| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/01/2007 11:02:48 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Or perhaps the more erudite secularists could concede that perhaps all those religions that believe in a trinity of some sort actually formed that idea based on the concept of a triune God as presented many hundreds of years before Jesus. The concept of Trinity is not unique to the New Testament and the coming of Jesus. It's well founded in earlier Scriptures.
For fair turnabout, if we're going to include quotes from a science fiction author in a discussion about religious matters, perhaps we should remember his other writings and just "consider the source." In other words, his opinion means absolutely nothing to me. |
Does mine? I'll just echo the same thing then.
I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that the mere existence of the triple-god in religious text predating Jesus proves its actual existence. That would be a circular argument. But, in respect for the orignal poster, I understand that this thread is not to turn into a discussion of existence or non-existence, or even facts necessarily. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 11:09:11 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by Louis:
But, in respect for the orignal poster, I understand that this thread is not to turn into a discussion of existence or non-existence, or even facts necessarily. |
Yes - this thread should make interesting reading for those who are willing to delve into the substantive issues a little deeper.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 11:16:05 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Louis:
But, in respect for the orignal poster, I understand that this thread is not to turn into a discussion of existence or non-existence, or even facts necessarily. |
Yes - this thread should make interesting reading for those who are willing to delve into the substantive issues a little deeper. |
That thread does just that. This thread was created for specific questions, which we are trying to answer. There is no need to chase rabbits and wonder about the existence of God, when the OP didn't ask that. Is there? :) |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 11:19:08 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by nards656:
Or perhaps the more erudite secularists could concede that perhaps all those religions that believe in a trinity of some sort actually formed that idea based on the concept of a triune God as presented many hundreds of years before Jesus. The concept of Trinity is not unique to the New Testament and the coming of Jesus. It's well founded in earlier Scriptures.
For fair turnabout, if we're going to include quotes from a science fiction author in a discussion about religious matters, perhaps we should remember his other writings and just "consider the source." In other words, his opinion means absolutely nothing to me. |
Does mine? I'll just echo the same thing then.
I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that the mere existence of the triple-god in religious text predating Jesus proves its actual existence. That would be a circular argument. But, in respect for the orignal poster, I understand that this thread is not to turn into a discussion of existence or non-existence, or even facts necessarily. |
I don't think he was trying to *prove* anything existed. That is another thread. For the purpose of this thread, and the OP's questions, the basic premise is that there *is* a God.
As an aside, and just something to consider, as far as your statement "even facts necessarily" goes, personally, it's little comments like that that make you sound condescending, even if you are not meaning to be, and make me less inclined to listen to any of your reasoning. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 11:21:17 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by karmat:
That thread does just that. This thread was created for specific questions, which we are trying to answer. There is no need to chase rabbits and wonder about the existence of God, when the OP didn't ask that. Is there? :) |
Agreed - I was trying to help people find the best place to discuss these off-topic issues (especially given that Rant is invisible by default) - though which thread is "rabbit chasing" is another issue... ; )
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:57:12 PM · #106 |
Response to the first question -
Originally posted by "levyj413":
Christianity says it's monotheistic. But everything seems to be done in Jesus' name. If that's not worship, what is it? And if Jesus doesn't have all of God's powers, why pray to him instead of God? Also, how does the Holy Spirit fit in? Finally, how do you reconcile three deity-like beings with monotheism? |
My understanding of the concept of the trinity. Many christians dislike the trinity because it is easy for people to confuse and seperate completely instead of realizing it is an attempt of man to put into terms the higher nature of God.
I understand the concept by utilizing our knowledge of higher physics. There's an example that makes it a little bit clearer. We're 3-dimensional beings. Let's say we visited a world inhabited by 2-dimensional beings. (ie: Mr. & Mrs. Flat).
Now, I stick my hand into their world...just my hand. And I point my finger towards Mr. Flat and have a dialogue. In a 2D world Mr. Flat would merely see my finger as a round circle. Mrs. Flat is to the side, she would perceive my finger as a line or bar. Mr. Flat exclaims he's seen God and that God is a circle.
(a cyclinder looked at from front and side in a 2D world would look like either a circle or a rectangle, when it is in fact much much more)
God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit (or Ruach HaKodesh) are not seperate entities. But aspects, manifistations if you might of the whole as perceived by a far more limited being. Namely, us...
Think of Jesus as the hand in the 2D world. The hand is God but I imagine if we showed just your hand few of your friends would say "hey, that's Jeffrey". Well, yes, it's a part of Jeffrey but one would be fairly inaccurate to consider just your hand "Jeffrey". But if someone asked "Have you seen Jeffrey or does anyone know where Jeffrey is?" I could say "Yeah, I saw Jeffrey over there!" Knowing I had seen your hand and that your hand is a part of you.
Jesus is God perceived in the limited fashion of humanity. In truth, these concepts are not very far from Judaism. So long as people do not try to make them seperate things (To cut off your hand would make the hand no longer a part of you. I believe many people conceptually 'cut off the hand'.)
The reference of the Spirit's nature seperate from God in general is not unknown even in the Tanak
Psalm 51:11 "Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me."
Isaiah 48:16 "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there [am] I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me."
Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (why not merely say, "and God moved upon the face of the waters" ?)
Some other thoughts regarding how I view
Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:"
Now the word used for "is one" is "echad". It's interesting because it's also used in Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
One can also relate to it in forms of the Hebrew letter "shin" used with the tephilum. Looking sort of like our W with three prongs. Though it has three pinnacles it is still one letter.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 02:05:26 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by nards656:
For fair turnabout, if we're going to include quotes from a science fiction author in a discussion about religious matters, perhaps we should remember his other writings and just "consider the source." In other words, his opinion means absolutely nothing to me. |
I quoted Asimov, not Heinlein? But! I am NOT trying to say that I agree with any of his opinions or anything like that. I think that my beliefs and Asimov's beliefs aren't aligned very well, and even if they were I wouldn't use a fiction story to point to the author's own beliefs. Why I quoted it was that I have always found that particular quote to be a good example of how to "explain" some stuff related to the trinity, just as others have used examples of an egg or cherry pie. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 02:07:47 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by nards656:
For fair turnabout, if we're going to include quotes from a science fiction author in a discussion about religious matters, perhaps we should remember his other writings and just "consider the source." In other words, his opinion means absolutely nothing to me. |
I quoted Asimov, not Heinlein? But! I am NOT trying to say that I agree with any of his opinions or anything like that. I think that my beliefs and Asimov's beliefs aren't aligned very well, and even if they were I wouldn't use a fiction story to point to the author's own beliefs. Why I quoted it was that I have always found that particular quote to be a good example of how to "explain" some stuff related to the trinity, just as others have used examples of an egg or cherry pie. |
He was responding to Louis's post, I think. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 02:56:25 PM · #109 |
Proverbs 30:4 "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?"
Well, we believe Jesus has ascended up into heaven. We believe that Jesus (God's Salvation) came down to earth as a mortal man offering himself as the sacrifice in accordance to the prophecy acted out by Abraham. We also believe that the Messiah/Jesus will return again the next time in glory.
As for who has gathered the wind in his fists or bound the waters in a garment. Jesus calmed the wind and the sea on a number of occasions in the Gospels.
Who has established all the ends of the earth? This can only be the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.
What is his name? HaShem (The Name) YHWH
What is his son's name if you know? Okay, this is not in the New Testament. Rather it's in the Writings of the old. I find it quite an amazing passage.
Originally posted by "levy413":
I usually hear of the Messianic age, a time of peace and prosperity |
It is my understanding that amongst the orthodox traditions there was to be the Messiah. (Messiah simply meaning annointed, Saul was a messiah "annointed".) But there is a thread throughout the Old Testament that refers to a special coming one. In Daniel 9 it is The Messiah Nagiyd. The Messiah Prince/Ruler.
I have heard some discussion noting odd dissimilar aspects of messianic prophecies. Messiah ben-Joseph (suffering servant messiah of redemption) Messian ben-David (ruling kingly messiah). As a Christian I believe this refers to the Messiah's first coming and second-coming.
As for the "age" we too believe that when Messiah comes again he will usher in an age of peace. But we believe that such an age only comes when Messiah comes. But blessed are the peace-makers for they shall inherit the earth. It is always good to work and hope for peace.
Originally posted by "levy414":
Care to elaborate? |
I believe Mormons consider Jesus to be a created being and brother of Satan. I might be mistaken on this. For this reason Mormonism is often considered either a sub-sect of Christianity or a seperate divergent faith.
Originally posted by "skylercall":
John 17:21-23 |
I believe this to be in reference to the Church supposed to be one body. All being many, are one body in Christ.
Romans 12:5 "So we, [being] many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another."
Originally posted by "wavelength":
Jesus calls us as siblings, God calls us as children, and the Spirit leads us as individuals. |
One might say the Spirit calls us lover. It is the Spirit that is quenched. That can be pushed away. It's the Spirit that is intimate with us during our prayers. (As a new husband, I am well aware of the times when I've accidentally quenched my wife. Sometimes I've done nothing bad but simply bruised her heart with a seeming naivety and unrealization. Hence the very intimate aspects involved in my opinion)
Originally posted by "levy413":
Which is "the" God above all others? Or are all three believed to be omniscient and omnipotent? |
Which form of H2O? liquid, solid, or gas? Which one is stronger? Ice can hold great weights. Steam can course thru places that ice cannot. Liquid water can sometimes hold (ie: boat) and sometimes course. But they're all still water.
If you want to get to the one distinction which is the aspect of Jesus who being one with the father when it comes to terms of omniscience and omnipotence appears bridled in that he has strenth and acts on the authority of the father. Very much like a hand. The muscles are in the hand. But they act on the thoughts and commands sent down the nerves. Without those commands the hand, though capable, does not act. Without the hand the commands bring about no action. They are parts of a whole.
Originally posted by "levy413":
So is God essentially talking to him/herself to show an example to others? |
Somewhat, but discussions to one's self is not out of line. We do it ourselves. God has done it before as well...
Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:"
Just who was God dialoging with? ;)
Originally posted by "nemesise1977":
I also dont know of any place where Christ says he is God, if anyone can show me a refrence I would like to see it... |
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
If you continue reading the passage, it outlays thru several relationships, that the Word = Jesus. And therefore, in Scripture it was made quite clear that Jesus = God.
Also, in a statement clearly understood by the Jews of the time Jesus stated:
John 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
For this "...they up stones to cast at him:" If he had not claimed such there would not have been a need to stone him over this.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 03:21:39 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by nemesise1977:
God refers to Christ as his Son many times and Christ prays to God. I also dont know of any place where Christ says he is God, if anyone can show me a refrence I would like to see it... |
Colossians 2:9 indicates that Jesus is "the fullness of the Godhead bodily".
Here is further reading on God being manifest in the person of Jesus.
I really picture the person of Jesus as God, with his glory veiled by the flesh of human form.
This has been a very interesting and thought-provoking thread...thanks! |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 03:23:55 PM · #111 |
| I am not that religious a person ... but I do know that it says somewhere in the bible that Christ says that the ONLY way to God is through him. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 03:37:52 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by "eschelar":
As for the validity of Jesus sacrifice, indeed, that for me is probably the strongest indiciation that he is NOT God. Read Romans 5, specifically 12-17. |
See, I find the Sacrifice in fact another reason for the necessity of Jesus to also be God. It is also the reason why God had to be a man. (And for those who love Heinlein, let's throw it a whole 'nother loop...it might be the reason Adam looked as he does. Pardoxes are fun, aren't they?)
You see if you or I lived a perfect life that is not enough to redeem all of mankind. Just to preserve ourselves. Only one being had enough $$$ so to say, to be able to buy back all of creation (not just man fell the whole of creation - enter chaos). That being would be none other than the Creator himself.
Now, an interesting thing about Jewish laws of redemption was the right of a kinsmen to redeem the deed or title to property. Thus, God had the $$$ to buy the property and by being the man Jesus presented himself as a kinsmen with the $$$ to buy back the property lost by Adam.
Adam had the right of creation. Before the fall and the forfieture (mortgage) of Creation.
In fact, reading Romans 5:12-21 does not to me give any concept of equivalence. Adam failed and forfieted, Jesus redeemed. That does not mean that Jesus cannot be great than Adam?
Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
El Shaddai is the Almighty. There cannot be two Almighty's. Hence, this is another association of the divinity.
As for Genesis 18. Yes, it was only the one individual to which Abraham was referring as God. The others being the two angels who went off to Sodom & Gamorrah. Interesting note, Abraham felt the Lord butter, milk, and the calf. (ie: not kosher if you accept the meat/dairy rule).
Sidenote: Fun little paradoxical thought "Adam was created in God's image. God came down in the form of a man as Jesus. John states that Jesus was present in during the creation and nothing was created without him. Jesus & God are One. Adam made in God's image now has a more interesting twist.
Originally posted by "eschaler":
Let's not forget that Jesus himself said that no man has seen God. |
Nope, no man has seen God...not in fullness anyways. As explained we are limited beings. We cannot ever see God in wholeness. But we can see him in part.
Originally posted by "wavelength":
I disagree with my Dad on many other things doctrinal (and the fact that he thinks James shouldn't be in the Bible), but I think this one is a bit too important to let go. I hope that you take in the reading that Kelli put up, and make a decision based on the scripture contained within. God bless. |
I'd keep James/Jacob and toss out Paul's letters before I'd toss out the Book of Jacob.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Exemplified by this quote (which I would echo) from Gandhi
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." |
Excellent quote and one of my life favorites...BTW.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 03:41:22 PM · #113 |
I just want to provide a resource to everyone here...it's called the BlueLetterBible.org
It is an online Bible. It contains about a 12 translations. For those who comment on all the different translations, etc. If you read the vast majority of verses there is very little difference in actual meaning. Very often it is addressing vernacular. And whether they translate an idomatic expression or leave it as it was.
It also provides the Hebrew & Greek texts. Links of all words to Strong's Concordance. Commentaries. And a strong search tool.
It's great for finding those passages you remember but don't recall where.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 04:35:49 PM · #114 |
One of the things that I have always had trouble with and openly solicit comments, facts, and beliefs about is the Bible. As I understand it, there were something like 1500 different contributors over a 500 year period, none of whom spoke English. I have often wondered why it, like challenge details, isn't considered guidelines as there is no possible way to validate anything that's in it and there had to be numerous occasions along the way where things got lost in translation or were just plain flat skewed in context because of the source.
Personally, I have a hard time with anyone who takes a real hardline biblically just for the reasons of inability to refute or validate what was written.
I have always enjoyed listening to various parts of it and there is an amazing amount of passages in it that remarkably enough still do apply as they pertain to how we treat each other and human nature in general.
But it is also unrealistic to take every single word to heart and try and apply all the lessons without taking an awful lot of the info in context as opposed to literally.
Anyway......I just thought I would mention my own curiosity and how overwhelmed over the years I have been trying to get some understanding of it without having one person's rigid interpretation my only source.
There have been too many really good scholars over the years that differ on too many ideas for anything to be etched in stone, methinks......and that's actually a timely cliche, I believe!....8>)
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 04:40:02 PM · #115 |
BTW, my compliments to this reasoned, learned group for an interesting and lively, yet civilized discussion about one of the most volatile and controversial subjects in life.
It's a pleasure to be here.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 04:45:58 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
As I understand it, there were something like 1500 different contributors over a 500 year period, none of whom spoke English. |
Where in the world did you get that number? I'm not even sure the Bible has 1500 chapters. Even liberal accounts of how many people contributed to actually writing the bible would probably be less than 100. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 05:05:29 PM · #117 |
As a pagan, believing in a creator, nature and spirits, I find this whole topic quite daunting.
When I was young I did the whole Christian thing, Sunday School, church choir etc.
Then I woke up and despite researching Bible quotes for other topics, I left that behind me. I can't believe in a 2,000 year old terrorist who fought the Romans. Nor the old testament stories of 600 year old men who lived in a boat for 40 days.
I don't want to impose my beliefs on anyone, nor denigrate your beliefs, just stating how I feel. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 05:20:23 PM · #118 |
Personally, I have a hard time with anyone who takes a real hardline biblically just for the reasons of inability to refute or validate what was written.
faith is what god called us to use to reach his love.
faith is not knowing all the facts
its putting your trust into something that you don't have complete evidence of
Jesus said "If seek you will find, if you knock, a door will be opened"
its difficult for those who haven't asked Jesus into their lives to trust him or feel his presence, but once you do, it'll change yo life!
:) |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 05:28:26 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by formerlee:
I can't believe in a 2,000 year old terrorist who fought the Romans. |
Actually didn't the Jews at the time believe that the Messiah would overthrow the Roman government, and not accept Jesus because that's what he *didn't* do? |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 05:33:35 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by formerlee:
I can't believe in a 2,000 year old terrorist who fought the Romans. |
Actually didn't the Jews at the time believe that the Messiah would overthrow the Roman government, and not accept Jesus because that's what he *didn't* do? |
That is correct, the perception of Messiah was a political leader who would lead the Jewish nation to victory over the Romans. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 06:19:14 PM · #121 |
Only one God but three parts of the Godhead. I believe that when it talks of "one" is talks about one in purpose, one thought and one direction. I makes no sense that Christ would talk to himself as God. He talks of his Father and to his Father many times. The belief of one or of three really makes no determination if you are a Christian. It's your single belief in Christ as an individual and your guiding your life to follow his teaching.
So If the word "one" is too be the only thought then there is no such things as men and women according the Genesis. Here it says very specifically that man and woman are "one flesh". Hummmmm I sure like the idea of having two separate people, I kinda love the women part of it all ;)
Gen 2:21-24
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Sometimes I sure wish I had the rib back ;)
It's too bad that in the "Christian" world, when one religion dissagrees with another they often label them as non-Christian. I guess I'de have to think that maybe the one who throws the first stone may not be the real Christian believers. I think we will all be surprised, at least the ones of us who believe in after-life.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 06:25:25 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
It's too bad that in the "Christian" world, when one religion dissagrees with another they often label them as non-Christian. I guess I'de have to think that maybe the one who throws the first stone may not be the real Christian believers. I think we will all be surprised, at least the ones of us who believe in after-life. |
Actually, I tend to agree with you. I have often said that the first several million years of eternity will be spent correcting everyone about what they were wrong about.
It was a hard lesson for me to learn, but I did eventually figure out that just because someone wasn't a Southern Baptist didn't automatically mean they were going to hell.
I've seen questions like levy's completely tear "fellowship" between two "Christians" apart, when it doesn't have to. I do think a lot of Christians need to get outside of their church wall and figure out that "the church" as Jesus referred to it isn't the building I attend on Sunday and Wednesday, but the entire body of believers.
I tend not to assign the label of non-Christian to anyone. It is not for me to know, and if the label sticks, they are usually pretty quick to give it to themselves. :) |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 06:30:48 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
It's too bad that in the "Christian" world, when one religion dissagrees with another they often label them as non-Christian. I guess I'de have to think that maybe the one who throws the first stone may not be the real Christian believers. I think we will all be surprised, at least the ones of us who believe in after-life. |
Actually, I tend to agree with you. I have often said that the first several million years of eternity will be spent correcting everyone about what they were wrong about.
It was a hard lesson for me to learn, but I did eventually figure out that just because someone wasn't a Southern Baptist didn't automatically mean they were going to hell.
I've seen questions like levy's completely tear "fellowship" between two "Christians" apart, when it doesn't have to. I do think a lot of Christians need to get outside of their church wall and figure out that "the church" as Jesus referred to it isn't the building I attend on Sunday and Wednesday, but the entire body of believers.
I tend not to assign the label of non-Christian to anyone. It is not for me to know, and if the label sticks, they are usually pretty quick to give it to themselves. :) |
And the sad thing is that most people who slam other religions really do not know anything about them. There information is from others that have issues. Before anyone slams another religion ya really need to go visit, study and learn directly. Far too many preachers and teachers tell mis-truths and everyone in the congregation believes it. If the preacher is being paid to preach of course he will defend his "flock" and put others down. Dang, here it goes again ... the money and greed thing again. I don't believe that was part of Christianity either.
I'm looking forward to seeing and understanding someday ... hoefully not too soon, I'm having too much fun here now ;) |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 06:49:21 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Louis:
In fact, and I'm certain that the more erudite Christians here will already know this, the trinity is not unique to Christianity. It may have roots in the holy Egyptian trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, and thousands of years before Jesus, the tri-murti of Hinduism existed, of Brahma the father, Vishnu the incarnate, and Shiva the holy spirit, to be certainly traceable to no later than about 500BC. |
I tend to think that there was no talk of a trinity until the 4th century C.E., when the debate over the divinity of Jesus threatened to divide the Church between East and West (and eventually, it did!). Athanasius seems to have started the idea as a way to address the seeming contradiction of the Son being as divine as the Father. How could the Universe be big enough for the both of them? He was trying to answer that question.
And Jeff, it was bold of you to ask a question that Christians have been known to kill each other over!
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 10:27:17 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
And Jeff, it was bold of you to ask a question that Christians have been known to kill each other over! |
I had no idea of the disagreements on fundamental questions like the nature of the Trinity. I didn't understand what the beliefs were, but I thought it would be a simple answer.
So one thing I've learned is that it's not just us Jews who debate every possible religious point within their own faith.
|
|
