Pope on Chistmas

wiseones2cents

Pope calls for the uncommercialisation of Christmas. Christmas should be about helping the poor and honouring Jesus and His birth.

Not to get drunk and exchange gifts of Vanity. Giving from your heart is one thing but giving just because you have to or to show off your wealth(Vanity) is unChristian and should be avoided.

Although Christmas should be the best time of the year, for most has become the most stressful time of the year. Especially when the bills come in.

Now the Pope's critics are accusing the Pope of hypocracy and this is
absurd since the items he has were gifts.

Note to the Pope. They gave you those items so that they could have an excuse to reprimand you. This is why the Bible says not to recieve personal gifts.

Genesis 14:21-24 The king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give me the people and keep the goods for yourself."

22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, and have taken an oath 23 that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the thong of a sandal, so that you will never be able to say, 'I made Abram rich.' 24 I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men who went with me—to Aner, Eshcol and Mamre. Let them have their share.

The bible also says not to recieve gifts or hospitality from the greedy because they expect something in return for it.
Proverbs 23:6-8 Do not eat the food of a stingy man,
do not crave his delicacies;

7 for he is the kind of man
who is always thinking about the cost. [a]
"Eat and drink," he says to you,
but his heart is not with you.

8 You will vomit up the little you have eaten
and will have wasted your compliments.

RobEire

I agree with the Pope re Christmas. It has become too commercialised. I don't even have kids and feel under pressure to the extent that worrying about finances has sucked the joy out of this season.

Really, what is wrong with just getting one nice, meaningful gift for someone and spending the day in their company?

Surely that quality time is worth more than some trinket that will just be forgotten later in the year?

Since moving to Ireland I have discovered the joy of the Bothar and Trocaire vouchers - I do give something personal to family/friends, but the bulk of their gift is something that will have value to someone who really needs it out in the big wide world.

As to calling the Pope a hypocrite for making this statement - is this not just a classic case of deflecting attention away from the central tenet of the argument, and that because it is threatening to those who hear it? After all, many retailers make good money over Christmas...

wiseones2cents

RobEire wrote:

I agree with the Pope re Christmas. It has become too commercialised. I don't even have kids and feel under pressure to the extent that worrying about finances has sucked the joy out of this season.

Really, what is wrong with just getting one nice, meaningful gift for someone and spending the day in their company?

Surely that quality time is worth more than some trinket that will just be forgotten later in the year?

Since moving to Ireland I have discovered the joy of the Bothar and Trocaire vouchers - I do give something personal to family/friends, but the bulk of their gift is something that will have value to someone who really needs it out in the big wide world.

As to calling the Pope a hypocrite for making this statement - is this not just a classic case of deflecting attention away from the central tenet of the argument, and that because it is threatening to those who hear it? After all, many retailers make good money over Christmas...

Of coarse. Where do you think all the criticism is coming from? The Elites that profit the most. I hope all the Catholic priests world wide echo his views during sermons.

robindch

> Pope calls for the uncommercialisation of Christmas.
> Christmas should be about helping the poor and
> honouring Jesus and His birth.

FYI - check out the wikipedia entry for the roman feast of Saturnalia, for the 'real' meaning of christmas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia

...specially the quotation from Seneca the Younger, writing in AD50:

It is now the month of December, when the greatest part of the city is in a bustle. Loose reins are given to public dissipation; everywhere you may hear the sound of great preparations, as if there were some real difference between the days devoted to Saturn and those for transacting business....

When in Rome...

wiseones2cents

robindch wrote:

> Pope calls for the uncommercialisation of Christmas.
> Christmas should be about helping the poor and
> honouring Jesus and His birth.

FYI - check out the wikipedia entry for the roman feast of Saturnalia, for the 'real' meaning of christmas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia

...specially the quotation from Seneca the Younger, writing in AD50:

When in Rome...

I have heard many rumours of how Christmas came to be. They actually merged a few traditions into one.

How Saturnia was the day they would harvest and give to the poor. Since saturn was the god of agriculture.

In Italy it had to do with not Santa but the Befana(A female like Santa).And it happened on January 6. The story goes that when this woman in Italy heard about the 3 kings and the gifts that they brought to Jesus. She honoured Jesus's birth by giving gifts to children.

Now whether it came about from pagan traditions or not is Irrelevant in my opinion.

What Christmas has stood for is far from pagan.

The Christmas spirit is what Christianity is all about. Singing joyful Christmas hymns, giving to the poor, heart moving miracle making Christmas movies, a time to honour the birth of Jesus,and just a cheerful time to enjoy with your family.

Also the joy and smiles on the children's faces is absolutely priceless. Especially to the children that are less fortunate and do not recieve many gifts.

Therefore I conclude. There is nothing pagan about Christmas or the Christmas spirit. Although I see a problem with commercialized Christmas.

wiseones2cents

This is a perfect example of what the Christian spirit is all about.

Santa's Wish

On Christmas Eve, a young boy with light in his eyes,
Looked deep into Santa's, to Santa's surprise,
And said as he sat on Santa's broad knee,
"I want your secret. Tell it to me."
He leaned up and whispered in Santa's good ear,
"How do you do it, year after year?"

"I want to know how, as you travel about,
Giving gifts here and there, you never run out.
How is it, dear Santa, that in your pack of toys
You have plenty for all of the world's girls and boys?
From rooftop to rooftop, to homes large and small,
From nation to nation, reaching them all?"

And Santa smiled kindly and said to the boy,
"Don't ask me hard questions. Don't you want a toy?"
But the child shook his head, and Santa could see
That he needed the answer. "Now listen to me,"
He told that small boy with the light in his eyes,
"My secret will make you sadder and wise."

"The truth is that my sack is magic. Inside
It holds millions of toys for my Christmas Eve ride.
But, although I do visit each girl and boy,
I don't always leave them a gaily-wrapped toy.
Some homes are hungry, some homes are sad,
Some homes are desperate, some homes are bad.
Some homes are broken and the children there grieve.
Those homes I visit, but what should I leave?

"My sleigh is filled with the happiest stuff,
But for homes where despair lives toys aren't enough.
So I tiptoe in, kiss each girl and boy,
And I pray with them that they'll be given the joy
Of the spirit of Christmas, the spirit that lives
In the heart of the dear child who gets not, but gives.

"If only God hears me and answers my prayer,
When I visit next year, what I will find there
Are homes filled with peace, and with giving and love,
And boys and girls gifted with light from above.
It's a very hard task, my smart little brother,
To give toys to some, and to give prayers to others.
But the prayers are the best gifts, the best gifts indeed,
For God has a way for meeting each need.

“That's part of the answer. The rest, my dear youth,
Is that my sack is magic, and that is the truth.
In my sack I carry, on Christmas Eve day,
More love than a Santa could ever give away.
The sack never empties of love, or the Joys
'Cause inside it are prayers, and hope, not just toys.
The more that I give, the fuller it seems,
Because giving is my way of fulfilling dreams.

"And do you know something? You've got a sack, too
It's as magic as mine, and it's inside of you.
It never gets empty; it's full from the start.
It's the center of light, and love. It's your heart.
And if on this Christmas you want to help me,
Don't be so concerned with the gifts 'neath your tree.
Open that sack called your heart, and share
Your joy, your friendship, your wealth, your care."

The light in the small boy's eyes was glowing.
"Thanks for your secret. I've got to be going."
"Wait, little boy," said Santa, "don't go.
Will you share? Will you help? Will you use what you know?"
And just for a moment the small boy stood still,
Touched his heart with his small hand and whispered,
"I will."

ArthurDent

wiseones2cents wrote:

What Christmas has stood for is far from pagan.

The Christmas spirit is what Christianity is all about. Singing joyful Christmas hymns, giving to the poor, heart moving miracle making Christmas movies, a time to honour the birth of Jesus,and just a cheerful time to enjoy with your family.

Also the joy and smiles on the children's faces is absolutely priceless. Especially to the children that are less fortunate and do not recieve many gifts.

Therefore I conclude. There is nothing pagan about Christmas or the Christmas spirit. Although I see a problem with commercialized Christmas.

Joyful singing of songs, giving to the poor, stories of miracles, enjoying your family - none of these exclusivly christian pastimes.

Even honoring Jesus' birth is something that is done by some nonchristians (Muslims).So in your word there is plenty "pagan" (ie not solely Chrisitan) about all these things

wiseones2cents

ArthurDent wrote:

Joyful singing of songs, giving to the poor, stories of miracles, enjoying your family - none of these exclusivly christian pastimes.

Even honoring Jesus' birth is something that is done by some nonchristians (Muslims).So in your word there is plenty "pagan" (ie not solely Chrisitan) about all these things

I did not claim they were exclusive to Christians. I'm just pointing out the meaning of Christmas and how it pertains to Christian values and not pagan.

If you are trying to imply that the Muslims are pagan, I would have to disagree. Since the Muslims worship the same GOD as Christians. Only by another name, ALLAH. The main difference is that Muslims include the teachings of Mohammed(The Quran) and the Christians teachings all derive from the Old and New Testament.

There is nothing pagan about honouring the birth of Jesus.

Excelsior

Weird. On another thread WiseOne, you advocate outright disregard of homosexuals and loudly declare that homosexuality has its roots in paedophilia. You advocate this position, implicitly, from some Christian sensibility.

Then you come to this thread and suddenly turn theology-liberal on us and tell us Allah is Yahweh. Madness. I couldn't have predicted it!

Just one question, as you dwell on the real meaning of Christmas:
Are the teachings of the Holy Koran from God?

wiseones2cents

Excelsior wrote:

Weird. On another thread WiseOne, you advocate outright disregard of homosexuals and loudly declare that homosexuality has its roots in paedophilia. You advocate this position, implicitly, from some Christian sensibility.

Then you come to this thread and suddenly turn theology-liberal on us and tell us Allah is Yahweh. Madness. I couldn't have predicted it!

Just one question, as you dwell on the real meaning of Christmas:
Are the teachings of the Holy Koran from God?

We dont want to drag the gay issue here too do we?

I know this is not staying on subject but I will answer your question.

Well since Ishmael was born of Abraham and followed the same GOD as Abraham, was circumcised, and followed all the meat curing traditions and traditions and Since Moses married a Median(Ismaelite)high priest's daughter. I would say that many(If not all) Ishmaelites follow the same GOD as the Hebrews.

Also if you watch the passion of Christ and listen carefully. The Aramaic word for GOD is VERY close to ALLAH. Remember they too are semetic.

Therefore much teachings of the Koran is derived from the Old and New Testament. Therefore derived from GOD.

Asiaprod

wiseones2cents wrote:

Therefore much teachings of the Koran is derived from the Old and New Testament. Therefore derived from GOD.

I am not sure I would agree with you on that. If memory serves me, most of the Koran is in fact a list of quotes from people talking about what they think God did/not say. It is not like the NT which is a narrative where you actually have people writing down Gods words as he spoke them.

samb

Asiaprod wrote:

the NT which is a narrative where you actually have people writing down Gods words as he spoke them.

Get real,
''Sorry God, repeat that, I need to re-ink my feather''
''No hass, Luke''

wiseones2cents

Asiaprod wrote:

I am not sure I would agree with you on that. If memory serves me, most of the Koran is in fact a list of quotes from people talking about what they think God did/not say. It is not like the NT which is a narrative where you actually have people writing down Gods words as he spoke them.

I have read much verses from the Koran and have found it to be very simliar to the Christian Bible. The major difference is it includes Mohammed. It also includes the book according to Thomas which did not make it into our Bible.

Now whether you agree with its doctrine is irrelevant. They are most definately following the same GOD. Though some doctrines may differ.

P.S. 1)Books of religion are Inspired by GOD. 2) GOD did not speak to the Apostles or Disciples.3) If you say Jesus is GOD, you are mistaken in your conclusion.

Asiaprod

wiseones2cents wrote:

did not speak to the Apostles or Disciples.3) If you say Jesus is GOD, you are mistaken in your conclusion.

If It make you happier lets say that Jesus (who is called God the Son according to the Catholic Church) spoke to the Apostles and Disciples, therefore, God also spoke to the same Apostles and Disciples. If you are not happy with this, take it up with the Vatican which states that The Holy trinity = God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost. Three divine persons in the one God. This may well be different for other branches of Christianity, or may have changed over time, but this is how it was taught to me.

Asiaprod

samb wrote:

Get real,
''Sorry God, repeat that, I need to re-ink my feather''
''No hass, Luke''

Very mature remark indeed, you impress me no end. Why don`t you take a bow after such an earth shattering revelation. There was me thinking he used a Parker rollerball.

BrianCalgary

Way to go Pope. It is quite sad to see people running around trying to find the spirit of Christmas (or the season) by buying stuff, eating certain foods, visiting certain people and the stresses that go with it.

The true spirit of Christmas can only be found by celebrating the birth of Christ. On removal of Him from the equation Christmas becomes, like life, empty and pointless.

I picture my friends in poverty in Central America managing to celebrate even though they have nothing.

wiseones2cents

Asiaprod wrote:

If It make you happier lets say that Jesus (who is called God the Son according to the Catholic Church) spoke to the Apostles and Disciples, therefore, God also spoke to the same Apostles and Disciples. If you are not happy with this, take it up with the Vatican which states that The Holy trinity = God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost. Three divine persons in the one God. This may well be different for other branches of Christianity, or may have changed over time, but this is how it was taught to me.

He is called th Son of GOD. I dont know what Bible you are reading.

i understand the Symbolism of the Trinity

GOD = GOD

Jesus = GOD's will made flesh

Holy Spirit= Spirit of GOD

Though Jesus and GOD are 2 different people. Though Jesus is OF GOD(Because He represents GOD's will). Jesus is NOT GOD.

The Apostles were Inspired by GOD, and taught by Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

BrianCalgary

Actually wiseone, Jesus is God. He calls Himself God in John 8:58 "I tell you th etruth that before Abraham was I AM". Here Jesus calls Himself by the same name God did when speaking to Moses in Exodus. The pharisees recognized this and then proceeded to pick up stones to stone Him.

Jesus also was called Emmanuel in Matthew 1:23 which means God with us. Prophesied in Isaiah 7:14. When Jesus asks Peter "who do you say that I am?" Peter responds by calling Him the Christ. Jesus agreed with Peter on this point.

Jesus is God that was how he led a sinless life and is worthy to be a sacrifice in our stead. Christianity is the only faith that has God reaching out to humans to save them and not humans trying to reach up to a god.

wiseones2cents

BrianCalgary wrote:

Actually wiseone, Jesus is God. He calls Himself God in John 8:58 "I tell you th etruth that before Abraham was I AM". Here Jesus calls Himself by the same name God did when speaking to Moses in Exodus. The pharisees recognized this and then proceeded to pick up stones to stone Him.

Jesus also was called Emmanuel in Matthew 1:23 which means God with us. Prophesied in Isaiah 7:14. When Jesus asks Peter "who do you say that I am?" Peter responds by calling Him the Christ. Jesus agreed with Peter on this point.

Jesus is God that was how he led a sinless life and is worthy to be a sacrifice in our stead. Christianity is the only faith that has God reaching out to humans to save them and not humans trying to reach up to a god.

In John 8:58 Jesus is saying He existed even before Abraham. Which is true.

Matthew 1:23 in the Sense that GOD's Will and Spirit are with them. NOT GOD.

What Does Christ mean? It means Messiah, expected Deliverer, Anointed one.NOT GOD

Now what does this verse mean? It clearly states GOD is greater than Jesus.
JOHN 14:28 You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Also who was Jesus calling out to?
Matthew 27: 43 & 46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Or this one. Jesus says dont call me good. Only GOD is good
Mark 10:18 Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

I can go on and on. Jesus is NOT GOD.

Asiaprod

wiseones2cents wrote:

I can go on and on. Jesus is NOT GOD.

Nothing like a good shout to get the blood moving, you came dangerously close to a temper tantrum there.
Excelsior, if I might call on you to add your voice to this one. I remember we had a dialogue on this before and you stated your case very well. I can not find which thread it is in.
I have a lot of confusion understanding the US/Canadian approach to Christianity and say the more (for me) traditional European approach. At time it almost seems that there is a new brand of Christianity being started in that great land of free enterprise in the West Only it seems to be far less tolerant and require a far stricter adherence to the written word; the flood and CS/ID spring to mind. In this day and age, with all the troubles and scandals that have occurred, one would think that the way forward for any religion was to become far more humanistic in its outlook. Yet, as I stand on the sideline, I see the exact opposite happening. I find this hard to understand. Does a more ridged approach indeed move the belief system forward, or does it set it back 200 years. Or worse still, could this be the beginning of a complete new form of an existing belief system.
Maybe I should open this question up to everyone, does anybody out there see a widening rift forming between these practitioners (competitors) of the same religion or am I just imagining it all?

BrianCalgary

[QUOTE=AsiaprodMaybe I should open this question up to everyone, does anybody out there see a widening rift forming between these practitioners (competitors) of the same religion or am I just imagining it all?[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Hey Asia
From someone over here in the Western lands, I see a coming together and less competition. I go to an Evangelical church and a few weeks ago we took our youth group to a Mass and spent time in dialogue with the parish priest. Out of 35 or so kids in our group we only had questions from two parents and only the kids of the one family didn't come. Twenty years ago we couldn't have done this.

The direction in North America seems to be answering the question as to what can we respectively disagree on and what can we not waver on. We can disagree on the age of the earth, transubstantiation, infant baptism, dunking or sprinkling, rapture or no, a-millenial; pre-milleniail; or post-millenial as examples.

What we can't waver on; is the deity of Christ, salvation through grace, one way to the Father being through Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection and the Bible being God's word and our authority.

I trust that answers your query. I am very interested on how we are viewed by the rest of the world as we are so influenced by the giant to the south.

God Bless

wiseones2cents

Asiaprod wrote:

Nothing like a good shout to get the blood moving, you came dangerously close to a temper tantrum there.
Excelsior, if I might call on you to add your voice to this one. I remember we had a dialogue on this before and you stated your case very well. I can not find which thread it is in.
I have a lot of confusion understanding the US/Canadian approach to Christianity and say the more (for me) traditional European approach. At time it almost seems that there is a new brand of Christianity being started in that great land of free enterprise in the West Only it seems to be far less tolerant and require a far stricter adherence to the written word; the flood and CS/ID spring to mind. In this day and age, with all the troubles and scandals that have occurred, one would think that the way forward for any religion was to become far more humanistic in its outlook. Yet, as I stand on the sideline, I see the exact opposite happening. I find this hard to understand. Does a more ridged approach indeed move the belief system forward, or does it set it back 200 years. Or worse still, could this be the beginning of a complete new form of an existing belief system.
Maybe I should open this question up to everyone, does anybody out there see a widening rift forming between these practitioners (competitors) of the same religion or am I just imagining it all?

Oh I wasn't yelling. I was just making myself perfectly clear.;)

Think of it as a more pure belief system.

You now noticed a gap between Christian religions?lol

They all want to be the perfect religion when NONE are. There may be some closer to the truth in certain aspects than others but NONE are absolute truth and ALL have mis-interprited either by mistake or purposely the bible.

They all point fingers at each other, disregarding the logs in their own eyes.

The Bible says that the religion that humbles itself will be the greatest.
The Bible says that You(Religion) will be judged as you have Judged, so if a Religion points out the log in other Religions eyes. Will the others not point out his? Resulting in increasing gaps.

You must preach by example. If others see harmony in your religion, will that not attract others? Will you offending other religions attract or turn off other religions? The Bible clearly says not to judge religions on the festivals they choose to celebrate. Yet many Religions do.

This is why gaps are widening.

P.S. I am waiting for anyone to prove that Jesus is GOD.

Dades

wiseones2cents wrote:

P.S. I am waiting for anyone to prove that Jesus is GOD.

Likewise

Excelsior

I think it is time for "WiseOne" to state his true allegiance. He claims in one thread to uphold Biblical truth by claiming that homosexuals are just peadophiles in disguise and in this one that historic Christianity is in error when it understands Jesus as being divine and the God of the Bible being Trinitarian. Is WiseOne a JW? Is he a Mormon? Or is he just a peculiar and rugged individual who has taken the totality of his experience and applied it to make WiseOneism?

Because let me be clear, without recourse to CAPS LOCK- you cannot claim to be representing the Prince of Peace while systematically degrading people because of their sexual orientation and simultaneously diminish the status that the Prince of Peace claims for himself.

Whether Jesus was the Son of God is something The Atheist and co will have to decide on themselves. It is undoubted however, that the Bible claims him to be the Son of God, the Son of Man, the annointed King of Creation, the Lord of All, the Cosmos-creator, the sustaining force and many other things. Almost all of these categories are divine.

The argument is a complex one when fleshed out in totality. For the sake of my time as well as brevity and attention span, I am going to give you some off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts on it. John 1 is the obvious starting point. It is the first chapter of the last Gospel and it begins with those famous words:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

What was this Word? Well it isn't a what but a who. The Word is God. The spark that sets off Christianity comes a few lines later:
"The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

So in the first paragraph Jesus is described as the Word, which alludes to Genesis 1 where God spoke Creation into being. He is described as God. He is described as God made flesh. He is described in terms of the shekinah glory that dwelt in the Holy of Holies in the Old Testament. Seeing him is seeing the glory of the One and Only MonoGod of Judaism and he finds his source in this God. In him is grace and truth.

I find it hard to read that and not see what John's contemporaries saw. In the words on the parchment, he had written a manifesto for the complete overhaul of the Doctrine of God that had lasted the people of Israel for 4000 years. John is saying as clearly and as rigourously as he can, that Jesus of Nazareth is God.

Paul also thought Jesus was the Son of God. Saul was a Pharisee trained by the chief Rabbi of Jerusalem who spent the early part of the Christian era orchestrating the assasination of followers of the Way. In his famous Damascus Road conversion, he was reborn as Paul and founded church after church dotted along the Mediterranean until finally meeting his end in Rome.

In the first letter to his church at Corinth he quotes the Shema, the chief prayer of Judaism. Judaism, as we all know from Religions of the World 101, is a fiercely monotheistic belief system, perhaps the first of its kind. The Shema is a prayer honouring this single God and his character. This is how it reads:
"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!" (Deut 6:4)

Paul, when talking about the tendency in the pluralistic city of Corinth to place Jesus in a pantheon of other Gods writes (and so arguing for an exclusive monotheism:

"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." (1 Cor 8:6)

Verse 6 is a carefully formulated statement:

a but for us [there is] one God, the Father,

b from whom [are] all things and we for him,

c and one Lord, Jesus Christ,

d through whom [are] all things and we through him.

The Shema, a prayer recited twice daily by all observant Jews by this time. Divserse opnion across the spectrum of Christianity is in consensus that Paul is adopting the Shema in the light of Christ. Paul has reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the Shema but he has rearranged the words in such a way as to produce an affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is redefining monotheism as christological monotheism. He is not lining Jesus us up as a subsidiary Lord to Yahweh's God, a kind of franchise ruler of reality. That would produce a dualtheism and there would be no need to remix Shema to make that point! When Paul adopts Shema and introduces Jesus, there is only one implication to be drawn- that Paul (and the early Christians in his churches) thought Jesus was a component of the unique monotheistic God Paul had been trained to worship.

This is reinforced from the fact that the term Lord, applied here to Jesus as the ‘one Lord’, is taken from the Shema itself. Paul is not adding to the one God of the Shema’ a ‘Lord’ the Shema does not mention. He is identifying Jesus as the ‘Lord’ whom the Shema affirms to be one. Thus, in Paul’s quite unprecedented reformulation of the Shema, the unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah.

Or in the words of Excelsior's favourite theologian, NT Wright:

The Bishop of Durham wrote:

Paul, in other words, has glossed ‘God’ with the ‘the Father’, and ‘Lord’ with ‘Jesus Christ’, adding in each case an explanatory phrase: ‘God’ is the Father ‘from whom are all things and we to him’, and the ‘Lord’ is Jesus the Messiah, ‘through whom are all things and we through him’. There can be no mistake: just as in Philippians 2 and Colossians 1, Paul has placed Jesus within an explicit statement, drawn from the Old Testament’s quarry of emphatically monotheistic texts, of the doctrine that Israel’s God is the one and only God, the creator of the world. The Shema was already, at this stage of Judaism, in widespread use as the Jewish daily prayer. Paul has redefined it christologically, producing what we can only call a sort of christological monotheism.

These are just two very strong arguments out of literally hundreds. I have chosen them because they're rooted in the staunch monotheism of the Hebrew scriptures, key ones at that, and because they are pretty easy to grasp.

When WiseOne says that Jesus is the will of God made flesh, I would just like him to consider the philosophical implications of what he has written. If God's will is perfect and unchanging (which we are told in the Bible), then where do you slice the perfect will of God as divine away from God. You can seperate me from my intentions because my intentions change, fail and are wrong. Perfection and the other qualities of the biblical God make such a distinction difficult if not impossible. Let me simplify the question- how is God's will made flesh different from God?

Whatever about Jesus being divine, the Bible clearly states that he is. If you don't trust the Bible, you obviously won't be convinced that Jesus is divine. But WiseOnes has staked his claims on flawed and prejudiced readings of Scripture elsewhere (gay thread- where all sex outside of marriage is deemed wrong in the Bible, WiseOnes interprets this to mean that gay people are all evil child molesters intent on destroying society) and I need to state again that historic Christianity has always believed that Jesus when he said that to have seen him is to have seen God.

wiseones2cents

Excelsior wrote:

I think it is time for "WiseOne" to state his true allegiance. He claims in one thread to uphold Biblical truth by claiming that homosexuals are just peadophiles in disguise and in this one that historic Christianity is in error when it understands Jesus as being divine and the God of the Bible being Trinitarian. Is WiseOne a JW? Is he a Mormon? Or is he just a peculiar and rugged individual who has taken the totality of his experience and applied it to make WiseOneism?

Because let me be clear, without recourse to CAPS LOCK- you cannot claim to be representing the Prince of Peace while systematically degrading people because of their sexual orientation and simultaneously diminish the status that the Prince of Peace claims for himself.

Whether Jesus was the Son of God is something The Atheist and co will have to decide on themselves. It is undoubted however, that the Bible claims him to be the Son of God, the Son of Man, the annointed King of Creation, the Lord of All, the Cosmos-creator, the sustaining force and many other things. Almost all of these categories are divine.

The argument is a complex one when fleshed out in totality. For the sake of my time as well as brevity and attention span, I am going to give you some off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts on it. John 1 is the obvious starting point. It is the first chapter of the last Gospel and it begins with those famous words:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

What was this Word? Well it isn't a what but a who. The Word is God. The spark that sets off Christianity comes a few lines later:
"The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

So in the first paragraph Jesus is described as the Word, which alludes to Genesis 1 where God spoke Creation into being. He is described as God. He is described as God made flesh. He is described in terms of the shekinah glory that dwelt in the Holy of Holies in the Old Testament. Seeing him is seeing the glory of the One and Only MonoGod of Judaism and he finds his source in this God. In him is grace and truth.

I find it hard to read that and not see what John's contemporaries saw. In the words on the parchment, he had written a manifesto for the complete overhaul of the Doctrine of God that had lasted the people of Israel for 4000 years. John is saying as clearly and as rigourously as he can, that Jesus of Nazareth is God.

"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." (1 Cor 8:6)

Verse 6 is a carefully formulated statement:

a but for us [there is] one God, the Father,

b from whom [are] all things and we for him,

c and one Lord, Jesus Christ,

d through whom [are] all things and we through him.

The Shema, a prayer recited twice daily by all observant Jews by this time. Divserse opnion across the spectrum of Christianity is in consensus that Paul is adopting the Shema in the light of Christ. Paul has reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the Shema but he has rearranged the words in such a way as to produce an affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is redefining monotheism as christological monotheism. He is not lining Jesus us up as a subsidiary Lord to Yahweh's God, a kind of franchise ruler of reality. That would produce a dualtheism and there would be no need to remix Shema to make that point! When Paul adopts Shema and introduces Jesus, there is only one implication to be drawn- that Paul (and the early Christians in his churches) thought Jesus was a component of the unique monotheistic God Paul had been trained to worship.

This is reinforced from the fact that the term Lord, applied here to Jesus as the ‘one Lord’, is taken from the Shema itself. Paul is not adding to the one God of the Shema’ a ‘Lord’ the Shema does not mention. He is identifying Jesus as the ‘Lord’ whom the Shema affirms to be one. Thus, in Paul’s quite unprecedented reformulation of the Shema, the unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah.

Or in the words of Excelsior's favourite theologian, NT Wright:



These are just two very strong arguments out of literally hundreds. I have chosen them because they're rooted in the staunch monotheism of the Hebrew scriptures, key ones at that, and because they are pretty easy to grasp.

When WiseOne says that Jesus is the will of God made flesh, I would just like him to consider the philosophical implications of what he has written. If God's will is perfect and unchanging (which we are told in the Bible), then where do you slice the perfect will of God as divine away from God. You can seperate me from my intentions because my intentions change, fail and are wrong. Perfection and the other qualities of the biblical God make such a distinction difficult if not impossible. Let me simplify the question- how is God's will made flesh different from God?

Whatever about Jesus being divine, the Bible clearly states that he is. If you don't trust the Bible, you obviously won't be convinced that Jesus is divine. But WiseOnes has staked his claims on flawed and prejudiced readings of Scripture elsewhere (gay thread- where all sex outside of marriage is deemed wrong in the Bible, WiseOnes interprets this to mean that gay people are all evil child molesters intent on destroying society) and I need to state again that historic Christianity has always believed that Jesus when he said that to have seen him is to have seen God.

My allegiance is to the GOD ALMIGHTY. I have no religious title. I claim to be all religions yet I am none.

First of all. I didnt say all homosexuals are pedophiles. That is a false accusation.I am claiming that they are SINNERS and that many are child molestors. Which is a fact.

Second. I find it very disturbing for a moderator to bring in his homosexual hang up on every single thread.

If you can prove Jesus is GOD? Do so. I have seen only talk. No scripture to back it. Can you deny my Scripture? I dont think you can.

You claim I do not have the right to claim I am Jesus's True follower?And under what Authority do you judge this by? None what so ever.

Jesus is the closest thing to GOD, though he is NOT GOD.

John 1:2 says:He was WITH God in the beginning.

With meaning together. They are NOT the same people.

And the word became flesh means, the prophecies(GOD'S WORD) came true(about the Messiah). It repeatedly speaks of being FROM THE FATHER.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the Only BEGOTTEN, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Bible clearly speaks of Jesus as the only begotten Son not GOD.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John NEVER claims Jesus is GOD.

Paul is just stated that Jesus was Given Authority by GOD over the earth and was made Lord. Not that Jesus is GOD.
Matthew 28:18 hen Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Are you trying to say that Jesus is Imperfect, If He is not GOD?

GOD's will made flesh is different from GOD because its not GOD. Its GOD's will.
If we have the Holy Spirit in us. We have GOD's Spirit in us. Not GOD.If we do GOD's will we are not GOD either, though part of GOD.

Jesus is PART of GOD, and OF the FATHER as the Bible clearly states. Not GOD.

What do you define as being Devine?He is a Supreme Being as are all the Angels. though they are not GOD.

I trust the Bible. I just dont accept YOUR interpritation of the Bible.

I said all sex outside of marriage is deemed wrong? And where did I say this? Bearing false witness are you? Thats not very Christian. That is the second time you claimed things that were not true.

Also your hang up on the gay topic is getting old. I go by the Bible. What do you go by? Can you can prove through the Bible that homosexuality is not a sin? No. So stop dragging that issue into every thread.

And I will end it by saying that He meant GOD's will.
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the Only BEGOTTEN who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained him.

Therefore Jesus was explaining GOD.

I'm sure you have seen other false Interpritations of the Bible.

I have explained all the true meaning using True Interpritation of the scriptures you provided. And I will prove it as soon as you answer my final question below.

Now I'd like you to do the same with the Scriptures I have provided in my Initial claim(post #19) that Jesus is Not GOD. And I can back it with another minimum 200 scriptures backing my position.

Excelsior

The extent to which you have misunderstood or misinterpreted my post is astonishing. You continue to insist that since the Father and Jesus are different persons, Jesus cannot be God. Christianity since its earliest expressions has consistently held that Jesus is God, God the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God and that these 3 distinct personalities make a whole and perfect unit.

Every argument you have made related to John 1 fails to deal with the claims that John is making. You have ignored Paul's deliberate use of the Shema. Being able to cite "over 200 Scriptures" is not actually how anyone, even the most narrow-minded fundamentalist decides what the authors intended.

On every aspect of your unformatted rant that I was able to pay attention to, whenever you dealt with homosexuality, you were not dealing with my position on homosexuality.

wiseones2cents

Excelsior wrote:

The extent to which you have misunderstood or misinterpreted my post is astonishing. You continue to insist that since the Father and Jesus are different persons, Jesus cannot be God. Christianity since its earliest expressions has consistently held that Jesus is God, God the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God and that these 3 distinct personalities make a whole and perfect unit.

Every argument you have made related to John 1 fails to deal with the claims that John is making. You have ignored Paul's deliberate use of the Shema. Being able to cite "over 200 Scriptures" is not actually how anyone, even the most narrow-minded fundamentalist decides what the authors intended.

I have already addressed these Issues. You have yet to Address my Issues.
Go explain the Scriptures I provided in Post #19.

I have heard many try. Though they were all laughable.

On every aspect of your unformatted rant that I was able to pay attention to, whenever you dealt with homosexuality, you were not dealing with my position on homosexuality.

Unformatted rant?lol It was pretty crystal clear to anyone that can read english.

And where does your position on homosexuality come from? Certainly not the Bible. If so? Show me. Second, that does not give you the right to drag your homosexual views on every thread and accuse me of things I did not say.

wolfsbane

wiseones2cents,

Let me jump in to this thread with my 2 cents:

Hebrews 1:8 But to the Son He says:


“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

10 And:



“ You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
11 They will perish, but You remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;
12 Like a cloak You will fold them up,
And they will be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not fail.”

Note: Jesus is called both God and LORD, in references back to the OT passages that speak unambiguously of Almighty God.

Jesus was both God and man, so sometimes Scripture speaks of His servanthood, sometimes of His majesty. That does not present a contradiction, it only displays the different aspects of the One who humbled Himself and took on our nature, so that He could stand as our Substitute under the judgement of His Father.

The deity of Jesus was resisted right from the start: by the unbelieving Jews, who took up stones to kill Him when He spoke of His being the 'I AM' (John 8:58,59); by assorted heretics within the early church and cults outside it. The Arians in the early church and the Jehovah Witnesses today are prime examples.

If Christ were not God, Thomas was greatly mistaken when he confessed Him as , “My Lord and my God!” :
John 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

If Christ were not God, the whole Church has been worshipping in idolatry for nearly 2000 years.

In view of this, would you not consider you have been misinformed?

wiseones2cents

wolfsbane wrote:

wiseones2cents,

Let me jump in to this thread with my 2 cents:

Hebrews 1:8 But to the Son He says:


“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

Can you explain to me How can GOD annoint HIMSELF??? This also strengthens my Position that Jesus is not GOD.

“ You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
11 They will perish, but You remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;
12 Like a cloak You will fold them up,
And they will be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not fail.”

Note: Jesus is called both God and LORD, in references back to the OT passages that speak unambiguously of Almighty God.

No First he is speaking of GOD, and THEN he is speaking of his LORD Jesus.

In verse 13. He states that Jesus will sit at HIS right hand. Now explain to me How GOD will sit at GOD's right hand?

I already explained why the Disciples called Him lord. GOD gave Jesus Authority over all the earth, therefore making Jesus a Lord. Therefore Jesus is the Lord of the earth ALSO. If Jesus is GOD, he wouldn't have needed anyone to give Him authority over the earth.
Matthew 28:18 hen Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been GIVEN to me.

Jesus was both God and man, so sometimes Scripture speaks of His servanthood, sometimes of His majesty. That does not present a contradiction, it only displays the different aspects of the One who humbled Himself and took on our nature, so that He could stand as our Substitute under the judgement of His Father.

I think you have mis-interprited scripture. The Bible says no such thing.

The deity of Jesus was resisted right from the start: by the unbelieving Jews, who took up stones to kill Him when He spoke of His being the 'I AM' (John 8:58,59); by assorted heretics within the early church and cults outside it. The Arians in the early church and the Jehovah Witnesses today are prime examples.

Jesus was rejected as the Messiah by the jews. Period. He claimed to be the Son of GOD and the jews accused him of Blasphemy. I'm not familiar with Arian teachings but am familiar with a bit of JW doctrine. All though I do not agree with much of their doctrines, I agree with them that Jesus is not GOD.

If Christ were not God, Thomas was greatly mistaken when he confessed Him as , “My Lord and my God!” :
John 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Isn't that the same as saying Holy Jesus and GOD ALMIGHTY!! That doesn't mean I am saying Jesus is GOD. Thomas was referencing both(as in 2 different people).

If Christ were not God, the whole Church has been worshipping in idolatry for nearly 2000 years.

Why Is Jesus an Idle? Explain this bizarre statement.

In view of this, would you not consider you have been misinformed?

No. Now I have explained the meaning to all your scripture. Now explain mine in post #19 of this thread, If you can.

We'll start from there before I offer up even more scripture to back my position.

wolfsbane

wiseone2cents said:

Now explain mine in post #19 of this thread, If you can.

We'll start from there before I offer up even more scripture to back my position.

Sure:

In John 8:58 Jesus is saying He existed even before Abraham. Which is true.

No. If Jesus was saying merely that He would have said, 'Before Abraham was, I was.' Instead He said, 'Before Abraham was, I am.' This was a plain reference to His divinity, since 'I AM' was the name by which God revealed Himself to Moses, Exodus 3: 14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” The Jews clearly understood this claim and so tried to stone Him. See also http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=5&verse=18&version=50&context=verse

What Does Christ mean? It means Messiah, expected Deliverer, Anointed one.NOT GOD

That's true. But even then, the Jews had there understanding of Messiah challenged by Christ Himself:
Matthew 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?”
They said to Him, “ The Son of David.”
43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying:
44 ‘ The LORD said to my Lord,

“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”’?

45 If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?” 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.

Now what does this verse mean? It clearly states GOD is greater than Jesus.
JOHN 14:28 You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

It clearly states that the Father was greater than Jesus. This is the human aspect to Christ - the man.

Also who was Jesus calling out to?
Matthew 27: 43 & 46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Again, the man.

Or this one. Jesus says dont call me good. Only GOD is good
Mark 10:18 Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

Jesus did not say 'Don't call me good'. He asks the question to stir their thinking on who He is.

Now to return to your reply to my post:

Can you explain to me How can GOD annoint HIMSELF???

Certainly. If God is composed of three persons, Father, son and Holy Spirit, then of course the Father anointing the Son is God anointing God. That God is a plurality is seen even in the very first book of the Bible. Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
God = Our.

No First he is speaking of GOD, and THEN he is speaking of his LORD Jesus.

You said this in reference to the Hebrews 1 quotation of Pslam 102. Check out the Psalm - it refers solely to God. The author of Hebrews says it is speaking of Christ. Christ is God.

Now explain to me How GOD will sit at GOD's right hand?

As above for anointing.

If Jesus is GOD, he wouldn't have needed anyone to give Him authority over the earth.

He would if He was also a man.

The Bible says no such thing.

No such what? That He thought it not robbery to be equal to God, but humbled Himself and took on Him our nature? Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Jesus was rejected as the Messiah by the jews. Period. He claimed to be the Son of GOD and the jews accused him of Blasphemy.

Yes, but what did that mean? Claiming to be more than a prophet. The Son of God was not a title of a mere man.

Isn't that the same as saying Holy Jesus and GOD ALMIGHTY!! That doesn't mean I am saying Jesus is GOD. Thomas was referencing both(as in 2 different people).

No, it is not the same. That would mean Thomas took the name of the Lord in vain, in his response to Christ's demonstration of His power over death. It is common today for ungodly folk to exclaim 'My God'; 'Jesus'; 'God Almighty' etc., but that was not the case for the disciples of Christ.

Why Is Jesus an Idle? Explain this bizarre statement.

If Jesus is not God, then worshipping Him as God would be idolatry. Worshipping anyone other than God is expressly forbidden in Scripture, no matter their dignity. Even the angel who spoke with John in the Revelation:
Revelation 22:8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”

So you go against the testimony of the Christian church down the ages; against the Scriptures I have given; even against the verdict of His enemies in Judaism and Islam who repudiate the New Testament Scriptures exactly because they declare Jesus to be God manifest in the flesh. Would you not consider you might be mistaken in your interpretation of the Scripture?

larryone

BrianCalgary wrote:

Christianity is the only faith that has God reaching out to humans to save them and not humans trying to reach up to a god.

This is far from the truth.

Also - this thread has not quite strayed off topic so much as it has locked the topic in a box and taken the next train out of town...

wiseones2cents

wolfsbane wrote:

wiseone2cents said:

Sure:

No. If Jesus was saying merely that He would have said, 'Before Abraham was, I was.' Instead He said, 'Before Abraham was, I am.' This was a plain reference to His divinity, since 'I AM' was the name by which God revealed Himself to Moses, Exodus 3: 14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” The Jews clearly understood this claim and so tried to stone Him. See also

The Jews tried to stone him because he was claiming to be the Son of GOD.
Now they didn't talk that way back then. They said I AM. They did not say I WAS. All Jesus meant was that He Existed before Abraham.

Though this is not one of the scriptures I submitted. But I answered it anyways.

That's true. But even then, the Jews had there understanding of Messiah challenged by Christ Himself:
Matthew 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?”
They said to Him, “ The Son of David.”
43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying:
44 ‘ The LORD said to my Lord,

“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”’?

45 If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?” 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.

Huh? You didnt answer my question. How can GOD sit at the right hand of GOD?

Also LORD is a term for a Master. Therefore the LORD (GOD) said to my Lord(David's Lord) Jesus. They are 2 different people.

Who was given the Throne of David?Who is David's Lord? Jesus.
Luke 1:31-32 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will GIVE him the throne of his father David,

Onvce again GOD is GIVING the throne to Jesus

In Matthew 22:42 Jesus clearly states that the Christ is the son of SOMEONE.
Matthew 22:42 What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he? The son of David, they replied.

He is stating He is the Son of GOD.

It clearly states that the Father was greater than Jesus. This is the human aspect to Christ - the man.

I disagree. I have heard many explantions and debated many and none were able to counter my Scripture. Though I took apart theirs piece by piece.

Again, the man.

The man? Such a short and unexplanatory answer. Are you one of those people that believe GOD was travelling in and out of Jesus? If so I have debated those people before and have shown them the error of their belief. Jesus ALWAYS had the Spirit of GOD within Him the Whole time. Though He was not GOD.

Jesus did not say 'Don't call me good'. He asks the question to stir their thinking on who He is.

You are mistaken. He clearly states to not call Him good. Only GOD is good. He is humbling Himself.

Now to return to your reply to my post:

Certainly. If God is composed of three persons, Father, son and Holy Spirit, then of course the Father anointing the Son is God anointing God. That God is a plurality is seen even in the very first book of the Bible. Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
God = Our.

Do you not see the contradiction in your claim? Does GOD have to be anointed? He is referring to HIM, Jesus and the Angels, when he speaks in plurality.

You said this in reference to the Hebrews 1 quotation of Pslam 102. Check out the Psalm - it refers solely to God. The author of Hebrews says it is speaking of Christ. Christ is God.

Huh? Supply scripture please.

No such what? That He thought it not robbery to be equal to God, but humbled Himself and took on Him our nature? Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

hmmmmm. I wonder who came up with that interpritation to back their position?(note sarcasm)

Here is the real Interpritation. Philippians 2:6 who, although He is existed in the FORM of GOD,did not reagard equality with GOD a thing to be grasped.

This CLEARLY states He did NOT make Himself equal to GOD.

Yes, but what did that mean? Claiming to be more than a prophet. The Son of God was not a title of a mere man.

No one ever said Jesus was a mere man.

No, it is not the same. That would mean Thomas took the name of the Lord in vain, in his response to Christ's demonstration of His power over death. It is common today for ungodly folk to exclaim 'My God'; 'Jesus'; 'God Almighty' etc., but that was not the case for the disciples of Christ.

Took the name of the LORD in vain?Glorifying Jesus and GOD is taking GOD's name in vain?

Godly people do not cry out to GOD ALMIGHTY?

That was not the case for Thomas?Did you know Thomas personally?

If Jesus is not God, then worshipping Him as God would be idolatry. Worshipping anyone other than God is expressly forbidden in Scripture, no matter their dignity. Even the angel who spoke with John in the Revelation:
Revelation 22:8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”

Worshipping Jesus as GOD would be incorrect. Yes. Praising Jesus as the Messiah would be correct.Though Jesus says to call out to GOD by His(Jesus's)name. John 14:12-16. It also says Jesus will ASK the FATHER to send the Helper.

Now when Jesus was tempted by the Devil and he offered Jesus the world. Was he talking to GOD? Of coarse not. GOD already owned the World. But what did Jesus say? Luke 4:8 Jesus answered, It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'

Therefore Jesus answered and he said He will only worship GOD!

There is also another Verse I cannot find right now that states Jesus does not seek worship from men. Though we know GOD does.

Also read this Acts 13:16-23 Standing up, Paul motioned with his hand and said: Men of Israel and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me!

17 The God of the people of Israel chose our fathers; he made the people prosper during their stay in Egypt, with mighty power he led them out of that country,

18 he endured their conduct for about forty years in the desert,

19 he overthrew seven nations in Canaan and gave their land to his people as their inheritance.

20 All this took about 450 years. After this, God gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet.

21 Then the people asked for a king, and he gave them Saul son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled for forty years.

22 After removing Saul, he made David their king. He testified concerning him: 'I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.'

23 From this man's descendants God has brought to Israel the Saviour Jesus, as he promised.

So you go against the testimony of the Christian church down the ages; against the Scriptures I have given; even against the verdict of His enemies in Judaism and Islam who repudiate the New Testament Scriptures exactly because they declare Jesus to be God manifest in the flesh. Would you not consider you might be mistaken in your interpretation of the Scripture?

It wouldn't be the first time Religious interpritation of scripture has been wrong. I have explained your scriptures. You have failed to explain mine.

Your answers of :It clearly states that the Father was greater than Jesus. This is the human aspect to Christ - the man.

And:Again, the man

Quite doesn't cut it.

I would like these answered more clearly.

Also you are Mistaken once again. Judism nor Islam regard Jesus as GOD. Neither do they regard Him as the Son of GOD. They regard him as a Prophet.
I have considered it and have come to the Conclusion that Jesus is NOT GOD.Would you not consider you might be mistaken?

I can provide much more scripture backing my position, but I see you are having trouble explaining already the 2 Scriptures I have given. Explain Jesus the man.

My time is limited so keep it simple and answer My two Scriptures I provided without adding more imput.

wiseones2cents

larryone wrote:

This is far from the truth.

Also - this thread has not quite strayed off topic so much as it has locked the topic in a box and taken the next train out of town...

I guess they didn't like what they heard about Christmas,so they side tracked the Discussion.

JustHalf

wiseones2cents wrote:

My allegiance is to the GOD ALMIGHTY. I have no religious title. I claim to be all religions yet I am none.

The last sentence here implies you are a liar. Do you realise this?

wiseones2cents wrote:

Jesus is the closest thing to GOD, though he is NOT GOD.

John 1:2 says:He was WITH God in the beginning.

With meaning together. They are NOT the same people.

If you read the previous verse, you'll find your point crumble. Ignoring it seems dishonest. Excelsior pointed this out before, but you ignored him.

The basic rules of grammar require that the "He" in John 1:2 refer to a particular subject. That subject has either been mentioned in the previous text (i.e, John 1:1) or is a brand new subject invented out of nowhere.

Throughout John 1:1-5 (until John the Baptist is mentioned in John 1:6, changing the subject) only 7 singular subjects are mentioned:

1: The Word
2: God
3: the beginning
4: life
5: the light of men
6: the darkness
7: and of course "He"

John 1:1 makes it clear that "the Word was God". John 1:2 makes it clear that "the beginning" is NOT Him (it reads "He was with God in the beginning", not "He was the beginning"). John 1:4 states that life was in him, and states that "life was the light of men". The light is also clearly seperate from the darkness. (1:5)

So who is He? Certainly, He is not the life that was inside Himself, and He therefore does not refer to the light of men (for that, being life, was inside Him). He is not the instance of "the beginning" mentioned her.

So you are left with two options. You can claim that the use of "He" and "Him" in John 1:1-5 refers to:

1: God (aka "The Word"), or
2: the darkness

If we look at this part of John in the context of the rest of the book (or even the rest of that particular chapter of John) "the darkness" does not suit the use of "He" here. The only possible readings available are:

1: "He" refers to The Word, which John 1:1 states "was God".
2: The author of John decided to throw in a reference to a "he" in the first five verses of the book which does not refer to anything mentioned, and pops out of reference at the end of John 1:1-5

The only one of these readings that make any sense is the first, unless John was incompetent beyond measure (in which case you cannot rely on his words).

wiseones2cents, at the very least you must admit that your the viewpoint you claim to have on Jesus's divinity is not the same as the classic Christian viewpoint.

wiseones2cents wrote:

I have explained all the true meaning using True Interpritation of the scriptures you provided. And I will prove it as soon as you answer my final question below.

True Interpretation? Why do you capitalise your words so? Is this a particular key phrase, with a particular non-obvious meaning, in your church / religion / self-created belief system?

Asiaprod

BrianCalgary wrote:

Hey Asia
From someone over here in the Western lands, I see a coming together and less competition. I go to an Evangelical church and a few weeks ago we took our youth group to a Mass and spent time in dialogue with the parish priest. Out of 35 or so kids in our group we only had questions from two parents and only the kids of the one family didn't come. Twenty years ago we couldn't have done this.

I am all on for progress and truly happy that you can report that it is happening

The direction in North America seems to be answering the question as to what can we respectively disagree on and what can we not waver on. We can disagree on the age of the earth, transubstantiation, infant baptism, dunking or sprinkling, rapture or no, a-millennial; pre-millennial; or post-millennial as examples.

I like the phrase "what we can respectively disagree on and what can we not waver on" and that for me it the key, to respectfully agree/disagree . I generally find that most Evangelicals do NOT accept that statement though. They get very upset when you don`t agree on their points, and very rarely, if ever, have I seen them accept other`s points of view.

What we can't waver on; is the deity of Christ, salvation through grace, one way to the Father being through Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection and the Bible being God's word and our authority.

To me, that almost appears to be a closed system, and that would definitely be an impediment to progress.

I am very interested on how we are viewed by the rest of the world as we are so influenced by the giant to the south.

I can only comment on what appears to be the way in Japan. Over here, pushing ones views or religions is not the accepted norm. People who do this are treated with suspicion and distrust. Fundamentalists are not tolerated at all, and it would be very easy for them to fall fowl of the authorities and find themselves on the next flight out. You only have to look at China to see this. Two groups in question over here would be Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons, who are very active, but do not seem to be making great inroads. There is a strong contingent of Catholics (Tokyo does have a Catholic Cathedral), but they are mostly foreigners, such as Philippines who have a very strong and socially oriented connection to their faith. Religion over here is still very much a personal issue, with just the standard obligations of visiting the temple for Deaths, Births, Marriages and the obligatory year end visit to ring in the new year and seek better fortune in the coming year. I have yet to meet any Evangelicals

robindch

Asiaprod -

> I have a lot of confusion understanding the US/Canadian approach
> to Christianity [...] it almost seems that there is a new brand of
> Christianity [...] far less tolerant and require a far stricter
> adherence to the written word; the flood and CS/ID spring to
> mind. [...] I find this hard to understand. [...] does anybody out
> there see a widening rift forming between these practitioners
> (competitors) of the same religion or am I just imagining it all?

It's interesting that you use the economic terms 'brand' and 'competitors' here, because they're quite appropriate to descibe what's going on -- simply put, US religions are evolving incredibly quickly to maximize their income and market share. And they've found that you can do this, as you can in most societies, by publicly and endlessly endorsing conservative interpretations of that society's chosen holybook, the bible in this case. This massive success has produced a $70 billion dollar religious economy (taxfree, of course; that's about twice the national income of Ireland), and has produced a fundamentalist congress and president, in a country where many still believe that the "libruls" are in charge. See the scary Patrick Henry College for an example of the direct application of fundamentalist religion in politics.

As for CS/ID, well, they're fascinating cultural adaptions in themselves. Standard christianity already instructs you to believe that there's a deity who created you, uniquely and specially. CS + ID exist to bolster support in this belief, by rubbishing the work of biologists who dare to suggest otherwise. The fact that CS + ID are content-free and require no intellectual effort to believe (contrary to biology which takes years of study) does make them appealing to people in a country where "book-learning" (as long as the book isn't the bible) is seen as threatening. And that's quite apart from the fact that you can make large wads of tax-free cash out of publicly posturing to this effect -- see Ken Ham's $25 million dollar 'creation museum'.

In short, there's nothing really surprising about the growth and rapid evolution of of fundamentalist religions. At some stage, like President Bush, they may become so detached from reality that people may come to realise that they're being sold a line, but that's not likely to be any time soon.

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

At some stage, like President Bush, they may become so detached from reality that people may come to realise that they're being sold a line, but that's not likely to be any time soon.

Interesting thoughts there robindch, had not thought about the commercial implications to it.
Unfortunatly, I think they have already become detached from reality and are starting their own version of christianity, or should I say christianinsanity.

If I meet Christopher Columbus in the next life I am going to give him an earfull like he never got on this earth.:)

robindch

> had not thought about the commercial implications to it.

There are important commercial implications in every religion as you more than adequately pointed out a week or two back with that elegant list of financial wheezes pulled by the eastern religions (thanks)! Look, for example, at the number of religions which insist on tithes and the resulting financial clout which the religious leaders hold. Here in Ireland, the catholic church is the second largest holder of property after the state itself and I don't imagine that it's any different in most other countries.

> Unfortunatly, I think they have already become detached
> from reality and are starting their own version of christianity

I'm not sure if I made myself clear enough earlier on -- religions are easiest to understand if they're viewed as self-sustaining social organisms which, like living organisms, will do whatever it takes to stay alive. As part of this, they'll adapt themselves to be able to sustain themselves in whatever social and human conditions they find themselves in, or else they'll die out, obviously enough.

So in a sense, "starting their own version of christianity" isn't quite the right way of looking at it. It's much closer to the act of intentionally adapting a social organism which is able to sustain itself in one society, into one which can sustain itself in a different one. The nature of "the message" isn't really very important, but the way that it's presented is absolutely vital. This is why the American megachurches will carry out, for example, future-user preference surveys before they set up in an area -- a delicious example of fully conscious, pre-meditated memetic evolution in action!

BrianCalgary

[QUOTE=Asiaprod
To me, that almost appears to be a closed system, and that would definitely be an impediment to progress.




[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

The above was based on my understanding of those doctrines that are non-negotiable.

The doctrines that I cited are those on which Christianity is based. Without those the Christian faith is nothing but a man made religion. If Christ is not God, He is not worth worshipping or trusting. There are about 67 different prophecies in the OLd Testament regarding the Messiah. They all came true in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, including the virgin birth, which make that event non-negotiable. Without His sacrifice the purpose is gone, and without the resurrection we do not have victory over death.

Those are doctrinal truths central to the Christian faith. I would gather by Jesus statement that "there will be many that call on His name but He knows them not" that if you don't claim Him as the God He is you obviously don't know Him and therefore can not be called a Christian. These are God's words not mine. It woul dbe like me in math class not accepting that 2 + 2 equaled 4. Imagine where all my math problems would go after that denial of central truth? Would you trust any bridge that I may build if I stood up and said yes but 2 + 2 doesn't reslly equal 4 and this is how I prove it? And I can through a silly little game on my fingers.

In conclusion, If you wish to get to know Christ and put your faith and trust in Him those are the basics. Then we can find what He wants you to do with your life, and that is an absolute joy, to be doing His will. And any good church will help and walk along side your growth without the Catholic or Anglican BIG (Built In Guilt).

BTW what is CS/ID?

wolfsbane

wiseones2cents said:

My time is limited so keep it simple and answer My two Scriptures I provided without adding more imput.

So is mine, my friend, so I'll cut to the essentials.

Your Scripture texts show that Jesus was a man: exactly what all Christians have held since His time. How can that disprove He was God? Our teaching is that He was God who humbled Himself and became also a man. Not that He was only God; not that He was only man; not that He was a bit of God and a bit of man; but that He was fully both God and man.

So I have provided Scripture to show He both claimed to be so, was recognised by His followers as such, and said to be so by the Scripture itself.

You say His claim to deity, eg. 'before Abraham was, I am', was the way folk talked back then. Really? Perhaps you will give me one example inthe NT where anyone referred to himself in a past event by using the present tense? Or you can just admit you made that up.

You say that Thomas' confession of Christ as his Lord and God was really an exclaimation that used the name of God. That is to imagine him breaking the third commandment in Jesus' very face.

Now to Hebrews 1, which you have trouble in seeing how it speaks of God:

8 But to the Son He says:


“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”



10 And:



“ You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
11 They will perish, but You remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;
12 Like a cloak You will fold them up,
And they will be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not fail.”

These are quotations from the Old Testament, Psalm 45:6, 7 and Psalm 102:25-27: check out Psalm 102 which should prove Christ's deity beyond dispute, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20102;&version=50;

Or perhaps you can explain why the author of Hebrews applies these texts to Jesus Christ?

robindch

> what is CS/ID?

"CS" = Creation Science (so called by its propoents), or Creationism by most other people.
"ID" = Intelligent Design, or creationism with a fine makeover from the PR industry, and without the biblical references.

http://www.creationtheory.org gives a fairly good overview of creationism and evolution, while the more comprehensive http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html gives an excellent and measured point-by-point rebuttal to the varying claims of the different species of creationists found out in the wild.

It's a huge pity that the people who'd benefit most from a quick read of these sites never seem to, so they never get an understanding of what biologists are saying about biology, rather than misinformed or misinforming religious fundamentalists are saying about biology. But then again, biology is difficult, while creationism is easy -- which one would most people go for in an uninformed society?

bmoferrall

@wiseone2cents

Respect is due for the evident time and effort you have invested in studying scripture. It's clear from wiser contributors to this thread, however, that you have come to some incorrect conclusions. As fallible beings this can happen to any one of us; we should, however, be humble enough to admit our errors when they are clearly exposed.

Wolfsbane et al. have shown beyond all reasonable doubt that the only possible interpretation of scripture is that Jesus was indeed God. If he weren't then we might as well close the book and place it back on the shelf.
If your interpretation were correct then the narrow road spoken of by Jesus is even narrower than anyone of us could have conceived; heaven would be a very lonely place with just wiseone2cents and a few cronies holding court.

"He who is not for me is against me".
Might I respectfully suggest that by disseminating your alternative Gospel you will be acting against God.
At the very least I hope that you will desist from further spreading this insidious doctrine in the name of Christianity.

Respectfully yours

myhumble2cents

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

Here in Ireland, the catholic church is the second largest holder of property after the state itself and I don't imagine that it's any different in most other countries.

Got the picture, guess I have been over here to long (20 yrs) and forgotten most of this, thanks for the timely reminder.

Religions are easiest to understand if they're viewed as self-sustaining social organisms which, like living organisms, will do whatever it takes to stay alive.

Well if I view it that way, it does make many aspects much easier to understand. I always appreciate your ideas robindch, since I am oldish :-), and much more set in my way, I always find you present me with new perspectives for reviewing things.

(A little note to wiseone here, please take note of this example of the correct way to debate and teach others. Robindch and myself follow different paths, but we acknowledge commonality in certain areas)

lazydaisy

A comment on the O post:

Christmas: a holiday that comes from a story about homelessness and poverty has been turned into a season that is about domesticity and wealth.

©® CB

I am not a religious man. I was brought up a non-denominational Christian and did a lot of church hopping growing up and in my adult life. It pains me that most churches will not accept alternate views. They all start off saying "It's fine if you're just here for the fellowship." but always end up expecting you to adopt their views on life and faith. I've struggled with life issues and often delved into the Bible looking for the different perspectives.

I agree that the issue of "God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is a difficult one. I believe my grandfather said it best when he said "I am James. I am also a father, a husband, a son, a brother, a grandfather, and a great-grandfather." All the same person, but different personifications, if you will. His life as a son is quite different than his life as a grandfather, but still embodied in the same being. I know it's over-simplified, but...

Let us not forget that Jesus not only died for our sins, but so that God could again "marry" Israel since He had divorced her. Since God is not contrary to His law, Israel could not remarry unless her husband was deceased. So God took on flesh so that He could fulfill His covenant with Israel.

As for those saying that it's OK to celebrate christmas even though it is a pagan holy day because they do it in rememberence of Jesus and not for pagan reasons, don't forget God's view of the Israelites while Moses was on the mountain. They built an idol and had a feast unto Yahweh. They practiced a pagan rite in the name of God. I don't recall that he was too happy.

Also, if you'll recall that God warned us that the ways of the heathen (going into the forest, cutting down a tree, and "decking" it with silver and gold) were vain. Remember that the tree is a pagan symbol of the renewal of life following the winter solstice - the shortest day of the year.

Cantab.

I thought the Pope sporting a velvet hat with white ermine trim a la Santa Claus was a jab to the face of commercialism. His reclaiming of the true celebration of Christmas was most fitting.

The liberals will celebrate Christmas and say how beautiful the crib is in December, but come the new year, they'll be back on their church-bashing band-wagon of 'intolerance', 'conservativism', 'behind the times', etc., etc.

Happy New Year everyone! 2006 A.D.

elvenscout742

Well, I think that if Benny said that he is forgetting the true meaning of Generic Midwinter Festival. It's not about worshipping your god and forcing others to do the same or else to bugger off and not have a holiday at the coldest, darkest part of the year; it's meant to be about feasting, gift-giving and being with friends and family.