Is there two Gods, Father and Son?

Glenman

I find this quite confusing.
The mystery of the Holy Trinity says that there are three parts to the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Therefore are God the Father and Jesus two different people?
Jesus says in his teachings "Only through Me and you get to the Father" and when he was dying on the cross he says "Father, why have You forsaken me"

I find it quite confusing, Is it a different thing to pray to God and to pray to Jesus?

4-age

No there three parts of the one thing.

Excelsior

Good questions but unbelievably hard to explain. The Christian God is one but composed of 3 distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son Jesus and God the Spirit. I personally don't think anyone has improved on Patrick's famous shamrock analogy myself.

But all three persons of God can be approached through prayer. You can pray for guidance and consolation from the Spirit, for forgiveness and provision from God the Father and for, oh I don't know, healing and boldness from Jesus the Son in the same prayer. See the unique picture of God that we have through Jesus is of a God who is a relationship. All 3 are in community together loving and relating to the others. This is why Jesus, as you have quoted, constantly referred to doing his Father's work and to giving us the Spirit.

The implications for our life here on Earth should be obvious. If we humans are made in the image of God and God is defined in terms of how He relates then we should be seeking community and reconciliation in our own relationships. We can know that because we are image bearers of this communal God, then we will find the deepest satisfaction in life in healthy loving relationship.

This hasn't even come close to explaining the Trinity but maybe St. Patrick's picture can help with that. To answer your question, all three are distinct personalities so perfectly in unison that they are a unity, a One. And you can address your prayers to all three.

IrishLDS

Glenman wrote:

I find this quite confusing.
The mystery of the Holy Trinity says that there are three parts to the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Therefore are God the Father and Jesus two different people?
Jesus says in his teachings "Only through Me and you get to the Father" and when he was dying on the cross he says "Father, why have You forsaken me"

I find it quite confusing, Is it a different thing to pray to God and to pray to Jesus?

The Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan creed, claim that The father, son and Holy Ghost are three persons, co-eternal and co-equal with one another, in one being. Jesus praying to his father does not contradict it. It insteads refutes a Christolological heresy called "Modalism," where the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three _expressions_ or _modes_ of the one person.

As for the bolded part of the quote, there are distinct persons, according to Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan creed.

Just my two cents as I understand the issue, as a theology student.

Scofflaw

Council of Chalcedon (451 AD):

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;
in all things like unto us, without sin;
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;
the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;
as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. "

Be careful out there - this particular question has give rise to nearly as many heresies and schisms as good/evil duality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Glenman

Thanks guys, this clarifies the matter a little.
I wouldn’t mind studying a bit of theology myself to gain more of an understanding of faith, the church etc

Conar

Don't forget that this could all be a load of crap.

3 Gods, 1 god??????

If religion really made any sense then would your religion really depend on where you were born? Would they have to fill your head with all that crap while you're really young and easily led?

Has there ever been a period in history when the church wasn't an evil or biggoted organisation and was as holy as the prayers they preach?
How can they tell us that homosexuallity is imorral while they hide paedophiles?

Why are all the completely ridiculously impossible parts of the bibles all of a sudden less relevant, why don't people wake up and smell the coffee?

Sorry for ranting, but religion really winds me up some times expecially the catholic one as its hard to escape in this country!

If anyone wants to give out to me I'll be back later to check for replies, I just need to pop out and have a laugh at the thought of Noah and his Arc, the Towers of Babylon, Kane and Able, the earth being created in 7 days and all the other completely ridiculous things that I'm to mention.

Follow the path to true enlightenment, THINK FOR YOURSELF!

P.S. If you need to be baptised to go to heaven, then what happens to all the babies that die before they can be baptised?
I'll tell you where....the same place every one else goes.
NOWHERE! There is no heaven!

Can GOD see into the future? That'd be a pretty cool power!
Does GOD have a house? Does he have an camera on the gates of heaven so that he can see who's coming?

Lol, I'm starting to enjoy this rant!
I can't stop myself!

Conar

And another thing...

Is God the god of Earth, our galaxy, or everywhere?
Do Catholics believe in the possibility of alien life?
If so does god love us all equally or does he love us more cos he created us in his image?
Actually, if God is the kind creature that he is supposed to be then he must love everyone equally EVEN aliens.
Hold on, if he loves aliens as much as us then he probably created them in his own image too.
But...but....wait a minute.....hold on a second.....then all aliens would look like us......but then we wouldn't be able to distinguish between the real us's and aliens.....they may be among us already.....aaaaaagh


P.S. Religion is for twits that refuse to question the silly little lies that they were told when they were kids!
Go on admit it, you think I'm awful! How un-christian of you!
I bet your brain is trying to tell itself not to question the silly impossibilites of your religion! "Shush, stop questioning me and I'll release some more ignorance endorphins ......mmmmmmm"

Glenman

If you have no faith Conar then why did you log on to this forum?
I have to agree that all the scandals etc in the church would turn anyone against religion, especially films like the Magdeline Sisters and child abuse revelations.
The church was used by many pedophiles to gain access children.

Let us not concern ourselves with those people, everyone will be judged.
All we can do is to live our lives to the best of our ability. I am a Catholic but don’t really ponder about stuff like Noah and his Arc, the Towers of Babylon, Kane and Able, the earth being created in 7 days etc... I'd say that a lot of the material in the Old Testament are fairy tales alright.

I just try to live my life to the best of my ability, by trying to be a good person by trying to love God and my neighbor.
We have a responsibility to bring souls closer to God, God will be very happy if we manage to save one soul from Hell or a very long time in Purgatory.
I try to resist the temptations of the devil in this world to the best of my ability but that is easier said than done.
But I believe in the forgiveness of sin and if we repent and make penance we will be forgiven. God loves us and he does not want to sentence us to an eternity in hell, Padre Pio once said that we are even offered a chance to repent following our death, that is how much He loves us.

If death is really the end then life would be fairly pointless. We need to have faith and believe. It is easy to believe when we see like doubting Thomas.

Imagine Conar if you are wrong, you may be destined to an eternity in the despair of hell or purgatory. I pray that if what you are saying are really your true feelings that you will see the light and turn to God and let His will be done before it is too late.

Conar

Glenman wrote:

Let us not concern ourselves with those people, everyone will be judged.
All we can do is to live our lives to the best of our ability. I am a Catholic but don’t really ponder about stuff like Noah and his Arc, the Towers of Babylon, Kane and Able, the earth being created in 7 days etc... I'd say that a lot of the material in the Old Testament are fairy tales alright.

But if you ignore the basis of your religion then what's the point?

Glenman wrote:

I just try to live my life to the best of my ability, by trying to be a good person by trying to love God and my neighbor.

Why do you need to love some mythical being, just be a good person.

Glenman wrote:

We have a responsibility to bring souls closer to God, God will be very happy if we manage to save one soul from Hell or a very long time in Purgatory.
I try to resist the temptations of the devil in this world to the best of my ability but that is easier said than done.
But I believe in the forgiveness of sin and if we repent and make penance we will be forgiven. God loves us and he does not want to sentence us to an eternity in hell, Padre Pio once said that we are even offered a chance to repent following our death, that is how much He loves us.

Why do we have this responsibility?
Do you ever question anything you believe in?

Glenman wrote:

If death is really the end then life would be fairly pointless. We need to have faith and believe. It is easy to believe when we see like doubting Thomas.

Imagine Conar if you are wrong, you may be destined to an eternity in the despair of hell or purgatory. I pray that if what you are saying are really your true feelings that you will see the light and turn to God and let His will be done before it is too late.

Yes death is the end for us but the cycle of life goes on, it is beautiful and does not need to have a point! Believing in a god just in case is ridiculous.
And this whole thought that if there was a heaven that only the believers would get there is ridiculous! What about all the good people that are born in places that Gods so called word has not spread, are they automatically doomed?
Is God failing them?
What about babies that die shortly after birth will they spend eternity in purgatory?

I don't understand how an obviously well educated person can believe in such drivel.
Do yourself a favour, question everything you have been taught!
If you honestly go through everything about your religion point by point you will see that it could not be true!

Asiaprod

Conar wrote:

P.S. Religion is for twits that refuse to question the silly little lies that they were told when they were kids!
Go on admit it, you think I'm awful! How un-christian of you!
I bet your brain is trying to tell itself not to question the silly impossibilites of your religion! "Shush, stop questioning me and I'll release some more ignorance endorphins ......mmmmmmm"

Conor, you are not being un-christian, you are being a total ass. Part of the rules you agreeed to abided by are to honor the charter. Even if you dont believe in their god, the least you can do is honor their charter. You are not just attaking their god or their religion, you are in fact also attacking the Christians themselves.
Wise up, man. Act with respect for yourself.:)

Conar

Asiaprod wrote:

Conor, you are not being un-christian, you are being a total ass. Part of the rules you agreeed to abided by are to honor the charter. Even if you dont believe in their god, the least you can do is honor their charter. You are not just attaking their god or their religion, you are in fact also attacking the Christians themselves.
Wise up, man. Act with respect for yourself.:)

Yeah apologies all, I don't really mean to be that offensive. It just that all this stuff really baffles me!
Everyone is entitled to there opinion so I will not interfere with any more religious discussions in the religious forums.
If anyone wants a light hearted debate though in another forum, please let me know!

Excelsior

Conar wrote:

Don't forget that this could all be a load of crap.

Its hard to forget that when I enjoy meeting people like you everyday who'll remind me.

Conar wrote:

3 Gods, 1 god??????

Think about it this way Conar. God is love, right? If God existed you'd agree that would be a pretty good quality to have. It is one of only 2 categorical statements made about God in the whole Bible. But if God were 1 then He could not be love. Think about it, God existed before the creation of everything and if he was one he could not have been love because he had no object to love. Fundamentally, he couldn't share because there was nothing to share with so he couldn't have been love. This is one of the very deep realisations that if you think about might make you reconsider your assumption that Christianity is a load of bollocks.

[QUOTE=Conar[If religion really made any sense then would your religion really depend on where you were born? Would they have to fill your head with all that crap while you're really young and easily led?[/QUOTE]

I was once told by a student, "You are only a Christian because you were born in Dublin. If you born in Madagascar you would not be a Christian!"

I responded by saying, "You are only a relativisitc secular humanist becuase you were born in Dublin. If you born in Madagascar you would in fact, be a Christian!"

I think the room collectively said "ZING!" Don't make me zing you. ;D

Conar wrote:

Has there ever been a period in history when the church wasn't an evil or biggoted organisation and was as holy as the prayers they preach?
How can they tell us that homosexuallity is imorral while they hide paedophiles?

They are one church. But you are right. All churches are screwed up. But the point isn't the message carrier, it is the message. You can't deny Jesus because some of his followers are self righteous.

Conar wrote:

Why are all the completely ridiculously impossible parts of the bibles all of a sudden less relevant, why don't people wake up and smell the coffee?

I am an evangelical Christian. I believe that the whole Bible is inspired by God. The Bible is my supreme authority in matters of faith and I don't discard any of it. All of it is relevant. But that doesn't mean all of it is literally true or meant to be taken as history. I love the smell of coffee but I also love the books of 1 & 2 Samuel in the Old Testament.

Conar wrote:

Sorry for ranting, but religion really winds me up some times expecially the catholic one as its hard to escape in this country!

I think of all things, the questions of ultimate significance should rile us up. You are completely welcome to come and rant here because we all love a good honest debate about these things that really matter. But maybe you should play the ball and not the man.

Conar wrote:

If anyone wants to give out to me I'll be back later to check for replies, I just need to pop out and have a laugh at the thought of Noah and his Arc, the Towers of Babylon, Kane and Able, the earth being created in 7 days and all the other completely ridiculous things that I'm to mention.

Genesis 1-11 are not intended to be literally read. I wish I could bring myself to laugh at people who discard Christianity on the utterly spurious readings that they have led themselves to but it is actually a terrible shame.

Conar wrote:

Follow the path to true enlightenment, THINK FOR YOURSELF!

Follow the path to true enlightenment, THINK WITH RELEVANT INFORMATION AND DON'T STOP THINKING!

Conar wrote:

P.S. If you need to be baptised to go to heaven, then what happens to all the babies that die before they can be baptised?

No one advocates the position you offer.

Conar wrote:

I'll tell you where....the same place every one else goes.
NOWHERE! There is no heaven!

Blind faith strikes so many people down.

Conar wrote:

Can GOD see into the future? That'd be a pretty cool power!
Does GOD have a house? Does he have an camera on the gates of heaven so that he can see who's coming?

I think you have to start taking your own advice on thinking for yourself.

Coanr wrote:

Is God the god of Earth, our galaxy, or everywhere?

God is God of all that exists.

Conar wrote:

Do Catholics believe in the possibility of alien life?

I haven't asked all of them but they generally accept the possibility and happily remain agnostic like all sensible people.

Conar wrote:

If so does god love us all equally or does he love us more cos he created us in his image?

All humans bear his image. His Revelation is to us. If you would like some profound thoughts on what aliens would mean for Christianity then CS Lewis has a trilogy of books called the Space Trilogy and a series of essays called The World's Last Night which you will probably be able to get in a library.

Conar wrote:

Actually, if God is the kind creature that he is supposed to be then he must love everyone equally EVEN aliens.

Well its a big assumption. The aliens might all be microbial bacteria. They don't bear his image. If the (potential) aliens are able to create then I think he loves them as much.

Conar wrote:

But...but....wait a minute.....hold on a second.....then all aliens would look like us......but then we wouldn't be able to distinguish between the real us's and aliens.....they may be among us already.....aaaaaagh

Image bearingness has nothing to do with how we look. How we look is as a result of the process of evolution.

Conar wrote:

P.S. Religion is for twits that refuse to question the silly little lies that they were told when they were kids!

There is nothing much childish than the fear of being considered child-like.

Conar wrote:

I bet your brain is trying to tell itself not to question the silly impossibilites of your religion!

Yeah my brain is doing that. Especially since God, in the form of Jesus more often than I can list here said things along the lines of, "Oh, you don't understand what I'm saying? That's fine. Go away and think about it."

I doubt you'll be back for debate now that you see that people around here are a bit smarter than your classmates in school but you are welcome to as long as you stop insulting the Christians here.

robindch

> i wouldn’t mind studying a bit of theology myself to gain
> more of an understanding of faith, the church etc

hmm... I suggest you read up on psychology and history instead!

4-age

What about all the good people that are born in places that Gods so called word has not spread, are they automatically doomed?
Is God failing them?

i sugesst you read vatican 2 namely lumen gentium cahpter 2 paragraph 16
and also nostra aetete.this should set you straight on the views of the church regarding other religions.
here is lumen gentium
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
And here is nostra aetate
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Suff

Hold on a sec.............

If people believe that Christ is the "Son" of GOD and therfore should be whorshiped as GOD then what do they say of All the Prophpets that came before Christ? did they whorship Christ and his "father"?
I know they all told of the coming of the Messiah..but you may ask another Question...when was christ actullay created? at Birth or was he before that up in the heavens with GOD??

I really find it silly to think of Christ as the son of GOD. why would GOD needs a son? reproduction? but that means that GOD doesn't have the GOD-ly properties (Sexless,forever living and so on...)
its just silly

Excelsior

Wow yeah. Thanks Suff. We were just being silly for the last 1970 years.

John's Gospel is clear that Jesus is the creative force from before the universe. This is made explicit in the letters to the Colossians, Jesus claims that before Abraham was, "I AM" and Hebrews claims that all the prophets were worshipping him in faith as Paul makes explicity specifically in the letter to the Romans.

You might think it silly. But it seems all your questions are dealt with.

Suff

Excelsior wrote:

Wow yeah. Thanks Suff. We were just being silly for the last 1970 years.

John's Gospel is clear that Jesus is the creative force from before the universe. This is made explicit in the letters to the Colossians, Jesus claims that before Abraham was, "I AM" and Hebrews claims that all the prophets were worshipping him in faith as Paul makes explicity specifically in the letter to the Romans.

You might think it silly. But it seems all your questions are dealt with.

thats one version of the bible.
also the prophets did not ask people to whorship Christ!, can you please offer us any refreces of such act...they all called for the whorship of ONE God.

BrianCalgary

Suff wrote:

thats one version of the bible.
also the prophets did not ask people to whorship Christ!, can you please offer us any refreces of such act...they all called for the whorship of ONE God.

The prophets tried to bring people back to worship the one and only God. They looked forward to the Messiah who has 68 odd different prophrcies concerning his identity.

All 68 are fulfilled in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, which makes Him the Messiah. He also said that He is God. And that He is one with the Father. One of the mysteries that I don't get completely but the Bible speaks of. That God has revealed Himself in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

There are not three gods, but one God existing for eternity as the perfect relationship between three persons, within the one.

Suff

In regards to the three versions of GOD as you put it
it can be also stated as

the meaning of the Father is the ONE GOD.
the meaning of the son is the prophet Essa "Christ".
the meaning of the holy spirit is the angel Gabrial.

so it might be taken as to believe in the message of Christ a person must believe in the other two that contribute/ major part of the message.

this can also be the exact situation for the rest of the prophets, moses, Muhammad, Abraham, Joah, Lut, Jacoub, Isac, Ismael and so on.
as to beleiev in their message you must believe in the elements that allowed the message to be deliverd,...GOD + PROPHET + ANGEL = Religion!

Glenman

Thanks folks, it's as clear as mud now!!
Honestly, it's a bit clearer, I understand that it's hard to get your head around, sure it wouldn't be a mystery otherwise.

MeditationMom

Looking for truth like needles in a haystack - or diamonds in the mud -

BrianCalvary wrote:

There are not three gods, but one God existing for eternity as the perfect relationship between three persons, within the one.

True, except for the word "three persons". To use the word "person" in any way to describe "God" is not a good idea. "Three aspects" would be better. It could be explained as the same trinity that exists in us- Body, Mind, and Soul equals Brian Calvary. One Brian. Not like Freud and his divisions of the psyche. Father Ego, Son Ego and Holy Spirit Ego - three identities - one identity is enough trouble.

For the really brave - "It is the reality that is physical, the reality that is non-physical, and the reality that is neither physical nor non-physical, all in One and as One, Eternal Presence." For our purposes, or needing to address a person we may create God in our image, as a "Father" or man or he, but in truth it is the other way around - we are created in his image.

Originally Posted by Conar
I'll tell you where....the same place every one else goes.
NOWHERE! There is no heaven!

That place is God. Not heaven. No angles, no harps, no 72 virgins! And it is indeed NOWHERE! It is completly out of Space and Time. No beginning and no end.

kiffer

Excelsior wrote:

Wow yeah. Thanks Suff. We were just being silly for the last 1970 years.

...

You might think it silly. But it seems all your questions are dealt with.

No of course you weren't just being silly for the last 1970 odd years. It's all the other religions that are wrong.
They believe all kinds of silly things, but Christianity is perfectly logical and makes perfect sense.

BrianCalvary wrote:

All 68 are fulfilled in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, which makes Him the Messiah.

Umm... to be honest some of these feel alittle forced... I've lost the link I had for them ... so I'll shut up on that point

BrianCalvary wrote:

He also said that He is God. And that He is one with the Father.

Well then it must be true... after all no one that says they are god could be wrong...

I prefer the phrasing of 3 apsects over the people. There is no real problem with a god being in two places at once.
People can be thought of as having an Ego, a Superego and an Id, why cant God have such aspects with out any problems?
Did Jesus exist before he was born...?
I think that one is more tricky... Personaly I think that it makes sense to say that he didn't. (although that part of him that was God could have)
Jesus is the human part of God, I think that before his incarnation as Jesus, God didn't really understand us, I know that sounds crazy after all god is all knowing ... but he often makes odd statements that don't seem all knowing in the old testament, he's also far more of an angery god before his time as a human.
God made Jesus so that he could experiance life as a human, not just to open the gates to heaven by allowing a pure person to suffer and die.
Maybe Jesus is what allows god to understand why people sometimes turn against him, on the cross Jesus cries out "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Even Jesus (God as a human) questions what God is doing...

New Testament God is far less of an angery god than he was in the old testament, I think because now he knows what it's like to suffer, to be human, I think thats how Jesus saves us ... be letting God know just how hard it is down here...
Sure theres the whole pure person to open the gates ... but God could have just done that himself anyway...
and If he just wanted a new testament he could have just showed up as a burning bush or somesuch thing again.

ISAW

Excelsior wrote:

Good questions but unbelievably hard to explain. The Christian God is one but composed of 3 distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son Jesus and God the Spirit. I personally don't think anyone has improved on Patrick's famous shamrock analogy myself.

Take someone like JFK. He could be "father" to the nation, which means that he gave a spitit of guidance not that he was actually fathering children for people. (bad choice of example ) In another way hes was a "father" of his kids. He was also a son of his father a quite different role. He could be viewed in different ways and show different natures depending on which role you consider. Indeed to his staff in the Whitehouse or to the Commanders in Chief of the Military he might have appeared to be a different person than he appeared to his children. But there was only one JFK.

ISAW

Some variations on the "was Jesus God?" theme (given that I referred to Newton as an "Arian heretic" in another thread on this group.
from Abelard.org/heresies
Arianism [ The doctrine denying the ‘divinity’ of Christ, named after the Alexandrian priest, Arius (c. AD 250 – c. 336). It maintained that the Son was not eternal or of one nature with God, but was a dependent instrument created for the redemption of the world, rather in the nature of a puppet. Therefore, the son must have had a beginning in time. Therefore, the son was not the ‘equal’ of the father. Arius, like Nestorius, is regarded as a major-league heretic. This is probably because his critique is not the most simple to contest: he accented the absolute oneness of the divinity as the highest perfection, and had a literal or rationalist approach to the New Testament texts. An attempted fix for Arianism was to say that the son had always existed. Compare with Eutyches and with Apollinarianism.

A later member of the Arian tendency was Aëtius (4th century), who founded the Anomoeans. He regarded theology as formal logic and developed three hundred syllogisms, forty-seven of which still exist. He held that the essential difference between ‘god’ and Christ was that God had always existed, while Christ was created by God. Aëtius, the founder of the Anomoeans, reasoned that the doctrine carried to its logical conclusion must mean that God and Christ could not be alike. Aëtius argued that self-existence is a part of the nature of God and that therefore Christ could not be like God, because christ lacked this necessary quality. Aëtius was excommunicated and his works burnt, so knowledge of his views is sketchy.

In 325 the General Council of Nicaea rejected this ploy and defined the doctrine of the coeternity and coequality of God and the Son. This is the doctrine sometimes impressively called homoousion or of one essence. Thus the church defined Arius as a major irritant and called him a heretic. Arius, not to be left out of the fun, accused his bishop of Sabellianism , that is a failure to distinguish the members of the trinity! All against all, and all is paranoia: these are the standard tools of state oppression. Modern echoes of Arianism can be seen today in Unitarianism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. ‘Solutions’ often involve referring to Jesus as a ‘prophet’, as is the case with Islam.



Another attempt at solving the problems was Docetism (from the Greek, dokein, ‘to seem’), one of the earliest Christian sectarian doctrines, which claimed that ‘christ’ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one. Its incipient forms are alluded to in the New Testament, such as in the Letters of John (e.g., 1 John 4:1–3, 2 John 7). Docetism became more fully developed as a form of Gnosticism, as a dualist system of belief akin to Manichaeanism, which arose in the 2nd century AD. Docetism claimed that salvation was to be attained only through esoteric, often ‘secret’ knowledge, or gnosis.

The ‘heresy’ developed from speculations about the imperfection or essential impurity of matter. More thoroughgoing Docetists asserted that Christ was born without any participation of matter and that all the acts and sufferings of his life, including the Crucifixion, were mere appearances. They consequently denied Christ's Resurrection and Ascension into ‘heaven’. Milder Docetists attributed to Christ an ethereal and heavenly body, but disagreed on the degree to which it shared the real actions and sufferings of Christ. All opponents of Gnosticism attacked Docetism, especially Bishop Ignatius of Antioch in the 2nd century.

r those wishing to plumb the complexities of fourth-century heresies, much historical detail and oceans of references may be found in:
Barnes, M.R. & Williams, D.H., Arianism after Arius: Essays on the Development of the Fourth Century Trinitarian Conflicts (Edinburgh, 1993, T & T Clark, 0567096416)

ISAW

kiffer wrote:

No of course you weren't just being silly for the last 1970 odd years. It's all the other religions that are wrong.
They believe all kinds of silly things, but Christianity is perfectly logical and makes perfect sense.

Since Thomas Acquinas it is as rationasl as the greeks got anyway. that would be the the same Greek thinkrers on which the rationality of science is bases.

Well then it must be true... after all no one that says they are god could be wrong...

the point is given for the OP who it seems believes Jesus is god and does not lie and the Biblical account is true as far as translation goes.

I prefer the phrasing of 3 apsects over the people. There is no real problem with a god being in two places at once.
People can be thought of as having an Ego, a Superego and an Id, why cant God have such aspects with out any problems?
Did Jesus exist before he was born...?

I think you will find that before Soddm and gomorrah were destroyed that three persons came to Abraham. Why did Abraham venerate all three if two of them were lesser beings?

Genesis 1:26 "Let US make man in OUR image"

Micah 5:2 His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.

I think that one is more tricky... Personaly I think that it makes sense to say that he didn't.
(although that part of him that was God could have)

theology and dogma would be against you on that point.

Jesus is the human part of God, I think that before his incarnation as Jesus, God didn't really understand us, I know that sounds crazy after all god is all knowing ... but he often makes odd statements that don't seem all knowing in the old testament, he's also far more of an angery god before his time as a human.

This has been debated at length centuries ago. The idea isnt that God becomes man to help HIm but to help US.

God made Jesus so that he could experiance life as a human, not just to open the gates to heaven by allowing a pure person to suffer and die.

Jesus didnt use his power for advancement. He used it sometimes to help others but he didnt use it to fly to destinations, to get off the cross etc. In short the lesson is that we can follow the same life as Jesus.

Maybe Jesus is what allows god to understand why people sometimes turn against him, on the cross Jesus cries out "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Even Jesus (God as a human) questions what God is doing...

which illustrates an answer to the question "why are we born to suffer and die?"

New Testament God is far less of an ang[e]ry god than he was in the old testament, I think because now he knows what it's like to suffer, to be human, I think thats how Jesus saves us ... be letting God know just how hard it is down here...
Sure theres the whole pure person to open the gates ... but God could have just done that himself anyway...

when you are a child you view older people as powerful and to be obeyed. when you grow up you respect them as peers. And I am here not necessarily suggesting Man is the equal of God.

and If he just wanted a new testament he could have just showed up as a burning bush or somesuch thing again.

Not if a "you can do this too" message is required.

kiffer

ISAW wrote:

Since Thomas Acquinas it is as rationasl as the greeks got anyway. that would be the the same Greek thinkrers on which the rationality of science is bases.

I don't quite see where you are going here...

the point is given for the OP who it seems believes Jesus is god and does not lie and the Biblical account is true as far as translation goes.

I just won't except the argument of "Of course Jesus is God, He said he was and he should know after all, He is God and therefore would tell the truth"
It doesn't just require a leap of faith... it's circular logic and therefore flawed.

I think you will find that before Soddm and gomorrah were destroyed that three persons came to Abraham. Why did Abraham venerate all three if two of them were lesser beings?

Genesis 1:26 "Let US make man in OUR image"

Micah 5:2 His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.

Why would he venerate all three?
Well... hummm... I'll have to go think about that...
At a guess with out rereading is that they were the 2 angels that he brought with him.
If God turned up with two angels in tow you'd be pretty repectfull of all 3, maybe not to the point of venerating them... but as I said I'll have to read up on that again...

As for Genesis 1:26 and Micah 5:2,
The use of 'we' and 'our' in genesis...
Some people have tried to tell me that it's a royal we. I don't agree and clearly neither do you. How ever I don't agree that He is talking to Jesus... I just don't think it fits.
I'm often tempted to think that it is a royal we after all, the start of Genesis has a different feel to it from the rest of the bible, for me at least. I can almost feel the change as you read through Genesis and into Exodus.
TBH I just don't know, if it's a change in stiles or what but I don't think he was talking to Jesus.

Micah 5:2,
My first reaction to you mentioning this was, old testiment ... nothing to do with Jesus.
so I looked it up and read the whole of Micah 4 and 5... which made me go hummm. because in my bible your quote appears in 5:1... which was confusing.
The foot notes in my bible would seem to indicate that this could be a referance to the line of David, but I don't buy that. If you read on it paints this Leader as a military leader, And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword

Further a little bit of looking round on the net suggests that "Bethlehem Ephratah" might be the clan of Bethlehem (the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah) rather than the town.

So all in all I wonder does it in fact reffer to the coming of jesus...

theology and dogma would be against you on that point.

They would often be.
However, many things are up for debate and lets face it I can safely say these things with out threat of Excommunication. I see no reason for Jesus to have existed before he was physicaly born. (other than the devine aspect of him... other wise he wouldn't be God)
Often theologians disagree with each other... and while I would not in any way even begin to consider calling my self a theologian having made no formal study of the subject, beyond my own personal reading and conversations with people, both like minded and of differing opinions, I'm happy to say that should someone disagree with me that does not invalidate either person theory.
This is not maths where there is a clear (or not so clear) and correct answer to questions, we are rather talking about things that happen almost two thousand years ago, involving entities which are beyond our abilities to truely understand, at best best we are making informed guesses.

Dogma differs from church to church and even with in churchs over time.

This has been debated at length centuries ago. The idea isnt that God becomes man to help HIm but to help US.

Thats very humanocentric, one can not know the mind of God, to say he did it for us and only for us with out reasons of his own... well... It's unknowable...
We clearly see a change in Gods behaviour in the New Testiment, what has changed? He has spent time as a human.

Jesus didnt use his power for advancement. He used it sometimes to help others but he didnt use it to fly to destinations, to get off the cross etc. In short the lesson is that we can follow the same life as Jesus.

I didn't say he used his power for advanvement(personal gain)...
I said God learned what it is to be human by becoming a human.
And to be honest some times jesus does to things like flying... He doesn't fly... just little things Walking on Water and turning Water in to Wine.
I feel that these are both miracals and momnets of weakness on Jesus' part.
Weakness!?! that's crazy talk you yell.
No, Not Crazy, Not the way I think about it, esp. the water in to wine, what devine and holy function did that have? sure weddings are a holy thing and it's nice to have wine at them but he only does it be cause his mother asks...
and Crying out about being foresaken on the cross was a moment of weakness, a reasonable one for a human, even one who is of the devine.
I'm getting side tracked...

Right. In short said, God made Jesus so that he could experiance life as a human, not just to open the gates to heaven by allowing a pure person to suffer and die.

That does not take away from the idea that Jesus' life is a good example to try to live by...
Which you seemed to think it did.

which illustrates an answer to the question "why are we born to suffer and die?"

Um... does it? I dont think that it does.

when you are a child you view older people as powerful and to be obeyed. when you grow up you respect them as peers. And I am here not necessarily suggesting Man is the equal of God.

Right... stop right there and go back a little... Is that an actual responce to my post?
I'm a little confused by it, it doesn't really follow on from the quote above it.
Your not suggesting that humans are equal to God just that we have grown up and no longer need to obey him?
Or that you consider my views on the topic Childish?
Either way that I'm not sure how that connects to my idea that God in the New Testament is a more understanding and less angry god than in the old Testament, due to his time incarnated as a human.

Not if a "you can do this too" message is required.

"you can do this too" would work just as well if he inspired a normal human to live such a life.

But instead of doing so he comes down and makes a body for himself ... why?
In my opinion it is not just because he wanted to show people the way... but is also because he ... well ... wants to see what all the fuss is about.
I guess that might sound a little odd if you believe that God is all knowing... which clearly he isn't, or perhapps he has made a choice not to be.

It's a free will vs no free will, if God knows exactly what we will do then how can that be free will.
It's not like we could surprise him...


Oh and should you spot any spe[e]ling misstakes there is no need to highlight them and if you should feel the need to do so I'm sure I can find one or two oddities in you posts.

BrianCalgary

kiffer wrote:

It's a free will vs no free will, if God knows exactly what we will do then how can that be free will.
It's not like we could surprise him...
.

If I were to put a plate of cooked carrots on the table beside a piece of birthday cake and told my son he could eat one of the plates, he can choose between the two.

Since I am his father and know him so well, I know before hand which he will choose.

God, being Our Father who art in Heaven, also knows us so well that he knows whether or not we will choose the path of self fulfillment or a path devoted to God's plan. It is our choice, but He just knows what we will decide.

BTW My son would eat the carrots.

Mr. Presentable

Glenman wrote:

I find this quite confusing.
The mystery of the Holy Trinity says that there are three parts to the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Therefore are God the Father and Jesus two different people?
Jesus says in his teachings "Only through Me and you get to the Father" and when he was dying on the cross he says "Father, why have You forsaken me"

I find it quite confusing, Is it a different thing to pray to God and to pray to Jesus?

There's lots of gods. Says so in the bible "thou shalt hold no other gods above me".

I think that clearly shows a demand to be top of the god tree. A Napoleon complex, I think it's called.

kiffer

nipplenuts wrote:

There's lots of gods. Says so in the bible "thou shalt hold no other gods above me".

I think that clearly shows a demand to be top of the god tree. A Napoleon complex, I think it's called.

Also answers who God is talking to in Genesis 3:22 and other places

X-SL

Excelsior, you said that he might not come back to debate now he has realised people are smarter here than his class mates.

I can find a few things wrong with this.

1) He apologised for being rude and said he wouldn't frequent this forum.
2) He suggested if anyone wanted a light hearted debate they should have it in another forum.
3) You haven't proved you are "smart" at all. All you have done is prove (I guess that is the word) that you have a belief in your God.

Now, onto the topic at hand.

I think it's pretty much fact that most people in Ireland are christians because most people are born into that religion even if they have un-religious parents. This is pretty much obvious because there has been a huge decline since the church lost it's "power" over people. Now that people are questioning the church, it's popularity has become less and less. Coincidence? Probably not.

Alot of people misinterpurt the bible. They believe it as pure fact. In my opinion most of the stories that Jesus and prophets told were purely to represent something and to have a meaning rather than to tell a story.
I have met people who think the adam and eve stories are true.

My mother is actually a perfect example of what I call a "Blind Christian". She was brought up in a religious family and attends mass every sunday. She prays etc. etc.
I asked her the other day;

Do plants and other organisms go to Heaven?

At this she seemed slightly puzzled. So I went on and asked

Do dogs go to heaven?

She replied that no they don't. Dogs have no "soul" apparently. I laughed. :rolleyes:

We are animals.. mammals just like all other animals. We have the ability to remember and to learn. We are more advanced brain-wise than all other animals. Does that mean we are the "chosen" ones? Certainly not!

Some animals can run faster than us. Some are stronger than us. Some can fly. Some can live under water. We can't do any of these things. They are superior to us in different ways and means so why are we the ones that are modelled off "God"?

---

To anyone:

Do you believe God is a physical body? If not, what then?
What is your vision of heaven?
Why does praying to God matter, if he will not intervene?
Why does going to mass to pray matter?
How is it better than praying on your own? (It's a personal thing anyway)
When in heaven, do you die or live forever?
Do you live forever as a a physical body?
Can you feel physically in heaven?
If not how can you fully get joy? (Taste, Kiss, Hug, Sex, Soft things etc.)
Do you believe in heaven and not hell?

Obviously I have a lot more questions but this post is getting too long!

One last thought:

You know when you are really wrecked (from work, soccer practise, long week without sleeping etc.) and you go up to bed. You lay yourself down and feel relaxed and dose into a nice sleep as soon as your head hits the pillow.

I think thats what happens when you die. You finally get to rest after a hard life. For me, this is my heaven. In my opinion, I would rather that than to continue living in heaven.

(And I don't mean you dream. I mean you just go to sleep.. fade into black. thats it.)

kiffer

X-SL wrote:

At this she seemed slightly puzzled. So I went on and asked
...

Maybe she hasn't thought about it before so she gives the most obviouse stock answer... If you'd asked it when you were little and your dog had just died you might have been told yes dogs do go to heaven.
It's all part of the Toothfairy/Easterbunny/Santa problem.



Do you believe God is a physical body? If not, what then?
Genesis would seem to indicate that God does have a physical body... how else could he walk in the garden in the cool of the day.
Of course I suppose Jesus could be said to be Gods physical body... but seeing as I don't agree that Jesus existed before he was born, then it can't have been him in the Garden.

ISAW

kiffer wrote:

I don't quite see where you are going here...

It seems to me you suggested that Christianity was not rational or scientific. It is! You must remember that for about 1400 years since it was written down almost all the rational thinkers and teachers were in the church.

I just won't except the argument of...

Which is why I pointed out the comment wasdirected at the OP who WILL accept it.

...
At a guess with out rereading is that they were the 2 angels that he brought with him.

this is a Jewish interpretation. it still leaves the Jews with the problem of not singeling out God for "special treatment".

Some people have tried to tell me that it's a royal we. I don't agree and clearly neither do you.

What I believe is beside the point here. whether the argument is valid is what matters. I suggest Hebrew makes certain distinction between singular and plural.

How ever I don't agree that He is talking to Jesus... I just don't think it fits.
... I can almost feel the change as you read through Genesis and into Exodus.

"Almost" . What do you mean by "feel"? what is different? In fact it is widely believed that the first four books had a common author probably Moses.
Job is a much older book than Genesis. Do you "feel" the same about that?

My first reaction to you mentioning this was, old testiment ... nothing to do with Jesus.
so I looked it up and read the whole of Micah 4 and 5...

the reason I used only old testament quotes is because you asked whether there is anything about Jesus existing before he was born. I posted a references to the Trinity in the old testament.

...might be the clan of Bethlehem (the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah) rather than the town.

If that clan was part of the house of David.

...does it in fact reffer to the coming of jesus...

there are a plethora of references to the Messiah. even Jews accept that. But to jews the Messiah might be someone wholly different to Jesus. ther are "Messianic Jews" as well. The question you asked however was about the actual Christian Trinity and/or Jesus being referred to before Christ i.e. in the Jewish scriptures.

... many things are up for debate and lets face it I can safely say these things with out threat of Excommunication.

some things you cant! also by believing certain things people already are not part of the community.

I see no reason for Jesus to have existed before he was physicaly born. (other than the devine aspect of him... other wise he wouldn't be God)

The Trinity if existant at any time must be existant at all times. You refer to something different now i.e. whether Jesus as man before 2000 years ago. how could he "become man" if he already did it? is it muddying the definition to ask "was Christ there before Christ" isn't it? the Latter Day Saints apparently believe this but I wouldn't regard them as Christian, let alone Protestant.

Often theologians disagree with each other... should someone disagree with me that does not invalidate either person theory.

No it doesn't. That is why we rely on citation and evidence on what we mutually accept as true.

This is not maths where there is a clear (or not so clear) and correct answer to questions,

sometimes it is. We can date scrolls for example. If a King Herod lived. Hisrotic accounts like Jehosaphus. If floods did occur in Geological time in human history.

... things that happen almost two thousand years ago, involving entities which are beyond our abilities to truely understand, at best best we are making informed guesses.

Indeed but I believe we can answer questions even earliler than that. Tasctics used by Alexander against the Sythians; Mesopotamian camel trains; Egyptian dynasties; whether ancient civilisations in Ireland were warlike.

Dogma differs from church to church and even with in churchs over time.

Not this one. Not for some time. The Trinity is fairly much accepted dogma by all christians. The great schism over preceeding form the father "AND" the son was over 1500 years ago.

...one can not know the mind of God, to say he did it for us and only for us with out reasons of his own... well... It's unknowable...

I rely among other things for an answer here on several quotes which refer to sending His only son and that son being the path to salvation so that WE might be saved.

We clearly see a change in Gods behaviour in the New Testiment, what has changed?

The inspiration was apparently the same. The authors changed. But if it is actions rather than nuances put on them one could suggest he gave us a break.

I didn't say he used his power for advanvement(personal gain)...
I said God learned what it is to be human by becoming a human.
And to be honest some times jesus does to things like flying... He doesn't fly... just little things Walking on Water and turning Water in to Wine.

Actually he does fly in places. But none of this is done for his own benefit.

I feel that these are both miracals and momnets of weakness on Jesus' part.
Weakness!?! that's crazy talk you yell.
No, Not Crazy, Not the way I think about it, esp. the water in to wine, what devine and holy function did that have? sure weddings are a holy thing and it's nice to have wine at them but he only does it be cause his mother asks...

You just reminded me of something which I was wracking my brains on all week.
Some argue The Wedding feast of Canaah was a third physical Ephipany (the first two
being Jesus being brought to the temple and the baptism in the Jordan -note the Trinity referred to thereas well). there are other "spiritual" epephanies but this is one of three physical ones. There is a function this account has for you.

and Crying out about being foresaken on the cross was a moment of weakness, a reasonable one for a human, even one who is of the devine.
I'm getting side tracked...

Yes. so?

Right. In short said, God made Jesus so that he could experiance life as a human, not just to open the gates to heaven by allowing a pure person to suffer and die.

The two are connected. The point to me is that unlike Jewish versions of what the Messiah should be (and they would argue a Messiah need not be God) Christ shows a way any person can follow. They don't have to be God to do it.

That does not take away from the idea that Jesus' life is a good example to try to live by...
Which you seemed to think it did.

No, but seperate argument as to whether Jesus is part of the Trinity and therefore God.

Um... does it? I dont think that it does.

You don't think that the crusifiction illustrates there may be meaning to suffering?

isaw wrote:

when you are a child you view older people as powerful and to be obeyed. when you grow up you respect them as peers. And I am here not necessarily suggesting Man is the equal of God.

Right... stop right there and go back a little... Is that an actual responce to my post?
I'm a little confused by it, it doesn't really follow on from the quote above it.
Your not suggesting that humans are equal to God just that we have grown up and no longer need to obey him?
Or that you consider my views on the topic Childish?
Either way that I'm not sure how that connects to my idea that God in the New Testament is a more understanding and less angry god than in the old Testament, due to his time incarnated as a human.

I was suggesting a progression from the Old to New testament. A progression form living by laws to living by the spirit of the law. Just in the way a child is told what to do and what not to do. when the child grows up the adult is responsible for his own actions in spite of any laws which say you should or should not do things. That does not necessarily mean everyone makes up their own morality or people replace God. Conscience is considered to be informed from elsewhere.

"you can do this too" would work just as well if he inspired a normal human to live such a life.

the idea is that he was trying to inspire ALL humans to live such a life.

But instead of doing so he comes down and makes a body for himself ... why?

to show that anyone can do it is part of why. He didnt use powers to help or advance himself. And he showed that he could have by doing it at other times not for his own benefit.

In my opinion it is not just because he wanted to show people the way... but is also because he ... well ... wants to see what all the fuss is about.

If god is omniscient this is unnecessary.

I guess that might sound a little odd if you believe that God is all knowing... which clearly he isn't, or perhapps he has made a choice not to be.

Touche

It's a free will vs no free will, if God knows exactly what we will do then how can that be free will.
It's not like we could surprise him...

We are rambling now. Off topic but nevertheless... Just because god knows what will happen does not necessarily mean you are not responsible for your own decisions. You still have choice. Foreknowledge and perdestination are not the same thing.

I'm sure I can find one or two oddities in you posts.

Please do so. I have a tendency to mistype as well. sometimes it is difficult to tell where my spelling is wrong and my typing. If I see continual repeated glaring errors then I will point them out. I am not a spelling Nazi but I do think it is worth using correct spelling.

ISAW

X-SL wrote:

We are animals.. mammals just like all other animals. We have the ability to remember and to learn. We are more advanced brain-wise than all other animals. Does that mean we are the "chosen" ones? Certainly not!

So you dont believe we are different to seagulls or fish or dogs or cows? do you eat meat or fish? Would you eat a human?

They are superior to us in different ways and means so why are we the ones that are modelled off "God"?

In some ways they are not superior. In the same way we can be physically "superior" to other humans (the disabled say) but in certain other ways we are not superior to children or disabled people.

the stock answer is that we know think and chose and indded what your mother said i.e. we have a soul.
---

To anyone:

Do you believe God is a physical body? If not, what then?
Christ had. Transubstiantion suggests he still does.
What happens to you after you die? do you believe there is more than your physical body? If so then that is similar to the idea of an incorporeal God.

>What is your vision of heaven?

>What I think does not really matter.

>Why does praying to God matter, if he will not intervene?

Good question. Assuming it is not for selfish intentions how do you know he does not intervene? Also even assuming ther is no single God but there are paranormal spiritual realities. Buddists etc. would assert that in chanting mantras one becomes one with "God"/the univers.
But the short answer is "loaded question"

>Why does going to mass to pray matter?

One is not necessarily asked to go to mass to pray. One is asked to go to profess faith in a community and (if one is a Catholic/protestant /Orthodox) to revieve the body/word/spirit of God. Sort of a "do this in memory of me" and "whenever people gather in my name I shall be there"

>How is it better than praying on your own? (It's a personal thing anyway)

Well given what I have stated above all those people with rosary beads praying at mass are praying alone and should not be. They should be in community. Good fences make good neighbours but can you see how cutting the lawn or mending holes in the community areas might be a good thing?

>When in heaven, do you die or live forever?

Assuming you have an eternal incorporeal soul whether in heaven or not you exist forever.

>Do you live forever as a a physical body?

Given the above. No. that is not to say you might not have another bady sometime.

>Can you feel physically in heaven?
See above. You are really asking is Heaven always a physical place in the Universe as we know it. The answer is probably no.


>If not how can you fully get joy? (Taste, Kiss, Hug, Sex, Soft things etc.)
You assume joy is only physical. You also assume it comes only through the senses.



>Do you believe in heaven and not hell?

What I believe is immaterial. Maybe you mean "can there be heaven and not hell"?
If you define hell as "away from Gods presence/ far from God" then there is always a Hell.
The atheist Sartre stated "hell is other people"

I think thats what happens when you die. You finally get to rest after a hard life. For me, this is my heaven. In my opinion, I would rather that than to continue living in heaven.

(And I don't mean you dream. I mean you just go to sleep.. fade into black. thats it.)

As Freddie Murcury said "who wants to live forever?"

A very Oriental view of heaven. the idea that bliss/enlightenment is the total obliteration of the individual.

X-SL

>Can you feel physically in heaven?
See above. You are really asking is Heaven always a physical place in the Universe as we know it. The answer is probably no.


>If not how can you fully get joy? (Taste, Kiss, Hug, Sex, Soft things etc.)
You assume joy is only physical. You also assume it comes only through the senses.

---

That was in relation the the question above. How can you get joy from physical things I meant.

ISAW

X-SL wrote:

How can you get joy from physical things I meant.

If you mean the literal question then it is self evident.
If yu mean "from whence does joy derive" then if "joy" is defined then one is into heady waters.
I would suggest they heaven or enlightment or whatever is not just about joy. That is called hedonism.

X-SL

I meant exactly what I said. It was a follow on to the previous question.

ISAW

X-SL wrote:

I meant exactly what I said. It was a follow on to the previous question

...From the previous question.
i.e.Can you feel physically in heaven?

It is unclear what you meant. Whether the emphasis is on "in" "feel" "physically" and what thees words mean in context. Im sorry but I just dont know what you meant.

>If not how can you fully get joy? (Taste, Kiss, Hug, Sex, Soft things etc.)
But does that not assume that all joy is dervied only through physical interaction?

X-SL

I mean if you're not a physical body in heaven would you be missing out on joy derived from physical things such as ones listed? I know that not all joy is physical so thats why I asked the original question first.

Excelsior

X-SL wrote:

I think it's pretty much fact that most people in Ireland are christians because most people are born into that religion even if they have un-religious parents.

I don't think it is "pretty much fact that most people in Ireland are Christians" if you mean Christianity as a faith system. Most people in Ireland stand in the Christian tradition of thought but have no relationship with God and no belief in Jesus. You'd probably accept this, I'd imagine? In which case, your mother is definitely in the minority as someone who is a Christian, where the label Christian is used more meaningfully than "Western".

X-SL wrote:

This is pretty much obvious because there has been a huge decline since the church lost it's "power" over people. Now that people are questioning the church, it's popularity has become less and less. Coincidence? Probably not.

Again, you are making assumptions that are fine if we don't define our words. The Roman Catholic Church sees less people coming to mass and receiving sacraments and the rest of it. But I have talked to priests and theologians who would see the church as stronger now than in decades previous because those who are involved tend increasingly to be the members who believe, who participate in bible study groups and who pray on their own. Very few people actually regret the diminishing political influence of the Catholic Church. The Christians churches are called to have a subversive, not a homogenous influence on political life.

XSL wrote:

Alot of people misinterpurt the bible. They believe it as pure fact. In my opinion most of the stories that Jesus and prophets told were purely to represent something and to have a meaning rather than to tell a story.

You are misinterpreting the Bible here. The Bible is a collection of 66 books in two volumes spanning a period of at least 1300 years and tracing its roots back a further 3500-4000 years. While many of Jesus' teachings take the form of parable which you have given a very good rough definition of and many of the prophets dramatically enacted their teachings, there is a large amount of the Bible that isn't meant to be a story at all. There is law and poetry, there is a unique kind of writing called the Apocolyptic, there is history and wisdom, there is allegory, which is different to parable, there is rhetoric and history. In each line of the Bible you have to consider context and intention and you would end up badly misinterpreting it if you followed the method you outlined.

X-SL wrote:

I have met people ho think the adam and eve stories are true.

I have met people who think that they are literally true. Even worse, I have to be friends with them! Seriously though, they are true and I would be surprised if you didn't agree with me. They might not be true literally but the meaning that they point to (as you described above) is profoundly true. Technically, Genesis 1-2 is poetic allegory. It refers to a time before history was written and it does not intend to be a scientific account of creation. Such readings of the text only came to prominence in the 1920s! But it is deeply true without being scientific.

X-SL wrote:

My mother is actually a perfect example of what I call a "Blind Christian". She was brought up in a religious family and attends mass every sunday. She prays etc. etc.

I hate blind faith and I seek to challenge it wherever I find it. Maybe your mom is a blind believer but your description doesn't actually specify that. What you have written is a description of a simple believer.

X-SL wrote:

I asked her the other day;
At this she seemed slightly puzzled. So I went on and asked
She replied that no they don't. Dogs have no "soul" apparently. I laughed.

The person who comes out looking blind here is you. You do seem to have treated your own mother rudely and arrogantly.

X-SL wrote:

We are animals.. mammals just like all other animals. We have the ability to remember and to learn. We are more advanced brain-wise than all other animals. Does that mean we are the "chosen" ones? Certainly not!

Dogs have no self awareness, or rather, their self-awareness is of a different kind to ours. It is not simply a question of magnitude but type. We are mammals, but we are also the only mammals with syntax. You have completely missed the point of "imago Dei" if you think it is disproven by the sprinting speed of the cheetah. The image bearingness of God involves the ability to create and to evaluate- to actualise and to moralise. Our cousins amongst the Primates come close to creating and can master a vocabulary but there is a gulf so wide between us that it is a dimensional shift.


---

X-SL wrote:

Do you believe God is a physical body? If not, what then?

I believe God in Jesus is a physical body, an incarnation. God the Father and God the Spirit are not bodied.

X-SL wrote:

What is your vision of heaven?

The same vision as the Bible- that the Earth and all that is in it would be made new again. Creation restored, reconciled to God and regenerated. Heaven is that place and time when God makes his dwelling with us on the Earth made new.

X-SL wrote:

Why does praying to God matter, if he will not intervene?

He has and does intervene. Pray to God never goes unanswered, but it gets one of three responses: Yes, No, Let's wait a while. Remember, Christians think God is their Father, so he's just playing his role here.

X-SL wrote:

Why does going to mass to pray matter?

I'll leave this for the Catholics to deal with. Us "Protestants" don't have mass.

X-SL wrote:

When in heaven, do you die or live forever?

Every person lives forever. We are all made for eternity. Heaven is almost more of a time than a place, since it is not up in the clouds somewhere. But it is a place of eternity. All who believe in Jesus and have a relationship with him will enjoy his presence for ever.

While there is some excellent and vibrant discussion about it, it would seem those who aren't in heaven are also eternal creatures. They are just eternally in the place God isn't.

X-SL wrote:

Do you live forever as a a physical body?

Yeah. Paul, one of the people Jesus took aside and prepared after he was resurrected, talks about our bodies being fuelled differently. The word he uses is spirit-bodies. That doesn't mean ghostlike, so much as it means bodies where our soul is the driving force and not just a passenger.

X-SL wrote:

Can you feel physically in heaven?
If not how can you fully get joy? (Taste, Kiss, Hug, Sex, Soft things etc.)

Again, heaven is not in the clouds somewhere. The book of Revelations is quite clear that it will be right here on Earth, but when the Earth is different. So you can feel and touch. But Jesus also says that there won't be marriage (therefore no sex) in heaven because we will be ultimately intimate with everyone we will have no need for sex or marriage to build that bond (nor to make babies).

X-SL wrote:

Do you believe in heaven and not hell?

I believe in both but we have more information about the first.

X-SL wrote:

You know when you are really wrecked (from work, soccer practise, long week without sleeping etc.) and you go up to bed. You lay yourself down and feel relaxed and dose into a nice sleep as soon as your head hits the pillow.

I think thats what happens when you die. You finally get to rest after a hard life. For me, this is my heaven. In my opinion, I would rather that than to continue living in heaven.

That is a fine vision of heaven but you realise you are believing blindly in something for which there is no evidence?


I hope I answered some of your questions.

kiffer

BrianCalgary wrote:

If I were to put a plate of cooked carrots on the table beside a piece of birthday cake and told my son he could eat one of the plates, he can choose between the two.

Since I am his father and know him so well, I know before hand which he will choose.

God, being Our Father who art in Heaven, also knows us so well that he knows whether or not we will choose the path of self fulfillment or a path devoted to God's plan. It is our choice, but He just knows what we will decide.

BTW My son would eat the carrots.

I'll try to sum up what I think you mean ... that way if I'm wrong about what you think you can let me know...
God = All Knowing,
God knows what we will do before we do.
Those of us that choose do in fact have free will, like the child does in your example.
Also a given is that God loves us, like you love your child.

Now, my take on this.
Would you say that you would set fire to your child for eating the wrong food? having provided some thing sweet and some thing healthy?
No you love your child and so wouldn't set fire to them, beat them to a bloody pulp or send them them out of the house and force them to live in the street.
You might punish them in someway for having made the wrong choice but seeing as you provided the two food stuffs, I think any punishment beyond saying, "I'm very disapointed in you", is a bit ... over the top.

Even worse could you imagine a parent that provided their three children with a pile of sweets and and a plate of brussle sprouts, but hidden in the sweets was a razer blade and a couple of rusty nails?
And then blamed the child that chose to eat from the provided plate of sweets instead of the healthy plate of brussle sprouts like the other two?
After all they'd told their kidds time and time again that sweets are bad for you and brussle sprouts are good and healthy, and two of the children listened so it's the childs own fault.

This is why I don't like the parent and child example... after all doesn't your child ever surprise you? I'd be very amazed if you have never been surprised by your child.

A loving parent would not go out of his way to create a situation that would harm his child, knowing that his child would pick the damaging option.
He "might" let his child get in to trouble so that the child would learn a leason... for example lettinging go of the back of a bike so that the child can learn to ride it. sure the child might fall off the bike and hurt themself, or might buy the child a skate board or some other such thing ...
I've had that sort of thing used as an example.
Children need to make mistakes to learn... this is true. ( or at least it's true that children learn from mistakes)

God is not just a loving parent, God is supposed to be unconditionaly loving and forgiving, and yet has created the universe in such a way that a huge number of people will suffer for all eternity in hell.

But Punishments should fit the crime. and Hell wrecks this. Going to hell for making the wrong choice out of all of those provided when the provider of those choices knows exactly which one you will take is a not a situation that a loving parent would create.

Now given that God (at some point in time) created the universe he has either created such a situation or he has not ...
I'm willing to bet neither of us think that he has deliberatly created a situation like this.
Never the less, it is believed that some people will go to hell for their actions (choices).
If God did not deliberatly create them so that they can go to hell ( knowing that they would make the 'wrong' choices ) then he must not have known that they would make those exact choices.

God has the abllity to make choices, God chooses to leave the Adam and Eve alone, dispite being omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient.
If God is omniscient, why would he leave them in the situation that he knew they would end up eating the fruit... and then punish them for something that he knew full well that they would do.
That is not the sort of thing you expect from a parent who knows what their child will do.
Which is why I think it's clear that God didn't know what they would do, that way he can still be a loving parent... but not an omniscient one.

It is my belief that freewill is at odds with an omniscient loving god but not with either a non-omniscient loving god or a omniscient non-loving god.

Since God is loving and we have freewill then God is not an omniscient god.

My child would probably demand carrot cake... if I had a child that is.

ISAW

kiffer wrote:

I'll try to sum up what I think you mean ... that way if I'm wrong about what you think you can let me know...
God = All Knowing,
God knows what we will do before we do.
Those of us that choose do in fact have free will, like the child does in your example.
Also a given is that God loves us, like you love your child.

dealt with elsewhere omniscience and perdestination are not analogous.

I think any punishment beyond saying, "I'm very disapointed in you", is a bit ... over the top.

Stitching up the example

Even worse could you imagine a parent that provided their three children with a pile of sweets and and a plate of brussle sprouts, but hidden in the sweets was a razer blade and a couple of rusty nails?

Ditto. The point is that we are adults not children. god might tell you that plate has razor blades in it because someone else put them in. don't blame Him if people like you think of doing things like that.

This is why I don't like the parent and child example... after all doesn't your child ever surprise you? I'd be very amazed if you have never been surprised by your child.

Beside the point. Assuming you he does not know about it in advance your child will not identify the threat you have just decided to warn him about.

But Punishments should fit the crime. and Hell wrecks this. Going to hell for making the wrong choice out of all of those provided when the provider of those choices knows exactly which one you will take is a not a situation that a loving parent would create.

Omniscience is not predestination.

...big snip

It is my belief that freewill is at odds with an omniscient loving god but not with either a non-omniscient loving god or a omniscient non-loving god.

And philosophers pointed to the omniscience/predestination distinction since the middle ages.

Since God is loving and we have freewill then God is not an omniscient god.

They dealt with this one too.

kiffer

ISAW wrote:

It seems to me you suggested that Christianity was not rational or scientific. It is! You must remember that for about 1400 years since it was written down almost all the rational thinkers and teachers were in the church.

I would never say that Christians can not be rational or scientific, but I would hardly call the Catholic church or the religion Scientific.

ISAW wrote:

Which is why I pointed out the comment wasdirected at the OP who WILL accept it.

ok... but excepting circular logic is not what I would call rational.

ISAW wrote:

this is a Jewish interpretation. it still leaves the Jews with the problem of not singeling out God for "special treatment".

Humm... thats a good point. I said I was going to reread those passages but forgot to... still the Jewish interpretation can not be called any less rational than any other interpretation... it's part of the old testament and I suppose you might say they have an imcomplete picture of the situation but still the posablity that these are angels stands... although I will admit that the lack of distinction between the three is surprising.
Question: if Abraham knew that all three were the one god, or all of equal importance being Father, Son, and The Holy Spirit. why do the Jews not know that God is such a tri-fold entity? Abraham knew... other jews do not... this is surprising... and not some thing you would easly forget and if one thing could be forgotten why not other things... thats a pretty slippery slope, leading to the assumption that there are are missing sections to the bible...

ISAW wrote:

What I believe is beside the point here. whether the argument is valid is what matters. I suggest Hebrew makes certain distinction between singular and plural.

Ok, I'm happy with this. Basicaly it is a point we seem to agree on.
The 'we' and 'our' in genesis are plurals and not "important" singulars

ISAW wrote:

"Almost" . What do you mean by "feel"? what is different? In fact it is widely believed that the first four books had a common author probably Moses.
Job is a much older book than Genesis. Do you "feel" the same about that?

Ok this is totaly Emotive and not very rational on my part.
I don't know much about who put together Genesis, or other books.
No I don't feel the same way about Job. allthough maybe I should reread it again.
as I said it's a feeling, I would attribute it to writing stile but translation should probably have blurred any writing stile diffences...
The feeling of the text changes part way through genesis for me... I can't pin it to any given chapter or verse right now...

ISAW wrote:

My first reaction to you mentioning this was, old testiment ... nothing to do with Jesus.
so I looked it up and read the whole of Micah 4 and 5...

the reason I used only old testament quotes is because you asked whether there is anything about Jesus existing before he was born. I posted a references to the Trinity in the old testament.

If that clan was part of the house of David.

and if the Clan Bethlehem Ephrathah is not part of the house of David then
Bethlehem Ephrathah must reffer not to a clan but to a town as Mathew Claims?
Why would some one say Bethlehem Ephrathah then?

ISAW wrote:

there are a plethora of references to the Messiah. even Jews accept that. But to jews the Messiah might be someone wholly different to Jesus. ther are "Messianic Jews" as well. The question you asked however was about the actual Christian Trinity and/or Jesus being referred to before Christ i.e. in the Jewish scriptures.

There are indeed a large numbers of references to the coming of the Messiah.
I was questioning whether or not this was such a reference.
It seems to me to talk about a warrior type, Jesus was not a warrior, and did not waste the land of Assyria with the sword

ISAW wrote:

some things you cant [say]! also by believing certain things people already are not part of the community.

ahh but these things are such things, or are they?

ISAW wrote:

The Trinity if existant at any time must be existant at all times. You refer to something different now i.e. whether Jesus as man before 2000 years ago. how could he "become man" if he already did it? is it muddying the definition to ask "was Christ there before Christ" isn't it? the Latter Day Saints apparently believe this but I wouldn't regard them as Christian, let alone Protestant.

The Trinity if existant at any time must be existant at all time?
What? why? This is part of the God does not / can not change arguement.

If I don't believe that Jesus existed before He was born then it is a perfectly reasonalbe to believe that He was created by God 2000 years ago.

ISAW wrote:

No it doesn't. That is why we rely on citation and evidence on what we mutually accept as true.

...

ISAW wrote:

sometimes it is. We can date scrolls for example. If a King Herod lived. Hisrotic accounts like Jehosaphus. If floods did occur in Geological time in human history.


Indeed but I believe we can answer questions even earliler than that. Tasctics used by Alexander against the Sythians; Mesopotamian camel trains; Egyptian dynasties; whether ancient civilisations in Ireland were warlike.

Yes, I should have said several thousand years.
and yes some of the information in the bilbe is historic in nature.
but history is not an exact science either esp. on more spiritual information which is open to a large amount of personal interpretation.

ISAW wrote:

Dogma differs from church to church and even with in churchs over time.

Not this one. Not for some time. The Trinity is fairly much accepted dogma by all christians. The great schism over preceeding form the father "AND" the son was over 1500 years ago.

Ahh but it does differ over time, and as such interpretation of the bible can chang.
My views can not be said to be against Dogma, they can only be said to be against Catholic Dogma or Anglican Dogma.

ISAW wrote:

I rely among other things for an answer here on several quotes which refer to sending His only son and that son being the path to salvation so that WE might be saved.

Ok... where does it say that this was his only reason for sending a direct incarnation?
Once again I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't there to save people, but that he also may have had other reasons.

ISAW wrote:

The inspiration was apparently the same. The authors changed. But if it is actions rather than nuances put on them one could suggest he gave us a break.

Yes, it's actions. I think he gave us a break. why?
Because his time on earth as Jesus may have changed his perspective some what. (in my opinion)

ISAW wrote:

Actually he does fly in places. But none of this is done for his own benefit.

Does he? could I get a ref. I'd like to see that.

ISAW wrote:

You just reminded me of something which I was wracking my brains on all week.
Some argue The Wedding feast of Canaah was a third physical Ephipany (the first two
being Jesus being brought to the temple and the baptism in the Jordan -note the Trinity referred to thereas well). there are other "spiritual" epephanies but this is one of three physical ones. There is a function this account has for you.

Ok... still could have gone with a better Miracle than this... wine at a wedding feast still seems a little ... well ... low on the whole helping people scale... no where near as good as feeding people or healing leprosy

ISAW wrote:

Yes. so?

um... It was part of being side tracked ... but it was part of God my point of God Learning about humans through Jesus. as I said ... I was getting Sidetracked, but I don't like typing things and then taking them totaly out of a post.


(wow... first time I've hit the character cap... Post continued in next post.)

kiffer

Continued from last post....

ISAW wrote:

Right. In short said, God made Jesus so that he could experiance life as a human, not just to open the gates to heaven by allowing a pure person to suffer and die.

The two are connected. The point to me is that unlike Jewish versions of what the Messiah should be (and they would argue a Messiah need not be God) Christ shows a way any person can follow. They don't have to be God to do it.

Ok.

ISAW wrote:

No, but seperate argument as to whether Jesus is part of the Trinity and therefore God.

I never said that Jesus was not part of the Trinity, or not God.
I've been assuming that we both agree that Jesus is Part of God, Part of the Trinity, and is Currently God.
As far as I am aware we have been talking about God before the Birth of Jesus Christ, about 2000 years ago.
You say Jesus existed before this, as part of the Trinity,
I say that He did not. That God created him at this time as part of himself inorder to explore life as a human and to carry out the funtions of the Massiah.
A major problem with my view is that I have no idea where the Holy Spirit comes in to play as far as my view of the situation...
I'm actualy surprised that you haven't hit on this before now.
It's not like I thought that God was a duo-nity (lol) before the creation of Christ. hum... I guess that's a big stumbling block in my logic.

ISAW wrote:

You don't think that the crusifiction illustrates there may be meaning to suffering?

I don't think that it does. I think it really shows mans inhumanity to man ... and drives home a large part of the "wouldn't it be nice if every one was nice" messages, "Love thy Neighbor" and "Do onto others"

ISAW wrote:

...
Either way that I'm not sure how that connects to my idea that God in the New Testament is a more understanding and less angry god than in the old Testament, due to his time incarnated as a human.

I was suggesting a progression from the Old to New testament. A progression form living by laws to living by the spirit of the law. Just in the way a child is told what to do and what not to do. when the child grows up the adult is responsible for his own actions in spite of any laws which say you should or should not do things. That does not necessarily mean everyone makes up their own morality or people replace God. Conscience is considered to be informed from elsewhere.

Ok, that pretty much makes sense... I would agree that the New Testament is like that.
It fits my understanding of Jesus' message.
Which IMHO boils down into love and tolerance.
Tolerance is some thing which is missing from far to many people.

ISAW wrote:

the idea is that he was trying to inspire ALL humans to live such a life.

which as I said could have been achived with out God doing it personaly...

ISAW wrote:

to show that anyone can do it is part of why. He didnt use powers to help or advance himself. And he showed that he could have by doing it at other times not for his own benefit.

So... because God can do it any one can...
That doesn't really make any sense...
God doing it doesn't really show that anyone can do it. even if he doesn't use his powers to do it.

ISAW wrote:

If god is omniscient this is unnecessary.

If God is omniscient many things are unnecessary.

ISAW wrote:

I guess that might sound a little odd if you believe that God is all knowing... which clearly he isn't, or perhapps he has made a choice not to be.

Touche

Thank you.

ISAW wrote:

We are rambling now. Off topic but nevertheless... Just because god knows what will happen does not necessarily mean you are not responsible for your own decisions. You still have choice. Foreknowledge and perdestination are not the same thing.

Foreknowledge and Predestination are the same thing, if the Foreknowledge is absolute. If you are going to take an action that changes the future then then God would allready know that you will change the future and to what you will change it.
If nothing about the future is unknown then it can not be changed.
If all changes are known at the start of time then they arn't really changes.
They are infact the things that will happen.

Personal responsiblity:
I consider myself responsible for my own actions, but should I let a rabbid dog lose in a park full of small children I would be responsible for it's actions as well.

And now we are miles off topic.
But still the omniscient nature / non-omniscient nature of God, effects his reasons for His presance as Jesus on Earth 2000 years ago.
And also effects why I think Jesus did not exist before this time...

kiffer

ISAW wrote:

Ditto. The point is that we are adults not children. god might tell you that plate has razor blades in it because someone else put them in. don't blame Him if people like you think of doing things like that.

People like me? thats a little Personal.
What exactly are people like me?

I wouldn't blame God for warning me that other people put razor blades in my sweets... I'd just blame him for the ones he knowingly put there...
Of course which ones did he put there and which ones are there because of other people?

ISAW wrote:

Beside the point. Assuming you he does not know about it in advance your child will not identify the threat you have just decided to warn him about.

Harsh isn't it...I suppose that's what happens to any one born out side of a christian community... once they hear about Christ they are pretty much Doomed to hell unless they repent, which doesn't happen all that much ...
Thats a lot of people in a very unpleasent after-life.
Razer blades in sweeties are the least of their worries.

Omniscience is not predestination.
...
And philosophers pointed to the omniscience/predestination distinction since the middle ages.

They dealt with this one too.

You keep saying that...
I don't get it... how can anyone say that.
I'll repeat myself one more time, then I'll stop, I'm not a philosopher from the middle ages so I can only try to be logical about it... if there is some flaw in my logic then I'm sure you can point it out ... but this is neither the time or the place to hash it out, maybe I'll take it to the phillosophy board.

If everything is known then nothing can be changed.
Any "changes" will have been known about since the begining of time and as such will not be changes.
If God "knows" I'll go out of the house tomorrow and I choose not to do so, then Gods knowledge was incorrect, and if Gods knowledge is incorrect then God cannot be omniscient.

If God know that I'll chose not to leave the house and I don't leave the house then it has been determind that I will not leave the house, one might say predetermind...

even so one might say Predetermination is not the same as Predestination...

Fair enough.
I can see a differance between the two, from my point of view ... as a powerless human, but not in terms of the creator who designed and created the universe in such a way as these things would happen according to his plan.
Unless you think there is no plan. which would be against Dogma ... : )

ISAW

kiffer wrote:

I would never say that Christians can not be rational or scientific, but I would hardly call the Catholic church or the religion Scientific.

what do yu mean by "scientific"? Do you mean based on the Greek rationality? If not that then what? On what philosophy is science based?

ok... but excepting circular logic is not what I would call rational.

He accepts the source is true. The source isn't claiming it is true because the source is true. Nor is it claiming it is true because he accepts it is true. I didn't persent an argument to him on the basis that it must be true because based on his belief it is.

if Abraham knew that all three were the one god, or all of equal importance being Father, Son, and The Holy Spirit. why do the Jews not know that God is such a tri-fold entity? Abreham knew... other jews do not... this is surprising... and not some thing you would easly forget and if one thing could be forgotten why not other things... thats a pretty slippery slope, leading to the assumption that there are are missing sections to the bible...

given you accept the plural argument : Genesis 1:26
"And Elohim said let us make man in our image after our likeness,"

Come near unto me. hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning: from the time that it was,
there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. (Isaiah 48:16)

i.e. God calls the people to come to Him, but He is sent by the Lord GOD and His Spirit. Note the "I am" and the Isaiah link to messianic prophesy.

I will declare the decree: The LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee. (Psalm 2:7)

from - Rachmiel Frydland a Messianic Jew.

the Bible or the church does ot claim to be complete or that it is everything, only that all that you need to write down is there. Jesus existed outside of the written word. Yet he is also referred to as the Word who was there "since the beginning" (new Testament). His genology as a man is also covered.

I don't know much about who put together Genesis, or other books.

Jewish scholars also fairly much agree the first four were Moses.

Why would some one say Bethlehem Ephrathah then?

I dont know but if nt of Davis then not the Messiah.

It seems to me to talk about a warrior type, Jesus was not a warrior, and did not waste the land of Assyria with the sword

Matthew 10:34-36 Luke 12:49,51-53 Gospel of Thomas 16
One can argue that he knew christians had to be prepared to be "put to the sword" and to die for their beliefs.

If I don't believe that Jesus existed before He was born then it is a perfectly reasonalbe to believe that He was created by God 2000 years ago.

A perfectly reasonable and original heresy. It leads into all sorts of avenues about the material world versus spiritual and whether Father is greater than the Son.

Ahh but it does differ over time, and as such interpretation of the bible can chang.
My views can not be said to be against Dogma, they can only be said to be against Catholic Dogma or Anglican Dogma.

en.wikipedia.org/heresy and wiki/christology

A number of the beliefs the Catholic Church has come to regard as heretical have to do with Christology, that is, with the nature of Jesus Christ and the relationship between Christ and God the Father. The orthodox teaching, as it developed, is that Christ was fully divine and at the same time fully human, and that the three persons of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal. This position, it should be noted, was not formally established as the orthodox position until it was challenged in the fourth century by Arius (Nicene creed in 325); nor was the New Testament put into its present form until the end of the 4th century

It is heresy whether Anglican Roman or Orthodox. thats aboyut 1,5 billion believers.

Ok... where does it say that this was his only reason for sending a direct incarnation?
Once again I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't there to save people, but that he also may have had other reasons.

Even if he had other reasons it is beside the point. The reason given is that God sent Jesus so the we might be saved. Other unstated reasons are beside the point.

Yes, it's actions. I think he gave us a break. why?
Because his time on earth as Jesus may have changed his perspective some what. (in my opinion)

This would also no doubt be heresy the idea of god becoming corrupted.
Look up "Sublapsarianism"

But my point still stands
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1138
THERE WAS NOT OTHER WAY FOR MEN TO BE SAVED THAN THROUGH THE INNOCENT AND SUBSTITUTIONARY SUFFERING OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Other reasons do not matter as far as the total salvation of mankind is concerned.

Does he? could I get a ref. I'd like to see that.

Luke 9 :29 If not levitating then certainly tranfiguring. there is also the Ascention Acts 1:11.

wine at a wedding feast still seems a little ... low on the whole helping people scale...

Should he have produced Ice Cream as well.
Maybe you missed my whole point about Epiphany?

first time I've hit the character cap

Get used to it. I tend to do it a lot of the time.

X-SL

You do seem to have treated your own mother rudely and arrogantly.

Please do not try make this personal or make judgements on situations which you have no idea what it is about, when it happened or any type of details bar the brief cut down version of a conversation that I gave :rolleyes:

That is a fine vision of heaven but you realise you are believing blindly in something for which there is no evidence?

Mistakely I have described that part of the post wrong. It was late and I was tired I simply meant that instead of believing in heaven;y clouds etc. (like some people do).. that is what I would believe if I was in their shoes.

I hope I have cleared that up.

He has and does intervene. Pray to God never goes unanswered, but it gets one of three responses: Yes, No, Let's wait a while. Remember, Christians think God is their Father, so he's just playing his role here.

That clearly only works if you have unquestionable faith. If I pray right now and don't get an answer.. it is therefore unanswered. I won't bring other happenings into it. Call it "testing God" or whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.

Dogs have no self awareness, or rather, their self-awareness is of a different kind to ours. It is not simply a question of magnitude but type. We are mammals, but we are also the only mammals with syntax. You have completely missed the point of "imago Dei" if you think it is disproven by the sprinting speed of the cheetah. The image bearingness of God involves the ability to create and to evaluate- to actualise and to moralise. Our cousins amongst the Primates come close to creating and can master a vocabulary but there is a gulf so wide between us that it is a dimensional shift.

So? What if we can communicate better than some animals and have morals. Does this mean we are chosen? Not exactly. It means we are superior in those ways. Again.. this is a belief with faith not actual fact that we are devine.

The person who comes out looking blind here is you.

Hardly. I think what i want to think. I obviously have no faith for God etc. BUT does that mean I can't have faith in others things? Does that mean I can't believe (or have faith in) that Man U will win the next premeirship?

Of course not! Two very different workings here.

Technically, Genesis 1-2 is poetic allegory. It refers to a time before history was written and it does not intend to be a scientific account of creation. Such readings of the text only came to prominence in the 1920s! But it is deeply true without being scientific.

I agree that these stories (I'll just call them that) have great meaning and provide a good moral view for people to live their lives and if more people understood and followed them we would be living in a better place.

Thanks for repling to my post anyhoo. :cool:

ISAW

kiffer wrote:

Continued from last post....

I never said that Jesus was not part of the Trinity, or not God.
I've been assuming that we both agree that Jesus is Part of God, Part of the Trinity, and is Currently God.
As far as I am aware we have been talking about God before the Birth of Jesus Christ, about 2000 years ago.
You say Jesus existed before this, as part of the Trinity,
I say that He did not. That God created him at this time as part of himself inorder to explore life as a human and to carry out the funtions of the Massiah.

And you delve into arian heresy and into dualities and all sort of other versions. The dogma is that the Trinity always existed and were triune natures of the one God.

A major problem with my view is that I have no idea where the Holy Spirit comes in to play as far as my view of the situation...
I'm actualy surprised that you haven't hit on this before now.
It's not like I thought that God was a duo-nity (lol) before the creation of Christ. hum... I guess that's a big stumbling block in my logic.

The duality is also heresy as is the original beliefs of Augustus of Hippo. what do you think he was confessing?

I don't think that it does. I think it really shows mans inhumanity to man ... and drives home a large part of the "wouldn't it be nice if every one was nice" messages, "Love thy Neighbor" and "Do onto others"

So the whole idea of being prepared to sacrifice yourself for others doesnt really work for you. I would guess you dont have children. do you? when and if you do I think you might change your mind on this one.

Ok, that pretty much makes sense... I would agree that the New Testament is like that.
It fits my understanding of Jesus' message.
Which IMHO boils down into love and tolerance.
Tolerance is some thing which is missing from far to many people.

Yeah. Much of the secular tradition is caught up in "personal freedom" and allowing people to do what they want. But tolerance is about allowing what we don't want. It is about Nazis promoting their racist views and people who say sex with children is acceptable. God allows such people. Humans legislate against them.

which as I said could have been achived with out God doing it personaly...

And we are back to original sin. do you think God forgives sin or can man absolve himself? If you believe only god forgives sin then do you see any connection with Jesus life and removing sin?

So... because God can do it any one can...
That doesn't really make any sense...
God doing it doesn't really show that anyone can do it. even if he doesn't use his powers to do it.

Because Jesus acting only as a man and without any super powers can do something it DOES mean that anyone can do it! We constantly fail but we dont have to. Ordinary people can really live holy lives. don't you believe that?

{quote
Foreknowledge and Predestination are the same thing, if the Foreknowledge is absolute. If you are going to take an action that changes the future then then God would allready know that you will change the future and to what you will change it.
[/quote]
http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/Determinism.html
It is true that everything God knows must occur according to His will. If it did not, then God would be wrong in what He knew. For an omniscient Mind cannot be wrong in what it knows. However, it does not follow from this that all events are determined (i.e. caused by God). God could simply determine that we be self-determining beings in a moral sense. The fact that He knows for certain what free creatures will do with their freedom is enough to make an event determined. But the fact that God does not force them to choose, is enough to establish that human free acts are not determined (caused) by another but by oneself. God determined the fact of human freedom, but free creatures perform the acts of human freedom.

If nothing about the future is unknown then it can not be changed.

See same reference : Causality
http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-03
Palagian heresy

But still the omniscient nature / non-omniscient nature of God, effects his reasons for His presance as Jesus on Earth 2000 years ago.
And also effects why I think Jesus did not exist before this time...

Back into Manichaeism again.

ISAW

kiffer wrote:

People like me? thats a little Personal.
What exactly are people like me?

You were the one who mentioned putting razor blades in a bowl of sweets and not telling a child were you not?

I wouldn't blame God for warning me that other people put razor blades in my sweets... I'd just blame him for the ones he knowingly put there...

But you are stitching up the example which is why I pointed out that Gos doesnt try to trick us or put razor blades in sweets. But he will allow others to do it og their own choice.

Of course which ones did he put there and which ones are there because of other people?

None are put there by Him unless yu believe part of His nature is evil.

Harsh isn't it...I suppose that's what happens to any one born out side of a christian community... once they hear about Christ they are pretty much Doomed to hell unless they repent, which doesn't happen all that much ...
Thats a lot of people in a very unpleasent after-life.
Razer blades in sweeties are the least of their worries.

You are going off pthe point. the point is that you might know of a danger you did not create and warn someone. that is a good thing to do. The "you must believe or you will go to hell " is a fundamentalist harping. the point is that if you have an informed concience and yet still decide to do evil then you will not be comfortable in Gods presence and will move away form Him. Effectively you judged yourself and put yourself in Hell.

You keep saying that...
I don't get it... how can anyone say that.

there are several references to it in this discussion The last ones being Supralapsarianism /Infralapsarianism and the Argument on Hard determinism - The Argument from Omniscience.

Fair enough.
I can see a differance between the two, from my point of view ... as a powerless human, but not in terms of the creator who designed and created the universe in such a way as these things would happen according to his plan.
Unless you think there is no plan. which would be against Dogma ... : )

Knowing something is about to happen and causing it to happen are not the same thing.

kiffer

ISAW wrote:

given you accept the plural argument : Genesis 1:26
"And Elohim said let us make man in our image after our likeness,"

Come near unto me. hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning: from the time that it was,
there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. (Isaiah 48:16)

i.e. God calls the people to come to Him, but He is sent by the Lord GOD and His Spirit. Note the "I am" and the Isaiah link to messianic prophesy.

Interesting... my bible says ...
from the time that it happened,
I have been there: know then, that Yahweh the Lord, with his Spirit has sent me!

not that makes a huge difference... but still I love the little differences in translation.

I will declare the decree: The LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee. (Psalm 2:7)

from - Rachmiel Frydland a Messianic Jew.

We're getting nice and hardcore now arn't we.
I'm investing too much time in this conversation.
I'm going to cut some stuff short, basicaly I've said it before, I am not saying that there are no prophecies regarding the coming of the Messiah, many of them are fufilled by Jesus, some have interpitive problems but that's not a huge issue.

the Bible or the church does ot claim to be complete or that it is everything, only that all that you need to write down is there. Jesus existed outside of the written word. Yet he is also referred to as the Word who was there "since the beginning" (new Testament). His genology as a man is also covered.

All I need to write down? what do you mean?
The bible is the inspired word of God... many people have told me that it is basicaly immune to change and that there can be no errors or omissions overtime, It is as complete as it has ever been. If Abraham knew that there was a Trinity then why do the Jews not believe this now?

Jewish scholars also fairly much agree the first four were Moses.

Ok. I have no reason to disagree with this. except to state that presumably the Genesis story was passed on from before this time...

I dont know but if nt of Davis then not the Messiah.

Interesting isn't it. It might be worth my while looking into at a later date... it's late now.
But Mathew clearly miss quotes this clan name as a town name.

Matthew 10:34-36 Luke 12:49,51-53 Gospel of Thomas 16
One can argue that he knew christians had to be prepared to be "put to the sword" and to die for their beliefs.

Matt 10:34-36 is a little scary isn't it... 35 mostly ... I have come to set a man against his father and daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

so much for my Jesus is a nice Guy ideas. seems a little sower of Discord to me.

Luke really brings that out too... I bring not peace but devision... Paraphrase Luke 12:51

A perfectly reasonable and original heresy. It leads into all sorts of avenues about the material world versus spiritual and whether Father is greater than the Son.

Woot! I'm a Heretic... The Father and Son are one so how can one be greater than the other...

en.wikipedia.org/heresy and wiki/christology

A number of the beliefs the Catholic Church has come to regard as heretical have to do with Christology, ... snip ...
It is heresy whether Anglican Roman or Orthodox. thats aboyut 1,5 billion believers.

Numbers of believers does not automaticaly make it correct. How many of them have questioned it.
Bringing in the numbers of believers opens the agruement to the possiblity that if more people where athiests than not then God would not exist by some sort of democratic process, I'd say that's not a good move for either of us to take at this point ...

Even if he had other reasons it is beside the point. The reason given is that God sent Jesus so the we might be saved. Other unstated reasons are beside the point.

We make lots of assumptions about what god wants and why he wants it. Having other reasons is part of my point, it seems to me... in my prehapps somewhat poorly informed state that these unstated reasons are needed... I'm willing to say that I'm guessing at them but I don't think that they are crazy guesses.

This would also no doubt be heresy the idea of god becoming corrupted.
Look up "Sublapsarianism"

So the Idea of God being able to change is heresy?
And any change in God is automaticaly corruption?
I googled for Sublapsarianism, and I don't really think that's what I'm talking about.

But my point still stands
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1138
THERE WAS NOT OTHER WAY FOR MEN TO BE SAVED THAN THROUGH THE INNOCENT AND SUBSTITUTIONARY SUFFERING OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Other reasons do not matter as far as the total salvation of mankind is concerned.

But we arn't really disscussing that are we?
we were talking about Jesus existing before about 2000 years ago. My point about Jesus not needing to be God to acceive this end is what we are talking about now... and that link does talk about that... I like the all caps ... it really makes it a strong arguement... having skipped on to that part of the docment, I find no real reason for it to have to be Jesus, Son of God. as a possed to Jesus, A Pure and Just Human...
Once again I'm not claiming that he is not God... just that there is no need for him to have been.
Other than because God wanted it that way.

Luke 9 :29 If not levitating then certainly tranfiguring. there is also the Ascention Acts 1:11.

Transfiguring is not flying... levitating isn't exactly flying either.
The Ascention does cover Flying I guess... you probably would have been better leaving the luke referance out.

Should he have produced Ice Cream as well.
Maybe you missed my whole point about Epiphany?

maybe you missed my point about this miracle... it's not so much that it would have been a better miracle if he had produced Wine, Ice Cream and a Bouncy Castle... but rather that it was a rather poor miracle becuase it is a miracle for the sake of having another miracle, surly there were people to be healed, communitees with dried up wells, some thing more worthy compaired to making wine for a wedding...

Get used to it. I tend to do it a lot of the time.

I'm going to have to limit my posts some what... It's 12:30 now... and I've stopped previewing my posts. sigh.

kiffer

ISAW wrote:

...arian heresy... dogma...
...duality ... heresy ... Augustus of Hippo. what do you think he was confessing?

I'll come to that a little further along...

So the whole idea of being prepared to sacrifice yourself for others doesnt really work for you. I would guess you dont have children. do you? when and if you do I think you might change your mind on this one.

I've already stated in a post in this thread that I don't have any children, but you are incorrect to imply that I don't get the idea of self sacrifice.
You asked me about suffering.
I am fully aware that I would make sacrifices for my children, should I have any in the future.
I would not choose to suffer needlessly.
You seem to believe that The only option in order to save man kind was for Jesus to be brutaly tortured and killed...
The only option... for an omnipotent being... thats some limiting of power right there.
I don't think it was the only option.

Yeah. Much of the secular tradition is caught up in "personal freedom" and allowing people to do what they want. But tolerance is about allowing what we don't want. It is about Nazis promoting their racist views and people who say sex with children is acceptable. God allows such people. Humans legislate against them.

And we are back to original sin. do you think God forgives sin or can man absolve himself? If you believe only god forgives sin then do you see any connection with Jesus life and removing sin?

Oh back to original sin... did we cover that already?
Original Sin is a pretty cool concept, it get's us in to all kinds of trouble...
We are born Sinners, because of the actions of our ancestors, the sins of the Father are the Sins of the son, that kind of thing...
It's ok to Punish a child for the mistakes of the parent.

Does God forgive sin or can man absolve himself?

Ok... right... God needs to forgive inorder for the sin to be forgiven. Man can not force God to forgive him. He can not there fore absolve himself of sin with out Gods grace.
Why would a forgiving God withhold that grace... (or punish the child for the sins of the parent, but that is a seperate matter)

Why would Jesus need to be NAILED to a cross in order for God to deside that he should start forgiving people... Living a good life and telling people to be nice to one an other(and for some reason also for you to fight with your parents and in laws) and let people know that they should ask for forgiveness is one thing... being nailed to a cross and stabbed in the side with a crown of thorns on your head is not really needed in order for God to deside to start forgiving people...
He's omnipotent ... I don't see the need for the brutal killing and suffering.

Because Jesus acting only as a man and without any super powers can do something it DOES mean that anyone can do it! We constantly fail but we dont have to. Ordinary people can really live holy lives. don't you believe that?

Yes I believe that ordinary people can live holy lives. which is exactly why I don't understand your point about Jesus being required to be God in order to provide this example. ( note: I'm not and have not been saying he is not, far from it, I've repeatedly stated that he is God. )
A normal person could have filled the role.
Sure God can do it... and abstain from using his vast power... but he's God, of course he can do it, God can do anything he wants (I suppose).
So I still think that there is additional reasons for him coming down and doing it himself.

Foreknowledge and Predestination are the same thing, if the Foreknowledge is absolute. If you are going to take an action that changes the future then then God would allready know that you will change the future and to what you will change it.

http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/Determinism.html
It is true that everything God knows must occur according to His will. If it did not, then God would be wrong in what He knew. For an omniscient Mind cannot be wrong in what it knows. However, it does not follow from this that all events are determined (i.e. caused by God). God could simply determine that we be self-determining beings in a moral sense. The fact that He knows for certain what free creatures will do with their freedom is enough to make an event determined. But the fact that God does not force them to choose, is enough to establish that human free acts are not determined (caused) by another but by oneself. God determined the fact of human freedom, but free creatures perform the acts of human freedom.

See same reference : Causality
http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-03
Palagian heresy

Back into Manichaeism again.

I should probably have snipped that last part a little...

Any how... I'm glad to see from your links that greater theological minds than mine have thought the same things as me in the past.
You have shown me that my point about dogma changing over time is more valid than I had thought.

As such I'm happy with my stand point.
So what if it does not conform to current dogma large parts of it conform to earlier doctrines and it's not like the church hasn't been wrong about things in the past. If dogma changes either it was right then or it is right now. either way Dogma is not infallible.
Roll on future Dogma. who knows which way it will swing.