That's not what it says. It says "for the foolishness of God" not "If God had foolishness, then the foolishness of God." I didn't write it, I'm just reading it. This argument didn't originate with me anyway, it came from www.answering-christianity.com, and I completely agree that Paul blasphemed, because he gave God attributes that don't belong to him, and you can't do that, even to make an example.
zzzzzz wrote:Don't bother to answer this because I am not coming back to post. I went to the website answering Christianity and I really had trouble believing people could take so much out of context and turn things around. Using the Gospel of Philip to prove things in the Bible, there is no gospel of Philip in the Bible, so anything in it is not relevant. Again, don't bother to reply because I am not coming back. zzzzzz
That's usually the response I get anyway when someone can't answer the questions posed. The gospel of Philip still poses a historical significance, so it is valid. As you are aware, there aren't very many secular writings of Jesus (pbuh), so aside from the Gospels and apocryphal writings, there is nothing else. You're arguments weren't very strong anyway, and, like most people I have dialogue with, you constantly shot yourself in the foot. You're trinity and the altered Christianity that is so popular today has no scriptural basis. It's a morphing of pagan tradition with the teachings of Jesus (pbuh).
And, you'll be back.
Tarek