Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Christianity series on TG4

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    Christian belief does not teach that Jesus was omniscient during His incarnation.
    John tells us that Jesus is reported to have carried out many miracles -- heavens above, there were so many that the world would not have room for all the books that would be written to describe them -- so it's clear from the context that he could do far, far more than any normal human.

    Hence, I'm curious to hear why you believe that his abilities as a deity extended that far, but did not actually extend to the normal property of omniscience that's associated with the christian deity?


  • Options
    #33
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    John tells us that Jesus is reported to have carried out many miracles -- heavens above, there were so many that the world would not have room for all the books that would be written to describe them -- so it's clear from the context that he could do far, far more than any normal human.

    Hence, I'm curious to hear why you believe that his abilities as a deity extended that far, but did not actually extend to the normal property of omniscience that's associated with the christian deity?

    We are told that Jesus grew in wisdom as a child, and that He did not know the day or the hour at which He would return.

    The theological term for this voluntary self-limitation of Christ's divine attributes is kenosis - or emptying. It is a standard Christian belief referred to in Charles Wesley's hymn 'And Can It Be' in the following lines:

    "He left His Father's throne above
    So rich so infinite His grace
    Emptied Himself of all but love
    And bled for Adam's sinful race"

    The Bible is full of accounts of others who did miracles yet were not divine.


  • Options
    #34
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Akrasia wrote: »
    This is why discussing religion is so frustrating. Everyone keeps changing the rules.
    The vast vast majority of christians consider the trinity to be a central part of their religion. There are probably even some christians on this board who would suggest that you won't get into heaven unless you believe in the trinity. (and they'd probably 'know' that fact just as strongly as you 'know' that you're definitely getting to paradise)


    Its only frustrating when you are trying to prove something. If you are trying to learn something its not so. Learning of your creator is not like reading a book. Its a personal journey which can take some years. Its not about ticking boxes and QED. Science has its own meaning for proof. Well i have my spiritual 'Knowledge'. I 'know', not believe, when i look at the flowers, the ants, the birds, the sky, my wife etc, that there lies the Physical proof of my creator. In his fulfilled prophesies in the book of Daniel and Isiah, I see his divinity. Although you cannot fathom the concept, i have knowledge. but how could you fathom it, you have not had it bestowed on you. you limit your being to the physical and neglect and sneer at the spiritual for you haven't experienced the spiritual. People like you are spoken of in the bible. If the mere sight of the dawn does not show evidence of your creator to you, then there is little i can do.


  • Options
    #35
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    We are told that Jesus grew in wisdom as a child, and that He did not know the day or the hour at which He would return.
    Fair enough -- christian belief is that Jesus was not omniscient.

    So, that implies that christians believe that Jesus' homoousion with god did not extend to an homoousion of mind, hence, christians must believe that, in the "spirit world" they are said to inhabit, Jesus and god are entirely separate entities.

    Is that how the belief is expressed?


  • Options
    #36
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    Fair enough -- christian belief is that Jesus was not omniscient.

    So, that implies that christians believe that Jesus' homoousion with god did not extend to an homoousion of mind, hence, christians must believe that, in the "spirit world" they are said to inhabit, Jesus and god are entirely separate entities.

    Is that how the belief is expressed?

    No. To describe the Persons within the Trinity as seperate entities would, in my opinion, be going too far. God is still one Substance.

    Maybe it would help to see Jesus' laying aside of omniscience as being comparable to His temporary laying aside of omnipresence. When God the Son became incarnate in the womb of Mary He was confined to being in one place at one time. In the same way He voluntarily limited His knowledge.

    I should add, in the interests of accuracy, that not all Christians will agree with me regarding Jesus not being omniscient. It would have been more accurate for me to say that Christian belief does not necessarily involve believing Jesus to have been omniscient. Apologies if I inadvertantly created the impression that I am speaking on behalf of all Christians.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    ^^ PDN, when Jesus was on earth, was God the Father still in heaven?


  • Options
    #38
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    JimiTime wrote: »
    ^^ PDN, when Jesus was on earth, was God the Father still in heaven?

    Absolutely.


  • Options
    #39
    zaister
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭zaister


    Popinjay wrote: »
    There's a whole other thread about this in which many of the Christians are arguing that the suffering was in fact the sacrifice. I'll try to find it and link it if I do.

    Yeah, the whole reason i started this thread was to see if we could talk about Christianity-related documentaries on TV. the clip that started this debate is from a series that's going out on TG4, starting on April 16 I think. I personally think that series like this add to our knowledge of the diverse ways in which Christianity is practised around the world, and don't find the crucifixion scenes offensive as such, but maybe some people disagree?


  • Options
    #40
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    zaister wrote: »
    Yeah, the whole reason i started this thread was to see if we could talk about Christianity-related documentaries on TV. the clip that started this debate is from a series that's going out on TG4, starting on April 16 I think. I personally think that series like this add to our knowledge of the diverse ways in which Christianity is practised around the world, and don't find the crucifixion scenes offensive as such, but maybe some people disagree?

    I don't think they are offensive at all. I find them pointless, as i do most religious ceremonies, but as long as they are just harming themselves and nobody else then by all means let them continue. Whatever turns you on.


  • Options
    #41
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    PDN wrote: »
    I don't think they are offensive at all. I find them pointless, as i do most religious ceremonies, but as long as they are just harming themselves and nobody else then by all means let them continue. Whatever turns you on.

    Do you not find it offensive that this self mutilation is done in the name of Christ? Like the monks who punish themselves with various instruments. Does it not once again send out a message that Christians are freaks? I personally hate this kind of carry on, I think rather than being inocuous, it sends out a bad message.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Puck
    Registered Users Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭Puck


    People already think I'm a freak for doing something as simple as having the audacity to believe something that they don't. It doesn't bother me. People think Christians are freaks/idiots/whatever, always have, always will.


  • Options
    #43
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Puck wrote: »
    People already think I'm a freak for doing something as simple as having the audacity to believe something that they don't. It doesn't bother me. People think Christians are freaks/idiots/whatever, always, have always will.


    Yeah i know what you mean, however would it not be a bad example to the non believer, to have someone sticking nails in their hands in the name of Christ? Is it not just another reason to be stumbled away from the truth? I personally think that such carry on is harmful to the message.


  • Options
    #44
    Puck
    Registered Users Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭Puck


    It would be a bad example if people thought that this behaviour was a requirement of the faith or that it was a common practice but I don't think anyone will come away with that idea. While I might disagree with this practice I don't have the right to stop it.


  • Options
    #45
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    If a nutjob wants to stick nails through his own hands then that is preferable to him sticking them through someone else's hands.


  • Options
    #46
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    ^^ I suppose i don't find this behaviour innocuous, especially when its presented as representitive of Christ. I think the same of catholocism. Every Phelps-like madman etc is just another stumbler. It could be argued I suppose that the people who would be stumbled by such antics would be just looking for reasons anyway, but hey, I don't like it. If someone was doing these things in my name, I'd be annoyed anyway.


  • Options
    #47
    Puck
    Registered Users Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭Puck


    I see worse behaviour from myself. This behaviour hurts the practitioner themself. I hurt other people.


  • Options
    #48
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The point of Jesus' suffering was that it was supposed to pay the debt of attonement for the sins of man.

    There is already a long thread on this subject, but It has been argued that the atonement was essential in order to allow God to forgive our sins (in other words, it was more than just symbolism or tokenism, and was a real and necessary act)

    It makes no sense that god could accept the short term tokenistic blood sacrifice as payment for thousands of years of torture and suffering.
    Sorry not to have had time to post until now.

    The physical suffering of Christ was indeed great, but the prime suffering was of the wrath of God on His soul. Christ was imputed with the sins of His people; God the Father struck Jesus with all the wrath they were due - the hell-fire they would have suffered in eternity. That is the essence of the atonement.

    Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
    He has put Him to grief.
    When You make His soul an offering for sin,
    He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
    And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
    11 He shall see the labor of His soul,and be satisfied.
    By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
    For He shall bear their iniquities.
    12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
    And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
    Because He poured out His soul unto death,
    And He was numbered with the transgressors,
    And He bore the sin of many,
    And made intercession for the transgressors.


Advertisement