Where did life begin? (Merged)

[PKT_VOL]

That's because pure actuality is not a being but being itself. This is because God is the only being who essence and existence (being) are identical. To say there exists two of these beings means that its essence is shared across those two beings, which therefore must mean each of these so called beings also share the unique necessity of existing on its own. The very idea of "sharing" inherently means God would merely be one of many beings and not being itself.

As I said earlier, you'd also need a means to distinguish "God 1" from "God 2" otherwise the mere assertion of two such Gods is unintelligible. To distinguish these two beings to point out that one lacks a feature that the other possesses, which is to say that, for example, "God 1" has an unrealized potential (potency) that "God 2" does not. That would be contradictory to the idea of God as pure act, which obviously excludes any potency by definition.

Is the bold the crux of your argument?

If so, are you active being? If so, are you seperate and distinct from God?

 

[JHuntVols]

Is the bold the crux of your argument?

One paragraph is one distinct, brief argument, but yes.

If so, are you active being? If so, are you seperate and distinct from God?

Of course to both.

 

[PKT_VOL]

One paragraph is one distinct, brief argument, but yes.



Of course to both.

If there is active being, seperate and distinct from God, how can God be being itself?

 

[BigO95]

You're missing the point. It was clearly added after the fact. Which is why it's not in the 4th century texts but is in many after. Which further proves it was a later addition.

If something was added after the fact it could easily become present in the majority of texts. Why would you consider a majority to be more important than something closer to the original work (an older text)?

Just because a text is older that doesn't necessarily mean that its more reliable.

 

[BigO95]

I would like to hear some more of this alien life starting bit. And people think I'm crazy because I believe a literal six day creation!lol:

 

[Orangeslice13]

Just because a text is older that doesn't necessarily mean that its more reliable.

If all the copies found from 100 to 400 CE Don’t have certain Vs’s in Them. You can take the older copies that agree with each other as less corrupted.

 

[Wafflestomper]

I believe the principle of non-contradiction is a very good way to support an argument. As I said earlier, the idea of two Gods, which is defined in AT terminology as pure actuality, is contradictory by definition. It's like asking a geometry person "why can't a triangle have 4 sides" and asking him to "support" his argument.

This, of course, presupposes that the assertions made by Aquinas are correct.

We know objects bounded by three sides exist--their properties can be demonstrated through mathematical proofs. We have no way of demonstrating the truth of these assertions about the nature/properties of God or non-contingent entities.

In AT metaphysics, all contigent beings are a composed of potency and act, which is to say they're a mixture of what it is (act) and what it can be (potency). As Roustabout hinted at earlier in his discussion of nothing creating something, potency cannot cause itself by definition, therefore potency is dependent on act, which is to say act must per se precede potency. This self-contradiction also means the idea of a purely potential being is nonsense, however the logically necessity of act preceding potentialty is the metaphysical basis of the First Cause, which is also the being of pure actuality. Saying that being is both pure actuality and the first cause is saying the same thing for our purposes of this argument. Suffice to say here that the first cause has nothing to do with temporally ordered sequences but that of the necessity of a first cause that each subsequent member in the casual chain derives its casual powers from. Without that first or necessary cause the entire chain falls apart, which is the reason why an infinite regress of causes is impossible in this context.

I'm still not following how any of this precludes the possibility of the existence of necessary beings that are nothing like the one Aquinas defines, unless you presuppose the principles of causation as we know them are constant throughout spacetime.

 

[Orangeslice13]

It's like talking to a wall. Mark 16:9-whatever is reguarded by everyone as a later addition written by a second author.

Do you believe that second author was also devinely inspired? Do you not believe there was a second author?

What are your thoughts on Mathew 28 :19 ?

 

[Vol8188]

What are your thoughts on Mathew 28 :19 ?

Is that the great comma debate?

 

[Orangeslice13]

Is that the great comma debate?

It’s where the words “in my name “ were allegedly changed to “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost “.

 

[Vol8188]

It’s where the words “in my name “ were allegedly changed to “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost “.

I'd have to read up on that. I do know there's a debate regarding a comma in one of the gospels

 

[Orangeslice13]

I'd have to read up on that. I do know there's a debate regarding a comma in one of the gospels

I still don’t have an opinion on the debate. It’s hard to get any unbiased opinions. Half of what you read says things like “no serious scholars believe.....”. As soon as I read that I know the article is crap.

Here’s a decent opinion from the “it’s been altered” point of but it too has some bias you’ll have to tiptoe threw.

******cant get the link to post so here’s a TL;DR excerpt from the article **********

The following excerpts come from an unaltered book of Matthew that could have even been the original or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Thus Eusebius informs us of the actual words Jesus spoke to his disciples in Matthew 28:19.
Demonstratio Evangelica Eusebius“With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 6, 132 (a), p. 152)
“But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph “In MY NAME.” And the power of His name being so great, that the apostle says: “God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,” He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in my Name.” He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: “for this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations.” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 7, 136 (a-d), p. 157)
“Who said to them; “Make disciples of all the nations in my Name.” — (Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel, Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159)
In Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read, “relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”
And in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read, “Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”
Eusebius was present at the council of Nicea and was involved in the debates between Arias and the pagan view of Athanasius that became the trinity doctrine. If the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted instead, “in my name.” So it appears that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.
Below is Matthew 28:19 from the King James Bible.
Matthew 28:19 “Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
Trinitarians often claim this verse supports their belief. However, this verse in no way affirms the trinity doctrine which states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three co-equal, co-eternal beings that make up one God. Nobody denies there is the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. This verse refers to three powers but never says they are one and says nothing about their personality. It does not say they are three beings, it does not say they are three in one or one in three, it does not say these three are the Godhead, it does not say these three are a trinity, it does not say these three are co-equal or co-eternal beings, it does not say that these three are all God, and yet some draw the conclusion that this supports their belief in the trinity which is clearly not so. They are concluding something from this verse that it just does not say.
One might also ask why the apparent disobedience of the Apostles if this verse were genuine as there is not one who obeyed these supposed words of Jesus Christ from Matthew 28:19. Here are all the scriptures relating to baptism in the New Testament. New converts were all baptized into the name of Jesus Christ only.
Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
Acts 8:12 “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.”
Acts 8:16 “For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
Acts 10:48 “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”
Acts 19:5 “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
Acts 22:16 “And now why tarriest you? arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
Romans 6:3 “Know you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?”
1 Corinthians 1:13 “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” [Implied]
Galatians 3:27 “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
So should Matthew 28:19 read “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” or “baptizing them in My name.” And based on your conclusion, which of the following is correct?
Colossians 2:12 “Buried with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in baptism, wherein also you are risen with them through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised them from the dead.”
or
Colossians 2:12 “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised him from the dead.”
In conclusion, Matthew 28:19 does not prove or disprove the trinity doctrine and you will have to decide for yourself if this text belongs as it cannot be proven conclusively one way or the other. But Scripture certainly strongly indicates that baptism should be in the name of Christ as all examples reveal.
The reason we are baptized in the name of Christ is because we are baptized “into” Jesus Christ. Baptism is a symbol of His death, burial and resurrection. Even if the trinity doctrine was true, only Jesus Christ died, was buried and rose again. When we are baptized in the name of Christ we become Christians. Paul argued this point in 1 Corinthians 1:13 when he said, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” The obvious answer to this rhetorical question is, “No. You were baptized in the name of Christ because He was crucified for you.”
Consider also “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;” Mark 16:16
And whose name do we call on to be saved when we are baptized?
“arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the NAME of the LORD.” Acts 22:16
It does not say “calling on the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” now does it? And what is the ONLY name under heaven whereby we can be saved? We do NOT call on the name of the Father or Holy Spirit to be saved in baptism. These verses also reveal Matthew 28:19 as it appears to be incorrect and that it should have said in the name of the Lord only.

 

[Roustabout]

How exactly as two identical "pure actuality" beings contradictory?

Face palm

 

[Roustabout]

Now that I’ve had a chance to read the whole conversation here’s the clarification.

This is my statement




This is Peters statement.

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean

I'm with Slice on this. However, not in the way he'd probably want.

The fact is god used food to show Peter that something NEW was happening.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm with Slice on this. However, not in the way he'd probably want.

The fact is god used food to show Peter that something NEW was happening.

Of course He did, and of course He was. That still doesn't mean He didn't also release the dietary ban at that time, which would explain why Peter was later living as a Gentile among the Gentiles.

And Peter literally did not say that the vision wasn't about food, as Slice claimed that he did.

It's annoying to literally quote exactly what God said in scripture and be told you are reading into it while the one accusing you of doing so is literally claiming that scripture says more than it does.

When that happens, any need for further discussion on the subject seizes up.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I'm with Slice on this. However, not in the way he'd probably want.

The fact is god used food to show Peter that something NEW was happening.

I don’t “want “ you to think anything.
I actually don’t care if you agree or Don’t.
I use these discussions/debates to refine what I believe. Unfortunately nothing new has been presented for me to consider. I’m still hopeful to get something out of it though.
You see Frito....

I’m pressing for the mark of the prize of the high calling of God in Yeshua Messiah.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Of course He did, and of course He was. That still doesn't mean He didn't also release the dietary ban at that time, which would explain why Peter was later living as a Gentile among the Gentiles.

And Peter literally did not say that the vision wasn't about food, as Slice claimed that he did.

It's annoying to literally quote exactly what God said in scripture and be told you are reading into it while the one accusing you of doing so is literally claiming that scripture says more than it does.

When that happens, any need for further discussion on the subject seizes up.

Quote where I said “peter said it wasn’t about food”

What I said was

“Peter said it was about people not food.”

Which means Peter said is was about people and he didn’t address food.
So you are ready into things I didn’t say.
I see why you struggle with scripture

 

[Orange_Crush]

And peter said that vision was about people not food.

Quote where I said “peter said it wasn’t about food”

What I said was

“Peter said it was about people not food.”

Which means Peter said is was about people and he didn’t address food.
So you are ready into things I didn’t say.
I see why you struggle with scripture

OK, Slice. Take it down to insults. If you can't see how I would have interpreted you the way I did, then I'm OK with that. You and I are done.

You have a nice evening.

 

[Orangeslice13]

The fact is god used food to show Peter that something NEW was happening.

This is actually and interesting line of thinking.

Do you think this was all part of the plan from the beginning or did G-d change his mind?

 

[Orangeslice13]

OK, Slice. Take it down to insults. If you can't see how I would have interpreted you the way I did, then I'm OK with that. You and I are done.

You have a nice evening.

Don’t go away mad because you interpret scripture differently.

You slandered me jumping into the middle of a conversation pointing out all the things you thought I believed. None of which were true.
You inferred that I was anti-Christ because of what you thought I believed.
Sure I called you on it. But who wouldn’t after that attack.
During the Fracus you called me a pig.
And then said you didn’t mean too.
I accepted and moved past it but sure I’m the one who is reducing this to insults.


Edit: forgot about the pearls/pigs thing.
I clearly can’t communicate in a way that you understand

 

[Orangeslice13]

This is actually and interesting line of thinking.

Do you think this was all part of the plan from the beginning or did G-d change his mind?

Is G-d the same yesterday today and forever ?
Is G-d a man that he should lie?
Is G-d a man that he should change?

 

[BigO95]

If evolution is true, does that make the detailed account of Adam and Eve in the garden fiction?
If Genesis chapter 1 through 3 can't be trusted, what portion of the Bible can be trusted?
If only certain portions of the Bible can be trusted, how do you determine what portions can be trusted?
Who gets to decide what can be trusted?
Do you not think that that is a dangerous road to go down?

 

[The Ron Mexico]

If evolution is true, does that make the detailed account of Adam and Eve in the garden fiction?
If Genesis chapter 1 through 3 can't be trusted, what portion of the Bible can be trusted?
If only certain portions of the Bible can be trusted, how do you determine what portions can be trusted?
Who gets to decide what can be trusted?
Do you not think that that is a dangerous road to go down?

Please answer all these questions. And I would like to add just one. Why are we so privileged to be part of the small percentage of humans to be raised as Christians?

 

[BigO95]

Please answer all these questions. And I would like to add just one. Why are we so privileged to be part of the small percentage of humans to be raised as Christians?

I wasn't a Christian until the ripe old age of 25. The reason I am a Christian now is because I chose to be. I am privileged enough to be a Christian because I simply chose to believe the Bible.
Everyone on planet Earth can choose to be a Christian if they want to. My job as a Christian is to tell the old story to everyone.
Again I ask these questions to anyone someone please tell me what we can trust if we can't trust the Bible?

 

[The Ron Mexico]

I wasn't a Christian until the ripe old age of 25. The reason I am a Christian now is because I chose to be. I am privileged enough to be a Christian because I simply chose to believe the Bible.
Everyone on planet Earth can choose to be a Christian if they want to. My job as a Christian is to tell the old story to everyone.
Again I ask these questions to anyone someone please tell me what we can trust if we can't trust the Bible?

No, they can’t.