[SWANYDSPIN]

If you ask me, which you probably wont.

this thing we call religion has been the downfall of man ever since some story teller started the whole thing, If you look at most large wars in history you'll see its all about religion, even today, theres fighting going on in the so called birth place of christ, Bethlahem. The words of the bible is just one contradiction after another, is it just because we cant handle the fact that there is no meaning to life that we have to create something to comfort us untill death. Who is religion to judge our lives?

The stories told in the bible sound so far from reality its not funny, Adam and Eve, the first humans, we are all supposed to be decendents from these 2 beings, unfortunatly we were created by cells and atoms, from fish to apes to homo sapians. science doesn't lie people, and dont pretend that it does, or try to make up some story to justify this.

I'm not direspecting religion but none of it makes sense, "All people are created equal" thats a joke, did the Americans and Australians believe that when they had black men as slaves, thats just one example! I think the image of GOD is the biggest bullshit of all, to think that humans are so supirior that we can create or think that we were created by someone from our own likness, why not make him a dog, cow or a tlking pile of shit. Humans are no smarter then anyone or anything. Everyone controlls their own destinies. We live we die. Thats the way it is, I dont care what people make of this and I know that nothing I say can make people think about the reality of things. I'm just wondering if anyone can give me a 'religious' reason that would make me believe, but I doubt it 100%

[travis travis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_monkey:
einstien also said something along these lines. God is good, because the universe acts orderly. (thats probally way off, but thats the jist of it)

---

yep. but the real question, for those of us who have gone the distances enough to see it, which is the real good - the neverending creative constructive urge - or the other way, the wordless, resting darkness. they could almost be approximated as christianity and buddhism, although we're talking about the mystics with real insight in either case here, the smarties who know how to explore the heart of the matter. but they both seem valid don't they? and neither in the pure sense has anything to do with war, squabble, or the crap the peasants use religions for.

[Unsound]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Awetopsy:
Just some food for thought:
Either Jesus is God like he said he was, or he was the biggest liar in history.

---

Awetopsy, where did you get the idea of Jesus being God? Or him ever saying that he is God? I would like it if you would be able to show me a scripture which states this.

Also, I was wondering if many of you even know what God's name is?

Psalms 83:18 have a look for yourself.

[SWANYDSPIN]

JEHOVAH,

only looked because I thought it was stupid that he had a name, does it mean he was male! what a lie

[Unsound]

Do you think spirits have male or female gender?

[SWANYDSPIN]

Once again, I dont believe in spirits, why do you believe in spirits? This answer should be good!

[Steven Stahlberg]

the_monkey: no, that's the point, there is no contradiction, that's why you can - from the Baha'i perspective - be a Methodist (for instance) and a Baha'i, at the same time... but of course not from the Methodist perspective.

I explained a little about progressive revelation earlier, you know, about Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed and Baha'ullah all coming from the same source, just not revealing everything at once, check back on that mail, and maybe if anybody has any more questions you can check out this website:web page

Or ask me, I'll be glad to (try to) answer.

[Rat]

Anyone ever notice that when people talk about "religion" they mostly refer to Christianity and the Bible? That's sort of unfortunate.

[edible snowman]

i thought god's name was supposed to be yahweh or something like that? at least that's what they always told me. i read somewhere that his name was only recorded in vowels in hebrew so people don't really even know how it's supposed to be pronounced. well, i haven't been to church or anything for a long time so i don't really remember stuff.

[Unsound]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SWANYDSPIN:
Once again, I dont believe in spirits, why do you believe in spirits? This answer should be good!

---

Don't you think that believing that God is a human being would be foolish? It makes sense to me that God is a spirit.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Unsound ]

[the_monkey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unsound:
Awetopsy, where did you get the idea of Jesus being God? Or him ever saying that he is God? I would like it if you would be able to show me a scripture which states this.

Also, I was wondering if many of you even know what God's name is?

Psalms 83:18 have a look for yourself.

---

man, Jehovah is one of the many names that is given to God in the old testament. but i believe the orginal name that the jews are not allowed to speak is spelled YVWH or something along those lines.

and where does Jesus say he is God? well where doesnt he say it..
he often calls himself the "son of man" meaning son of God, (matthew 16:27), but if thats not enough, then in john 2:16 Jesus directly calls God his Father. He calls himself the messiah in John 3: 13, and in John 3:17 he directly calls himself Gods Son.

is that enough?

[SWANYDSPIN]

quote:

---

Posted by Unsound:
Don't you think that believing that God is a human being would be foolish? It makes sense to me that God is a spirit.

---

If you read my first post you would see I'm a non believer in gods or religion.

I wouldn't care so much about the topic of religion, but it effects me and all others who dont believe, we are forced into it. as history shows, we are ruled and governed by it, whether we want to or not, dont you think thats a bit unfair!

[sacrelicious]

the_monkey: Then that would make him God's son, not God, wouldn't it?

Have any of you ever thought about what God, if he exists, really is? I mean, he's the the creator, the father, etc. But what is he? What is he made of? What are his properties? Well, if you believe the literature, he's omnipotent and omniscient. So likely, he's present in and is able to control all matter. I was thinking he might be some kind of self-aware quantum energy lattice present throughout the entire universe. It's kind of bullshit S.F. techno-babble, but not necessarily impossible if you agree (and most would) that we haven't figured everything out about matter, energy, physics, and so on. What do you think?

[the_monkey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sacrelicious:
[QB]the_monkey: Then that would make him God's son, not God, wouldn't it?

QB]

---

i guess i didnt provide good enough bibical support, besides, i totally misread unsounds post. ill go get cracking.

[the_monkey]

found it. john 10:30 "I and the Father are one"

[Unsound]

Ok... but if he is God, i don't understand why he would talk about doing the works of his father.

john 10:22-30

22 At that time the festival of dedication took place in Jerusalem. It was wintertime, 23 and Jesus was walking in the temple in the colonnade of Sol'o�mon. 24 Therefore the Jews encircled him and began to say to him: "How long are you to keep our souls in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us outspokenly." 25 Jesus answered them: "I told YOU, and yet YOU do not believe. The works that I am doing in the name of my Father, these bear witness about me. 26 But YOU do not believe, because YOU are none of my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 And I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father. 30 I and the Father are one."

also 36 & 37

36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, I am God's Son? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me.

[Awetopsy]

Steven Stahlberg, just a note: most Sceintists from both creation and evolution camps concede that the earth was covered in water at one point. They have found sea dwelling crusteation fossils at the tops of some very high peaks.


Just some food for thought:
Either Jesus is God like he said he was, or he was the biggest liar in history.

I believe I stated in an earlier post that If you read any translation of the Bible you are going to get the biased opinion of the traslator of the time, religious sect, and persuasion. The only way to really study the bible is to go back and cross reference the original greek, hebrew and chaldee (sp?)

Scholars note that the bible was, in fact, written by many different authors (47 I believe) from different time periods, some from other cultures.
The Old testament contains 456 prophesies of the coming messiah, all proven to be written before Jesus ever lived. Recently a man took 8 of those Old testament prophesiesand mathematically figured out the chances of one man accomplishing just those 8 prophecies and here is the result.

the 8 prohesies from the Old testament used were:
1) The birthplace of the messiah, Bethlehem
2) The messiah would be preceded my a messenger (John the Baptist)
3) Messiahs triumphant entry into Jerusalem
4) He would be betrayed by a close freind
5) He would be betrayed for 30 peices of silver
6) The betrayal money would be cast down by the betrayor in the temple of God.
7) The messiah would be mute before his accusers
8) the messiah would be crucified

The chances of 1 man fulfilling just those 8 prophesies is 1 in 100 000 000 000 000 000 (one hundred thousand trillion). Jesus fulfilled all 456 prophecies.

How about the prophecy that the messiah would suffer no broken bone in his body when crucified? It was common practice of the Romans to break the legs of all crucified criminals to quicken the death process. When Jesus was crucified and the centurion came to break his legs, he saw that Jesus was already dead and so he left his Legs in tact.

You who say you have read the King James bible (or any other translation for that matter) from cover to cover, How much of it do you actually remember? and how much of it did you actually cross reference with other parts of the bible? or with other historical documents? Innacurate?? Many many scholars recognise its impeccable historical accuracy.

[Awetopsy]

Unsound: John 14:9 "...He that hath seen me hath seen the father...."

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God and the Word WAS God.... And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we knew him not..."

In the Garden of Gethsemani, when the soldiers came to take Jesus away, they asked him who he was, He said "I AM", the same thing God told Moses to say to Pharoa shortly before the exodus; "I AM hath sent me"

John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

What is Gods name? which one?

1) Elohim
2) Jehovah Shammah - the Lord is Present
3) Jehovah Shalom - the Lord our Peace
4) Jehovah Ra-ah - The Lord our Shepherd
5) Jehovah Jireh - the Lord will provide
6) Jehovah Nissi - the Lord our banner(victory)
7) Jehovah T'sidkenu - the Lord our Righteousness
8) Jehovah Rapha - the Lord our Physician

there are alot more but I dont know them.

the_Monkey: Nowhere in the bible does it give any dates as to the actual age of the earth. What we can conclude is that there were amounts of time that are unrecorded.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
If we Go throughout the bible we discover that God doesnt create anything corrupted, It was sin that corrupted man and everything else.

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 was the earth without form and void with Darkness on the face of the deep? Isnt God light? Doesnt God create perfect things? Something must have happened between vs. 1 and 2 in order for Gods creation to be in absolute dark chaos. Nowhere in the bible does it explain away that gap.

Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

When God told this to Adam and Eve he had already placed the animals on the earth. So what does the word replenish mean here? It means to plenish again, or to supply again. This idicates that there was some form of Man-like creature(s) here before Adam and Eve were created, but where? Well we can go back to that gap between vs. 1 and 2. This could be an explanation as to why we have found fossilized remains of creatures that resemble human beings, such as what we now call neanderthal, peking, heidelberg etc.

What about Dinosaurs? We all know that Dinosaurs did exist and current dating techniques clearly show that some of these creatures existed billions of years ago. One of the prevelant theories about dino-extinction is that a large asteroid hit the earth creating a nuclear fallout. One of the effects of that fallout was a blanket of Ash that covered the globe making it Dark and Cold. An asteroid of that magnitude would also cause alot of damage and displace alot of water, making the earth effectively "without form, and void; and (with)darkness upon the face of the deep".

The Bible doesnt contradict science.

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

[Awetopsy]

the monkey: I didnt see it as a debate, just an explanation. When I refer to darkness Im referring to physical darkness. God refers to himself as light, and since he created light I can assume he means both spiritual and physical light.

Dr. T.J. Eckleberg: when somebody asks me about the trinity I explain it like this. We have one Government. That government is made up of many parts all working together. They are all part of the government and work independantly from each other but still make up one government. Now imagine that the Government was made up of only 3 people and that those three people always made decisions based on each others input. They never argued and never disagreed, that would be a admitedly limited but a general microcosm of God

[rubbersharkman]

Ok I think I'm done with this forum. I didn't want to offend, just suggest some ideas. Before I go though, I want give my response to these thoughts:

"Pornography...I'm not seeing how that relates to abstainence, unless you're greatly broadening the defintion of sex."

I simplified the definition of the word chastity to keep my post simple, but clearly it involves more than just not having sex before marriage. My thoughts were based on this definition of the word:

\Chas"ti*ty\, n. [F. chastet['e], fr. L. castitas, fr. castus. See Chaste.] 1. The state of being chaste; purity of body; freedom from unlawful sexual intercourse.
-http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=chastity

Our moral standing is both physical and spiritual, involving the abstenance of sex before marriage and respect, and reverence for its sacred nature after marriage. Jesus Christ said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit aadultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
-Matthew 5:26-27

I would say The use of pornography lies somewhere in between act and thought, and is very addictive and destructive and to the spirit.

"A wife can be raped by her husband."

A man who rapes his wife is not chaste.

"I'm also in Utah sharkman. This is a place where a majority of the population believes in chastity until marriage. It's also a place where I see countless kids getting married straight out of highschool, having a kid at 18 or 19, and getting deeply entrenched in building a family before they've had any chance to explore their individuality or realize their potential."

The people you speak of are not unhappy because they obey the law of chastity, they are unhappy because, they are, "...married straight out of highschool, having a kid at 18 or 19, and getting deeply entrenched in building a family before they've had any chance to explore their individuality or realize their potential."

I think most of the problem in these marriages is that people marry for sex, and are not mature enough to handle the other aspects of marriage. Marriage is a serious thing, and people who take it trivialy will have difficulties.

Society tells us that a successful career is more important than being a mother or a father. This is a false principle. your greatest potential is found in the marriage relationship, not in your career. Naturally the person who is looking for happiness in their career will have difficulty finding happiness in family life, but the one who puts their heart into their family, will find far more satisfaction and peace in life.

"In principle, morally, chastity often makes sense. However, biologically, its not feasible."

I guess it depends on what you think is important. If you think the purpose of human existance is for the race to evolve physically, then this argument has ground, but that is not the purpose of our exsistance. The purpose of our exsistance is to evolve and learn spiritually and there are few things more destructive to our spiritual growth than breaking the commandment of chastity. It numbs the spirit and deadens our moral sensitivity.

"It is emotionally frustrating that we have these biological reasons for infidelity, but they exist, and no amount of dogma can ever erase those factors from our genes. In short, asking humans not to sometimes behave like the gene propegators we are is extremely optimistic."

Sex drive is real and universal, but hardly an excuse to treat morality lightly. Those emotions have their good purpose. Sex is a wonderful thing, but God desires the best possible environment for children, and that is a loving family with parents who are faithful to each other and their children. The world tells you that you have no control over these things, and that you are a slave to your instincts, but that is a false principle. We are not animals, we are beings of both morality and instinct. Your body can do nothing without your mind, and you control your mind. The person who has unlawful sexual relations has done a lot more than feel the instinct. there are voluntary thoughts and choices and actions being made.

I guess it all comes down to who you believe. If you believe man and his science, you will get what you choose and become what man says you are. If you believe God and follow his truth, you will get what he promises, peace in this life, and salvation in the next. You will become what God says you can be. I believe God, he has always kept his promises to me when I follow him. I want what he has to offer me more than I want what man has.

Everyone has their own choice, and everyone will get exactly what they choose, and become exactly what they have thought and acted and lived.

[edraket]

My wife and I tried to do the whole "no premarital sex thing" We were able to do it for about a week.
I respect the people that can do it. But yes they get married really soon for the wrong reasons and I also believe that it can be quite damaging to your relationship to go against the natural flow of things.
That last sentence kind of sums up my whole view on religions that impose rules like that.

Steven Stahlberg:
I'm sorry I am kind of late with my reaction to your reply on my post.
It was about your opinion on paganism. You ridicule paganism without ever coming up with an actual point accept for that is was "made up". And you mention both satanism and cults as pagan. Whats up with that? Those are both fundamentally different from paganism. (Of course I used the word "pagan" as in describing the belief system of people that worship "nature's divinity" in one way or another, maybe that wasn't very clear)

If a religion doesn't have a messenger it can't be taken seriously? Many of the religions that you mention have their roots in other belief systems that are almost exactly the same. But because those don't have a messenger they are not to be taken seriously?
And at the same time you take religions seriously that have evolved into something completely different since the time it was formed by their messenger.
(I am not trying to attack you here btw, just having a heated discussion thats all... )

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: edraket ]

[Dr. T.J. Eckleberg]

Don't try to understand the Trinity. Even St. Augustine said that trying to understand the Trinity was like trying to move the ocean with a spoon.

In secular study of Christianity, it basically accepted as an attempt to reconcile the first century Joshua cult with mainstream Judaism. The Old Testament says there is "one God" so the three must also be one in order to maintain overall congruity. What's interesting is how many times the word "gods" is used in the Old Testament and how many times that word is changed to "God" in the KJV and other translations.

Here are some quotes stating that there is only one God:

Dt.4:35 "Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him."

Dt.4:39 "The LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else."

Dt.6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord."

Dt.32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me."

Is.43:10 "I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

Is.44:8 "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

Is.45:5-6 "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me."

Is.46:9 "I am God, and there is none else: I am God, and there is none like me."

Mk.12:29 "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord."

Mk.12:32 "And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he."

Jn.17:3 "That they might know thee the only true God."

1 Cor.8:6 "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him."

Here are some quotes which seem to contradict this:

Gen.1:26 "And God said, let us make man in our image."

Gen.3:22 "And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil."

Gen.11:7 "Let us go down, and there confound their language."

Ex.12:12 "And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment."

Ex.15:11 "Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?"

Ex.18:11 "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods."

Ex.22:28 "Thou shalt not revile the gods."

Num.33:4 "Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments."

1 Sam.6:5 "Ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods."

1 Sam.28:13 "And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

Ps.82:1 "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods."

Ps.82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods."

Ps.96:4 "For the Lord ... is to be feared above all gods."

Ps.97:7 "Worship him, all ye gods."

Ps.136:2 "O give thanks unto the God of gods."

Jer.10:11 "The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens."

Mic.4:5 "For all people will walk every one in the name of his god."

Zeph.2:11 "The Lord will be terrible to them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth."

Jn.10:33-34 "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

And finally, the kicker:

1 Jn.5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. T.J. Eckleberg ]

[the_monkey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Awetopsy:
Nowhere in the bible does it give any dates as to the actual age of the earth. What we can conclude is that there were amounts of time that are unrecorded.

---

i was just responding to this message awetopsy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Awetopsy:
I dont see how, biblically, anybody can get 5000 years old outta the bible.. the bible never once states that the earth is only 5000 years old. In fact it suggests that the earth is quite a bit older.

---

i dont mean to get into a debate with you, but i dont entirely agree with your theory of the dinosaurs and whatnot. i think the reason why it says the earth was dark and without form, because God hasnt gotten around to creating anything on it yet. i dont think "darkness" in this context, means evil. because later he creates light in 1:3, seperating day from night.

maybe i should just email you.

[wayfinder]

rubbersharkman, you seem easily scared away....

anyway, i think it should be noted that a discussion like this is totally pointless, since in the end it all comes down to the unprovable, the undisprovable - faith.

you cannot make someone have faith in something. you can lead them to finding their own faith, but citing the bible is hardly the way to do it.


I can imagine it all being somewhat true in a way..

what some people here are trying to do is to imply that what the bible says is dogma. well, it just doesn' work that way. the bible has always been a code - just like fairy tales or modern fiction are. The intent behind was different, of course. reading that code is up to everyone on their own, i guess, cause there's no definite explanation to it - it always carries a piece of the reader!

your decoded version is just as believable as my theory about "god" being a mind based on water. <- ask me about this i need to type it out to formulate it for myself
a human mind shouldn't be able to fully grasp what god is, i guess that's the reason why i haven't got a complete picture of it in my imagination...

[Steven Stahlberg]

edraket, no problem, I may not agree, but I'll always know you didn't arrive at your opinions quickly and easily.
You're right, I don't know much about paganism, druidism, Wicca etc, and I'm probably using the term wrong. So I guess you don't include Vodoo, African, Indian, Asian and Australian tribal beliefs, the Cargo Cult, Norse mythology, the Aztec beliefs etc, in the term 'paganism'? I think that's what it once meant, perhaps the meaning has changed.

I just happen to think that these Messengers and the writings they've left behind, the witness accounts, the impacts they had, shows that they are more likely to bear the 'right' message, than a group of shamans and witch-doctors living many thousands of years ago on the outskirts of civilisation. (And they can't both be right... or could they? Maybe the shamans saw it as "through a glass, darkly", while the Messengers, being closer to the source, were telling it with less distortion)

Anyway, why would 'the simple folk' be more likely to know the truth, rather than the assyrians, persians, romans or greeks of the time, with their colorful pantheon of gods? I agree it could be possible - it's tempting to think that being closer to nature they would know more about the universe... that civilisation somehow imperceptibly changes man...
but I think that's a bit of a trap; based on a preconception - we've come to be very disappointed in some ways in our civilisation, so during the last hundred years or so the concept of the 'noble savage' was born - he who somehow always intuitively knows better than the 'civilised man', at least on all the important issues, such as spirituality for instance.
I think that's complete and utter bs, people can be noble or bad to the bone no matter where they're born, education is always an advantage. (And education = civilisation.) And I think it's very dangerous to trust your intuition too much - what some people call 'common sense' - it HIGHLY overrated.

Hm, getting off the topic of edrakets post there, but still on the main topic I guess.

[Dr. T.J. Eckleberg]

quote:

---

when somebody asks me about the trinity I explain it like this. We have one Government. That government is made up of many parts all working together. They are all part of the government and work independantly from each other but still make up one government. Now imagine that the Government was made up of only 3 people and that those three people always made decisions based on each others input. They never argued and never disagreed, that would be a admitedly limited but a general microcosm of God

---

Don't have to imagine it. Rome was once ruled by a triumverate. It doesn't even come close to illustrating the relationship between God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

The closest thing we have to explain the Trinity is Multiple Personality Disorder. There are some people with MPD who refer to their personalities by different names and each personality has different knowledge, maturity, abilities and emotions. For instance, in the Trinity we have three individual entities who are incarnations of one being, and yet there is a separation between them which even omniscience can't pass. When speaking of the Judgement Day, Jesus says in Mark 13:32, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Obviously, there are some things which God (the Son) doesn't know and God (the Father) does. Also, Jesus and the Father don't always agree. In Mathew 26:39, Jesus says, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." There was no one in the garden with Jesus, so this couldn't have been said for the benefit of his followers. He had plans for his life that he was willing, albeit not without reservations, to abandon in order that the Father's will be done.

This is all beside the point. You can't prove the existence or nature of God using scripture. It's a circular argument. All of this comes down to faith, which has been described as "that which allows a man to believe what he knows to be false." You either have faith, or you don't. You can't learn faith. You can't have it beaten into you. You can't be tricked into it and it can't be explained to those who don't have it.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. T.J. Eckleberg ]

[Awetopsy_MIA]

Unsound: excuse my slightly modified nickname .

quote

Quote:

Awetopsy, where did you get the idea of Jesus being God? Or him ever saying that he is God? I would like it if you would be able to show me a scripture which states this.

ok. I do believe in the Holy Trinity (as stated above) Genesis 1:1 says In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.... That word God used there is "Elohim" I did a little study last night and found out that the word Elohim in Hebrew is plural, meaning more than one. it then goes on to say "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 deep". That word "Spirit" is listing a particular element of what is referred to as 'Elohim'.

John 1:1 (as stated before) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.... and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."

"In the beginning" in John 1:1 is referring to the same time period as when Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning.." so now between Gen 1:1 and John 1:1 we have two elements of God listed, The Spirit of God and the Word.

If we jump all the way to Revelation 19 where John the revelator is describing Jesus he says this in vs.13 "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

And as stated earlier by the_monkey Jesus said " I and the Father are one"

So now we have a biblical foundation for the Holy Trinity.

The psalmist David was also quoted as saying "The Lord (God the Father) said to My Lord (God the Son)....."

[Unsound]

(edit: sorry for another long post )

Matt. 26:39, Revised Standard Version: "Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, 'My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.'" (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father's will.)

John 8:17, 18, Revised Standard Version: "[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me." (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica says: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."-(1976), Micropaedia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."-(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."-(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."-(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lach�tre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: "The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."-(New York, 1965), p. 899.

If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human.

John 1:1, 2:
Revised Standard Version reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (King James Version, Catholic Challoner, The Jerusalem Bible, The New American Bible use similar wording.) However, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.”

Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” John 1 Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, John 1 verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3.

Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not all agree. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the�os' in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, he Jerusalem Bible and King James Version both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”

John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “John 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.

In harmony with the above, The Bible-An American Translation reads: “the Word was divine”; A New Translation of the Bible (1934), “the Logos was divine”; The New Testament in an Improved Version, “the word was a god.” In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo�him'; Greek, the�oi', at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: Unsound ]

[Rat]

The Bible quotes/references are starting to scare me.

This discussion was originally supposed to be about religion in general, not Christianity.

[Unsound]

Oh well, I guess I was trailing off a bit.



...what were we talking about again?