vow to God to another person while you are WILLFULLY intoxicated, then you are bound by God to that Union, and it is IRREVOCABLE in the eyes fo God, because your OWN foolishness led you to impair yourself. Because Drunkenness is already a sin, and you willfully intoxicated yourself, you alone are morally responsible for your actions while impaired, so God holds you accountable to any Blood Covenant you make while intoxicated, including giving consent (defined as any positive affirmation to an advance) to non-marital sex, even if you regret it immediately the next day.
So a WILLFULLY drunken woman who gives any positive affirmation to a man's sexual advance, and then accuses him of rape the next day is guilty of the Capital Crime of Perjury.
Now according to the Law of God, and the four-fold commanddment in the Law of Moses, Perjury should be punished according to whatever the falsely accused would have been punished with had they been guilty.
So Perjury in a Capital Trial is supposed to be punished with agonizing physical death for the unforgivable sin of Attempted Murder, and presumably God himself sends the false accuser directly to Hell for the unforgivable sin of Attempted Murder, because Perjury in a Capital Trial is morally equal to Attempted Murder.
Since Rape is punishable by Death under the Law of Moses and under the law of any rational God that actually conceivably and DOES actually exist, then falsely accusing a man of Rape is a Capital Crime, Punishable by agonizing physical death and presumably eternity in Hell, because the false accuser is guilty of a crime morally equal to attempted murder.
there are several rational an dmoral reasons why rape is punishable by death in the Law of Moses, and most likely the law of the real God that actually exists.
When a person commits rape, that person is sinning against the victims' Free Will, obviously, but also sinning against the most important attributes of God.
For example, rape is a sin against God's righteousness, like all sins.
Rape is a sin against God's love, because Love does not force a blood covenant against one party's will. All parties in a covenant must be willful members at the time the covenant is formed, or it is not legal.
Rape is a sin against the Almightiness of God, because Rape is a sin against Procreation, which can only be legal if it is an act of mutual love, which means it is a sin against God's creative order, which comes directly from his Almightiness. So Rape is morally equivalent to knowingly truly Blaspheming God, and knowingly Truly Blaspheming God is already rationally worthy of an AGONIZING physical Death Sentence and eternity in Hell.
Since the constitution, especially following the 14th Amendment, is based on the GOD GIVEN RIGHTS of the Declaration of Independence, and since GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS IMPLY GOD-GIVEN DUTIES, for example you have a God-given duty to uphold everyone else's God-given rights: "Thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself..."
Now since it is a crime to sin against another person's God-given rights, including logically derivable moral rights not specifically mentioned in the document, then that means it is a crime to tell a lie, especially a lie about Science or Religion or God himself, because everyone has a God-given right to know the truth about those things. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion do NOT give you a right to break vows, commit perjury or slander or libel, nor be a false prophet, atheist, or a false scientist or teach or believe any false doctrine about God or the rest of reality. If the Constitution actually gave you an allegedly "legal" right to do any of those things, it would be laughably worthless and of no value whatsoever.
You'll notice that the First Amendment does NOT give you a legal or moral right to be an Atheist. The constitution gives you a legal right to worship God as you choose, provided you are not breaking any rational law in doing so. So a PROVABLY false religion is NEVER supposed to be legal, for example, which is why prayer "in the name of Jesus" is forbidden in public school and government, and ought to be forbidden period. And forced Atheism is forbidden in school and government, though Atheists keep pushing harder and harder for forced Atheism. Prayer in the name of "God" is not forbidden in School or Government, and the constitution and Declaration of Independence obviously gives all legal and moral authority, and obviously all human Rights and all human Duties, as ultimately coming from God the Creator... NOT man-made law.
The purpose of Man-made law is not to inform righteous people of the law.
The purpose of man-made law is to inform Criminals of the law of God, as Criminals claim to not know right from wrong, such as James Holmes the mass murder's insanity plea. Since they obviously do know right from wrong, man-made law is written as a manner of Earthly prosecution of criminals for acts that are obviously against God's Law. Assuming the people making the law are actually following God's commandments, the purpose of Man-made law is to carry out God's will against sinners; Since Human Rights and Duties come from God, then obviously all other aspects of law or morality must come from God (Jefferson, et al).
the notion that the Constitution could in any way be giving a person any sort of "Legal right" to be an Atheist, much less attempt to force atheism on anybody or everybody else, would make Jefferson roll over in his grave.
He stated five different times in the Declaration of Independence that Law and Morality comes from the Creator, so it is not conceivably possible that any legal document in force that Jefferson, Or Newton, or Washington would recognize could somehow give you a legal right to reject God nor a legal right to teach others to reject God nor a legal right to forbid prayer or worship to any God that is not provably false... For example, in spite of what I just wrote, you obviously cannot punish a False Prophet until he does something provably false, unfortunately... Anyway, you have no legal right to forbid prayer to any God who is not provably false. And Prayer in the name of "Just God" or "The True Creator" or anything like that is not provably false.
If you prayed in the name of Baal, Baal is provably false, so that should be forbidden. If you prayed ot Satan, that is provably false and should be forbidden, but they let the church of satan operate in every major city today, falsely justified by a false interpretation of the first amendment. the amendment gives you a God-given right to worship God. It does not give you a God-given right to worship God's adversary, nor anything naming itself in honor of God's adversary.
"Since the Universe is provably past-finite, that means it must have been Created. And since the Universe obeys the Copernican Principle, that means whoever Created the Universe must be obeying the Copernican Principle."
No it doesn't. Because God isn't a part of our universe, His creation. Adding two positives cannot give a negative. Compiling what we know about our observable universe cannot give us reliable information about what's outside of our observable universe. Therefore I don't think it's wise to assume that how God works can be exactly drawn from our worldly observations, especially because what we see is a broken and fallen world. Is God a moniacle evil dictator that kills babies left and right? Is God unrightous? No of course not. But if you only looked at our current world, you could easily make the connection and people already have.
You've got an amazing tower of logic and knowledge mate, but unfortunately I think it has a weak foundation. It's based on an assumption that could be wrong no matter what I or yourself thinks about it.
You obviously have a lot of knowledge about God, but do you know him? That's going to be my prayer for everyone including myself, that we all humble ourselves before God and allow Him to show us who He is. "I am who I say I am"
If the First Cause could violate its own nature, that would be no different than Classical Chaos, and since a perfectly maximized Universe provably can't come from Chaos nor any other form of randomness, this means it is safe to conclude that the First Cause is self-consistent and never breaks its own laws. Even though being mortal beings would could never fully understand the reasoning of the Almighty Being that is the First Cause, whatever his level of reason is, his Creation necessarily expresses that same reasoning, albeit in a finite fashion.
For example, as I wrote to Swaggart the other day, Jesus couldn't be the real God anyway.
In order for God to REALLY become a man, he would need to permanently and irrevocably give up the quality of being Almighty and actually become a true flesh and blood mortal. And there is no conceivable way that as a mortal, especially not a dead mortal, he could allegedly somehow "re-invent" a new Almighty attribute, raise himself from the dead, and then become the True Creator of all of Reality again.
So the incarnation of God as a man is ridiculous, and I'm ashamed by the fact that I was deceived by this nonsense for 36 years.
The Biblical God claims not to change his own nature anyway. Malachi, claiming to quote God, says, "I AM THAT I AM: I CHANGE NOT."
Moreover this agrees with the Copernican Principle that "The Laws of the Universe are the same for all of space and time", and by extension all of reality itself no matter how nested reality could ever be.
moreover, even though Jesus was a false prophet, he ALSO, said that the REAL law of God never changed (contrary to Paul). Jesus said, "Not one Jot or Tittle shall in any wise pass away from the Law until ALL THINGS are fulfilled."
So in this case, even though Jesus was a false prophet and none of his prophecies have ever come to pass, in this case I agree with his statement, because it agrees with logic and agrees with the Copernican Principle.
So Jesus' own words convict him of being a fraud and a false prophet, as he absolutely knew that the even the Real Almighty God couldn't actually change his own nature and become a mortal man.
Moreover, if God did have an "Only Begotten Son of God" whom he had created outside of himself, and somehow chose to sacrifice that created being as some ultimate expression of love for humans, assuming that could even hypothetically be justifiable, he would then be morally obligated to incarnate his son again and again as every other species and sacrifice his son again and again for every other created sentient species he had created in any reality.
Since the real God obviously doesn't permit human sacrifice anyway, killing his son on a cross, as an alleged man, would violate his own nature anyway, even if he hypothetically could have done that otherwise.
Your ideas and thoughts are amazing and are evidence that you've poured really deeply into this topic. That's epic. But I don't think your getting the point I'm trying to convey. I'm trying to say that an important element of God's character is also His mystery, the part that we don't know about and cannot rationalise. It's awesome that your rationalizing God, but that's only one side of who God is. I'm not trying to say your wrong, because I could be wrong aswell. We could both be wrong and then God could come in and "clarify" some things. Wouldn't be the first time (later chapters of Job). But in 1 Corinthians 1:18-31, it talks about how Jesus is a stumbling block for both Jews (followers of the Law) and Greeks (seekers of wisdom/knowledge) and that God's wisdom is above our own and God's foolishness is wiser than our human wisdom, and hence we should humble ourselves before him. God is the one who defines who he is "I am who I say I am". It doesn't mean we should raise healthy speculation, but I think we should be careful not to dig too deep into a topic that doesn't bear good fruit or any fruit at all, or even worse, bad fruit.
Basically I'm trying to say that God is rational, and God is also irrational. This isn't a contradiction in His character. It's simply a result of God's position as God relative to our position as human beings. Therefore it's great to rationalise elements of God's character, but it's important to be careful that when we come across something that really really doesn't make sense to us, that we do leave a bit of room for God's mystery to fill in the blanks instead of us starting to create rigid definitions of who or what God is instead of allowing God to say who He is. Because of God's position relative to ours, we should approach Him with humility and allow God to reveal himself, because that's an important element of God's character, that He reveals what is unseen.
Quick edit, *it doesn't mean we SHOULDN'T raise healthy speculation
Share the first opinion in your gender
and earn 1 more Xper point!