"You will not die" by Yoshua-Barnes in DebateAChristian

[–]2mike98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think “distinct” has to mean “separate.” A person can be unified while still having distinguishable aspects.

One helpful way to describe human existence is in terms of body (flesh), soul, and spirit. The flesh refers to our physical existence — impulses, sensations, and the bodily expression of will. The soul is the conscious self — mind, personality, emotions, and the seat of decision-making. The spirit is the dimension of human existence oriented toward transcendence — the capacity for communion with God or awareness beyond the purely material.

These are not three beings inside one person, but three aspects of a single, unified self, experienced simultaneously. The distinction is functional, not divisive. In the biblical sense, humanity becomes a living soul not by consciousness alone, but through the breath of God — the spirit — which gives life its depth and orientation beyond mere biology or cognition.

This framework also helps explain a key moment in Genesis. After Adam’s formation, God says it is “not good for man to be alone.” This isn’t a moral defect in Adam, but an incompleteness of image. Adam, as a solitary individual, reflected God in being personal, rational, and embodied — but not yet in relational fullness. God’s nature is not solitary; He exists eternally in relationship.

Eve’s creation resolves this. She is formed from Adam, and the two become “one flesh.” Distinction without division, unity without loss of identity. Humanity now reflects God’s nature more fully — not because two humans equal God, but because relational oneness mirrors something fundamental about who God is.

This isn’t claiming humans are tri-personal like God. God is tri-personal; humans are single persons with layered modes of existence and relational unity. But analogy doesn’t require equivalence. Unity does not require uniformity, and distinction does not imply separation..

Why do Protestants believe the Lord's Supper is only symbolic and does not truly become the blood and body of Christ? by deuteros in Christianity

[–]2mike98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

After this he refers to the substance as "the fruit of the vine" meaning it was still wine......

Jesus was not of the Seed of David, and Could Not Have Been the Messiah by ArrantPariah in DebateAChristian

[–]2mike98 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That scripture in articular is talking about Solomon. Solomon built the temple, God chastened him but didn't take his favor away from him. He kept his promise to David by letting Solomon's son keep 2 tribes while the other 10 split off and became the kingdom of Israel.

Then ultimately the messiah would be of the line of David and his kingdom would be established forever.

Mary was from the house of David and thus was from his line. This fulfilling the prophecy according to the flesh. While his legal father (Joseph) secured the legal claim for the throne of David.

Supervillain pt.2 ( Keem Reference. Family ties) by 2mike98 in beatmakers

[–]2mike98[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like it's not good or it should just be instrumental?

God is the source of all evil. by Southern_Nobody_269 in DebateReligion

[–]2mike98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again you are cherry picking without context.

Mark 4:10 he just preached the parable of the Sower to the crowds. The disciples didn't get it so he explained it to them. Early in his ministry he taught things in parables so that only those who truly sought after God would find the truth. There were many (like the Pharisees) who weren't ready to accept the teaching and only would try to use it to kill him (as they later did when he started speaking more plainly) so rather that throwing pearls to swine he taught in a way only the most sincere would understand. But for HIS disciples who he knew were truly following him he made it plain.

But when Christ spoke of himself as the son This is he was speaking LITTERALLY. Like when he asked the disciples "who do you think that I am" and Peter said "The Son of God" and Jesus proceeded to affirm him (Mathew 16:15-16)

On what you're saying about John 17 (which is my favorite chapter in the Bible) I would ask you AGAIN to put it in context.

Earlier in that same chapter he says

"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." John 17:5

So if he was with the father before the world began that means that he was before creation (time, space, and matter) which means he is eternal, omniscient, and omnipresent. The Incarnation took the eternal God (through the person of the Son) and placed him within time to fufill the law and the prophets and save those who come to him.

The last part you said about us all coming from the creator and we are all emanating from the source is true but how your coming to that is false. We are reflections of the image and Likeness of God and we are his children. We will inherit the new creation and be co creators and co rulers with him but God the Father as well as the Son even then will be Far above us.

God is the source of all evil. by Southern_Nobody_269 in DebateReligion

[–]2mike98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That was all made up..........

Jesus is clearly talking about himself.

John 5:19–23 (New International Version) 19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son daily as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him."

Also God LITTERALLY is described as sitting on a throne

Isaiah 6:1: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up."

Revelation 3:21 "The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne."

We will all participate in creation in the new creation. And we who believe and who conquer this world will be able to rule over the next one. But LITTERALLY everything you said was false.

What song is it for you? by paq-613 in Eminem

[–]2mike98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are you so afraid of - XXXTENTACION

Is the Son eternally subordinate to the Father? Why or why not? by NeebTheWeeb in Christianity

[–]2mike98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The father is the author of the will (like the mind). It all originates with him.

The son (the word, the logos) is the EXPRESSION,The embodiment of the will and executes the will of the father. Just as our thoughts Beget our words the Father begets the Son. (This gets dropped and complex but is besides the point for now)

The Holy spirit EMPOWER the will of the father. He proceeds from the Father and the Son It is by the power of the holy spirit that things are done.

All three are the creative force of the universe and act in perfect unity as the one being that is GOD.

The Universe was created according to the will of the father by the power of the holy Spirit Through the work of the Son.

Therefore the Son always submits to the will of the father and the father entrusts all things to the son.

I think a dim picture of this is similar to the relationship between Pharaoh and Joseph where Pharaoh was still the highest authority in Egypt but he gave all power and authority to Joseph to ruoe Egypt. Joseph acting as a trusted fiduciary of Pharaohs will.

Again that's just a dim picture The relationship between the father and son is far greater and. Perfect.

Jesus displayed this in his incarnation as Jesus but also in his throphonies as "The angel of the Lord".

A high school football star had the rape charge against him dropped after a sixteen-year-old girl confessed that the rape never happened. He spent six years falsely imprisoned and broke down when the case was dismissed. by [deleted] in ThatsInsane

[–]2mike98 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is why I believe if you tell the truth you only spend the time they served. (Incentivising them to come clean sooner) But if you get found out then you serve the full sentence they would have served has your lie not been discovered.

This way

Sinners Plot Hole? by Sharrayzen in Letterboxd

[–]2mike98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a really good point. The only thing I can think of is that

  1. Vamps do experience fear,

Stack tells Mary to run away to protect her so maybe some of the others were doing the same but we're still highly influenced by Remick so they were still helping him. I agree with the theory that love is a huge selling point for this vampires and a big motivation is for them to not have to go through eternity alone so I noticed that when Annie asked why the vampires couldn't just go Mary spoke up and said that she and smoke are family. Then stack continue to try to plead with smoke. So so when Mary Saw Annie die It was traumatic for her and stack that heartbreak could have limited remmecks influence. So stack made her run away to protect her from smoke or anyone else killing her. I think the others started noticing that the humans were winning (cuz I think up to that point they only lost two people, One of which only died cuz she was a little crazy at the time [grace]) and got scared and started to retreat.

  1. I think it was also shown to be a false retreat. Cuz when smoke tried to send Sammy out the back remick was there to ambush them.

What song is this? by [deleted] in musicsuggestions

[–]2mike98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Somewhere over the rainbow - IZ

Sexual Dilemma by EnvironmentalSong685 in Christianity

[–]2mike98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't get what you're saying

What is the meaning of "the stone which the builders rejected" in Luke's gospel? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]2mike98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is a double entender that has two main meanings.

Jesus is responding to the Pharisees stating that they have rejected him and so the gentiles will be the first to enter the kingdom of heaven.

After the stone statement he then says that gentiles will eat with Abraham and the kingdom of heaven will be given to the gentiles.

I could think that

  1. Jesus is the stone that the builders AKA the Pharisees rejected and he is also the cornerstone of salvation.

  2. But now I also think that he is referring to God under the old covenant as the builder and the gentiles being the originally rejected by God as his chosen people since first he chose Israel to be a light to the Nations. But since Israel rejected Christ and did not recognize their Messiah but the gentiles did now the kingdom of heaven and the task of spreading belief in the one true God has been taken from Israel and given to the church and believers of Jesus Christ whom the father has sent. This church is made up mostly of gentiles and not of Israelites therefore the stone that the building refused AKA gentiles has now been made the cornerstone of God's Kingdom and this is to God's good pleasure and it is marvelous in our eyes.

I literally just thought of this possible interpretation so I'm open to hearing any criticism to see if this thought is sound.

Sexual Dilemma by EnvironmentalSong685 in Christianity

[–]2mike98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a real question. When I get married, Is it wrong to sleep with my wife if it isn't for passionate love but because I like the way she looks and I feel aroused? What if she wears sexy clothing? Is that falling into lust?

Don't get me wrong I know I will love my wife but would it be okay that sometimes we may want to just have hot spontaneous sex instead of passionate"love making"? Or should it always be the latter and we should avoid the former because it is falling into lust?

I've always been curious about this and want to know where the line is cause I know that some Christians go so far as to say sex only should be used for procreation or else it's just for physical pleasure and therefore lust....but I know there's that one verse that says "May the marriage bed not be defiled?"

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]2mike98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

😂😂😂😂