Seperating The Dogma from the Truth!

JimiTime · 16-10-2006 11:47am #1

As someone who is still looking to expel un-truths, I wanted to raise this issue with the Christians on the forum to discuss the following issues with an agenda to expelling Dogma from fact.

1. The Trinity. My standing on this is clear for me. Jesus is seperate from God, they are in union, but different beings. It also grieves me that people have said if you don't accept the trinity doctrine, you don't accept Christ. Something I wholeheartedly do.

2. Hellfire. My standing is that this is an untruth, as it contradicts Gods personality.

3. The bible being the word of God. My standing at the moment is that it contains Gods words i.e. the ten commandments and the prophets visions etc, but as a whole is not 'the word of god' like for example a muslim would call the quaran the word of god. I can accept inspired by God, or being guided to a degree, put, calling God the author of all scripture, don't know about that?

I'm sure there is more than this, but if we could stick to these 3 for the time being. I know that you could have a forum for each of these and there has been for some, but I'm looking to collate the debate to here. Looking forward to your posts.

wolfsbane · 16-10-2006 1:11pm

JimiTime said:

As someone who is still looking to expel un-truths, I wanted to raise this issue with the Christians on the forum to discuss the following issues with an agenda to expelling Dogma from fact.

A worthy objective! May the Lord open our eyes to His truth.

1. The Trinity. My standing on this is clear for me. Jesus is seperate from God, they are in union, but different beings. It also grieves me that people have said if you don't accept the trinity doctrine, you don't accept Christ. Something I wholeheartedly do.

We need to make sure we understand exactly what we are saying, before we can judge that against Scripture. For example, does different beings mean different persons? If so, this is what Trinitarians believe.

But the crux of your objection may lie in your understanding of the term God. If it refers only to the Father, then Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God. It is the contention of Trinitarians that Scripture reveals both to be God, in addition to the Father. Three persons, one God; each God and all God. The Scriptures I referred to on the other thread show that to be the case; any denial of this must offer a credible counter-explanation of these texts.

From the other thread:
I've tried to find in your posts exactly what you understand of the nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but I'm confused.
Is Christ eternallly co-existent with the Father, or was He created?
Likewise with the Holy Spirit.
Are they the 'us' in whose image man was created?

I think you agree they are three separate persons. The doctrine of the Trinity says they are three separate persons united as One God, eternally co-existent. Not three gods; not one person; but three persons as one God. Please specify what you find wrong about that.

What then do you feel the Scriptures as a whole reveal about the nature of the deity?

2. Hellfire. My standing is that this is an untruth, as it contradicts Gods personality.

The same applies to this doctrine. The many texts that teach eternal punishment have to be explained if a denial of Hellfire is to be upheld. We cannot just appeal to what we think God's mind on wickedness should be. Indeed, from the severity of His judgements on sinners throughout the Bible, one could rightly be surprised He spares so many eternally.

3. The bible being the word of God. My standing at the moment is that it contains Gods words i.e. the ten commandments and the prophets visions etc, but as a whole is not 'the word of god' like for example a muslim would call the quaran the word of god. I can accept inspired by God, or being guided to a degree, put, calling God the author of all scripture, don't know about that?

The objection to the Scripture as the infallible, inerrant word of God must explain those texts that declare it to be so.

From the other thread:
What then did Christ mean when He said 'The Scripture cannot be broken'? How can the words of mere men be inerrant and infallible?

Yes, the Mosaic law is the word of God. It was holy and just and good. But it was temporary, it served its purpose and was fulfilled and abolished by Christ. Its commands no longer apply.
The lineages of Matthew and Luke do not conflict. They are separate lineages, establishing Christ's link to David, Abraham and Adam, and so to His right to inherit the promises and to represent us before His Father.

If the Scripture is in error in anything it asserts, it is indeed broken and none of it can be relied upon.

Zombrex · 16-10-2006 1:26pm

My (limited) understand of the Christian faith is that God is the "thing" (for want of a better term) that one prays to. You don't pray to saints or the Pope for example, but you can ask them to pray for you.

So the question is do you pray to Jesus (he is therefore "God"), or does Jesus pray to the Father for you (he is therefore seperate from "God").

babyvaio · 16-10-2006 1:34pm

Wicknight wrote:

My (limited) understand of the Christian faith is that God is the "thing" (for want of a better term) that one prays to. You don't pray to saints or the Pope for example, but you can ask them to pray for you.

So the question is do you pray to Jesus (he is therefore "God"), or does Jesus pray to the Father for you (he is therefore seperate from "God").

or does Jesus pray to God for himself (he is therefore not only separate from God but also a creature and therefore not The Creator)

babyvaio · 16-10-2006 1:36pm

Wicknight wrote:

My (limited) understand of the Christian faith is that God is the "thing" (for want of a better term) that one prays to. You don't pray to saints or the Pope for example, but you can ask them to pray for you.

So the question is do you pray to Jesus (he is therefore "God"), or does Jesus pray to the Father for you (he is therefore seperate from "God").

You might wana use word deity?

JimiTime · 16-10-2006 1:36pm

Hi Wolfsbane, just in reply to your comments on the evidence of miricles in the bible thread.

To explain the relationship between God, Jesus and The holy spirit. Heres my reasoning.

God YHWH, is the sovreign lord of the universe. The creator, the all powerful. His only begotton son is Jesus. Jesus was the only being directly begotton of God. All other creation came through Jesus, as John points out. Jesus gives glory to The Father. He prays to The Father, he talks to the father. He tells us that The Father will place his enemies beneath his feet, and give him kingship for a time, i.e. The Father grants it him, as the Father is God, he is not. He does not seek worship for himself. He always claims to be the son, and never claims to be God. He claims to have a oneness with God, but never says that they are the same. If you recall when describing marriage, he said a man and woman become one flesh, obviously this is not physically the case but rather symbolic of a closeness.

The Holy spirit, is a different prospect for me, in that I'm still open to what exactly it is. At present, I would see that the holy spirit is part of god as its referred to as Gods Holy Spirit. Maybe you could give some insight here.

Zombrex · 16-10-2006 1:36pm

wolfsbane wrote:

If the Scripture is in error in anything it asserts, it is indeed broken and none of it can be relied upon.

That is not very logical position.

The Bible is a representation of events, a window if you will, written by men.

Take for example a biography of Michael Collins. If the biograph gets aspects incorrect of the life of Collins, does that mean that Collins didn't exist or that the whole book it wrong or that the whole thing was made up?

I mean, I'm an atheist so I don't believe any of the Bible is the literal word of God. That doesn't mean I dimiss the entire book as having no value, or absolutely no accuracy.

I never understood the logic used by people who take the Bible literally. Most of my Christian friends don't, anymore than they take something like the Qur'an literally. That doesn't mean they believe Mohammad was just made up.

wolfsbane · 16-10-2006 1:39pm

Wicknight said:

So the question is do you pray to Jesus (he is therefore "God"), or does Jesus pray to the Father for you (he is therefore seperate from "God").

Good question. But the answer is both. With Thomas we can refer to Jesus as Deity:
John 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

and with Stephen we can petition Him,
Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Jesus is both God and man. God the Father therefore His God too. So Jesus as our Mediator and High Priest represents us before His Father. His great prayer recorded in John 17 is an example of that.

babyvaio · 16-10-2006 1:40pm

JimiTime wrote:

Hi Wolfsbane, just in reply to your comments on the evidence of miricles in the bible thread.

To explain the relationship between God, Jesus and The holy spirit. Heres my reasoning.

God YHWH, is the sovreign lord of the universe. The creator, the all powerful. His only begotton son is Jesus. Jesus was the only being directly begotton of God. All other creation came through Jesus, as John points out. Jesus gives glory to The Father. He prays to The Father, he talks to the father. He tells us that The Father will place his enemies beneath his feet, and give him kingship for a time, i.e. The Father grants it him, as the Father is God, he is not. He does not seek worship for himself. He always claims to be the son, and never claims to be God. He claims to have a oneness with God, but never says that they are the same. If you recall when describing marriage, he said a man and woman become one flesh, obviously this is not physically the case but rather symbolic of a closeness.

The Holy spirit, is a different prospect for me, in that I'm still open to what exactly it is. At present, I would see that the holy spirit is part of god as its referred to as Gods Holy Spirit. Maybe you could give some insight here.

If I understand your post correctly, then Jesus is not God, no way, but merely His creature. Correct? Or not?

BTW, when you say begotten what exactly do you mean? Or should I say how exactly? If Jesus is begotten, then he must be divine. But only God is The Divine. So it appears that you are heavily contradicting yourself.

Please explain what kinda being Jesus really is.

Zombrex · 16-10-2006 1:40pm

babyvaio wrote:

You might wana use word deity?

that is the word I was looking for

Zombrex · 16-10-2006 1:43pm

wolfsbane wrote:

Good question. But the answer is both.

That would imply that, while he can act independently (as much as anything can act independently from God), Jesus is still God.

babyvaio · 16-10-2006 1:46pm

I also have a tiny question for those who believe there is The Creator.

If Jesus is God (what some claim), then shouldn't he also be The Creator of the Heavens and the Earth?

Please show me where does it say that Jesus created something/someone.

wolfsbane · 16-10-2006 1:57pm

Wicknight said:

Take for example a biography of Michael Collins. If the biograph gets aspects incorrect of the life of Collins, does that mean that Collins didn't exist or that the whole book it wrong or that the whole thing was made up?

I mean, I'm an atheist so I don't believe any of the Bible is the literal word of God. That doesn't mean I dimiss the entire book as having no value, or absolutely no accuracy.

The problem then comes in knowing which bits are true. That's not a problem with the life of Michael Collins: it doesn't really make a difference to us whether he said or done this or that as the history claims. People acted on what they believed and life moved on.

But if I am to stake my eternal welfare on something, I need to know it is true. Even in this life, if I am to make choices that are pleasing to God, I need to know what His will is.

Am I to avenge myself on those who wrong me? Am I to eat with sinners? Am I to make an image of God and worship it? May I worship angels? May I have more than one wife at a time? Etc. Do I just pick and choose from the Bible what I think is true and ignore the rest? How do I tell what is true and false in the Bible?

Seems to me the sensible thing is to accept it all for what it claims to be - the inerrant, infallible word of God, or to reduce it to the opinions of men.

Zombrex · 16-10-2006 1:59pm

babyvaio wrote:

I also have a tiny question for those who believe there is The Creator.

If Jesus is God (what some claim), then shouldn't he also be The Creator of the Heavens and the Earth?

Please show me where does it say that Jesus created something/someone.

I suppose one way of thinking about the trinity is the idea of a family.

When you talk of an individual in a family you can discuss what they did, but you can also talk of the family as a whole, in the context of what the whole family did. This context will be quite similar to the context as if you were talking about what an individual does. For example the statement "Pat O'Toole walked to Clare" is very similar to the statement "The O'Toole family walked to Clare".

The same is true of God (if one accepts the trinity). God can be thought of as an individual or a collection, and can act in the same capacity as an individual or as seperate entities acting as an individual.

He is after all God. If He can exist forever outside of space and time the idea that He is an individual entity as we would think of individualism is not necessary.

God I'm beginning to sound like a theist ... I feel so dirty

babyvaio · 16-10-2006 2:01pm

wolfsbane wrote:

Wicknight said:

The problem then comes in knowing which bits are true. That's not a problem with the life of Michael Collins: it doesn't really make a difference to us whether he said or done this or that as the history claims. People acted on what they believed and life moved on.

But if I am to stake my eternal welfare on something, I need to know it is true. Even in this life, if I am to make choices that are pleasing to God, I need to know what His will is.

Am I to avenge myself on those who wrong me? Am I to eat with sinners? Am I to make an image of God and worship it? May I worship angels? May I have more than one wife at a time? Etc. Do I just pick and choose from the Bible what I think is true and ignore the rest? How do I tell what is true and false in the Bible?

Seems to me the sensible thing is to accept it all for what it claims to be - the inerrant, infallible word of God, or to reduce it to the opinions of men.

You statements are very honest and sincere. I agree with you that if you are to accept the word of God, then you accept it completely, not only passages which maybe suit you. The problem is that the Bible, as it is today, is not direct word of God as a whole, although it maybe contains some of His words. God knows best!

JimiTime · 16-10-2006 2:05pm

wolfsbane wrote:

JimiTime said:

A worthy objective! May the Lord open our eyes to His truth.

Amen

The same applies to this doctrine. The many texts that teach eternal punishment have to be explained if a denial of Hellfire is to be upheld. We cannot just appeal to what we think God's mind on wickedness should be. Indeed, from the severity of His judgements on sinners throughout the Bible, one could rightly be surprised He spares so many eternally.

OK, here is a radical view for some maybe. But instead of taking certain scriptures as an 'evidence' of a certain doctrine. If we are to take scripture as a whole, as an insight into Gods personality, alot more becomes evident in my experience. If you recall the pharisees even adhered to scriptures but lost the meaning. How did they lose the meaning, because they used it as a rulebook rather than shall we say, an insight into the creator. If I may use an example, 'If I'm taliking to a friend and say, I hate Chinese, they know I'm not a racist and therefore I am most likely talking about food. Someone else who doesn't know me may think I'm saying I hate chinese people. Its probablya very simplistic (bad even) analagy to make, but I think it puts my point across ok?

The objection to the Scripture as the infallible, inerrant word of God must explain those texts that declare it to be so.

Sorry to be ignorant to this Wolfsbane, but could you tell me where I find thse scriptures. Thanks.

What then did Christ mean when He said 'The Scripture cannot be broken'? How can the words of mere men be inerrant and infallible?

As above, could you tell me where to find that so that I may check its context. Thanks again.

Yes, the Mosaic law is the word of God. It was holy and just and good. But it was temporary, it served its purpose and was fulfilled and abolished by Christ. Its commands no longer apply.

But Christ refers to it as Moses' guide, in that in talking of divorce said that 'Moses' granted you divorce, and then went on to correct that by saying that only in fornication you have the right to divorce.

The lineages of Matthew and Luke do not conflict. They are separate lineages, establishing Christ's link to David, Abraham and Adam, and so to His right to inherit the promises and to represent us before His Father.

What do you mean seperate lineages? they go from Joseph back. How is that a seperate lineage?

If the Scripture is in error in anything it asserts, it is indeed broken and none of it can be relied upon.

This is the bit that worries me. Paul gives his opinion in parts, and says it so. When he says,' this is my opinion' how is that the word of God. As a man Wise in God, I would remark that his opinion is most likely the correct one, but not 'The Word of God'.
I think the Bible acts as our testiment for the true God and gives us his prophesies and his personality. It also gives us the message in Salvation in God through Christ. I do not want to lessen its importance, but as I said, does it have to be the word of God in order for you to have faith in him?

Zombrex · 16-10-2006 2:06pm

wolfsbane wrote:

The problem then comes in knowing which bits are true.

But JimiTime doesn't seem to have any problem knowing which bits are true or not.

wolfsbane wrote:

But if I am to stake my eternal welfare on something, I need to know it is true.

But you don't know the Bible is true to begin with. Nothing external tells you that the Bible is true.

You see it becomes a circle. Eventually at some point you have to base something on simple faith, be that the belief that the Bible is all true or just that some parts of it are true.

There isn't a difference between you deciding that the whole Bible is the literal word of God and JimiTime deciding that some points are the literal word of God but not others. It is just a matter of what you choose to believe.

wolfsbane wrote:

How do I tell what is true and false in the Bible?

The same way you tell that any or all of the the Bible is true to begin with.

wolfsbane wrote:

Seems to me the sensible thing is to accept it all for what it claims to be - the inerrant, infallible word of God, or to reduce it to the opinions of men.

I suppose that is the "safer than sorry" option. But then again this is just a choice you make. You choose to believe that all of it is the word of God. Jimi choose that some parts are and some aren't. Really there is not a lot of difference.

Talliesin · 16-10-2006 2:23pm

I'm curious about your very differentiation of "dogma" and "truth". Dogma means those things that are agreed upon within a particular worldview (religious or otherwise) as being the way things are - that is, what is maintained as truths.

To avoid dogma means to avoid stating anything as fact; to allow disagreement on a matter within the religious community in question. Since you are putting forth truths of your own in such a manner that you are not merely stating "this is how it seems to me" but "this is how it is" then you are in fact putting forth dogmas, their heterodoxy doesn't make them any less so.

JimiTime wrote:

The bible being the word of God. My standing at the moment is that it contains Gods words i.e. the ten commandments and the prophets visions etc, but as a whole is not 'the word of god' like for example a muslim would call the quaran the word of god. I can accept inspired by God, or being guided to a degree, put, calling God the author of all scripture, don't know about that?

I've always been interested in this question. The Qur'an as you say is claimed quite definitively as the word of God, having been given directly to the Prophet Mohammed by the angel Gabriel. Liber Al vel Legis would be another example of a directly revealed scripture from outside of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.

Roman Catholic Catecism, martyrologies, bulls, edicts, works of theological scholarship, Books of Shadows, the writings of Confucius, the Tao Te Ching, and mythological accounts the Eddas and the Irish Cycles are all examples of books which are the writings of fallible human beings striving to record truth, reach at truth, or merely say "this is what we do" and leaving the why and what to something else. They may or may not be seen as "holy", and they may claim certain passages were the words of a deity, but they aren't revealed scripture as such.

The Bible is in an intersting position in this regard because the religious community that holds it sacred disagree within themselves as to just where it sits between the polls of the completely infallible word of God in some Christian's opinion (what "Christian Fundamentalist" literally means, though it has come to have nuances beyond that), the completely fallible striving towards truth of fellow believer's in some other Christian's opinion, and differing positions in between, such as the idea that it is inspired by the Truth (with a big T) and by God, but still through the vehicle of fallible authors and editors. Looking at this difference from outside of the Christian community I think that difference is probably always going to be there to some extent.

Wicknight wrote:

My (limited) understand of the Christian faith is that God is the "thing" (for want of a better term) that one prays to. You don't pray to saints or the Pope for example, but you can ask them to pray for you.

Though such a request to a saint is itself a prayer, and the question of whether one can pray to a saint or not is one of the disagreements that exists between different Christian denominations. They all agree that saints are not worshipped, only God is, (though members of some denominations have accused others of worshipping saints, due to disagreements on just what consitutes an act of worship).

wolfsbane · 16-10-2006 2:33pm

JimiTime said:

God YHWH, is the sovreign lord of the universe. The creator, the all powerful.

Agreed. But is He only the Father? Is He not the plurality that said in Genesis 1 Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness?

Is this plurality not revealed in Hebrews 1 when God says of His Son, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
and
You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.The latter quotation is from Psalm 102 and there the context makes it plain that it speaks of YHWH.

His only begotton son is Jesus. Jesus was the only being directly begotton of God.

Correct, but the question is does begotten mean created?

All other creation came through Jesus, as John points out.

Correct.

Jesus gives glory to The Father. He prays to The Father, he talks to the father. He tells us that The Father will place his enemies beneath his feet, and give him kingship for a time, i.e.

And such we expect from a Father/Son relationship.

The Father grants it him, as the Father is God, he is not.

That is a leap of logic. Does it not mean rather that the Father is the Father, and Jesus is not?

He does not seek worship for himself.

What about Thomas, for example? Where was the rebuke for this blasphemy, if Jesus is not God? When the apostles were given worship, they tore their clothes and ran about trying to stop it. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=14&verse=13&end_verse=15&version=50&context=context

He always claims to be the son, and never claims to be God. He claims to have a oneness with God, but never says that they are the same.

When he claims the same titles, does this not mean the same? http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=alpha%20and%20omega&version1=50&searchtype=all

The Holy spirit, is a different prospect for me, in that I'm still open to what exactly it is. At present, I would see that the holy spirit is part of god as its referred to as Gods Holy Spirit. Maybe you could give some insight here.

You are right, even if your terminology is a bit off. The Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead, but is fully God. Jesus told us that all blasphemies could be forgiven, except those against the Holy Spirit. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%203:28-30%20;&version=50;
That reveals the Spirit's deity, but also His separateness from the Father and Son as a person, for He alone is singled out here.

JimiTime · 16-10-2006 2:41pm

Just to clarify something that seems to be cropping up. I am saying that the bible is not 'the word of god'. I am not saying however I nit pick what I believe true or false in it. I find alot of the contentions that people have with it such as the lineage of Jesus account is not very significant anyway, but it becomes significant if its argued that it is the actual word of god. Just because I'm saying its not the 'word of god' does not mean that I see it as un-true. Its message rings true in any case. I am contending that it actually does not say it is the word of god, and I've asked if there are any scriptures that do.

wolfsbane · 16-10-2006 3:02pm

Wicknight said:

That would imply that, while he can act independently (as much as anything can act independently from God), Jesus is still God.

Bingo!

wolfsbane · 16-10-2006 3:06pm

babyvaio said:

I also have a tiny question for those who believe there is The Creator.

If Jesus is God (what some claim), then shouldn't he also be The Creator of the Heavens and the Earth?

Please show me where does it say that Jesus created something/someone.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

Hebrews 1:2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

wolfsbane · 16-10-2006 3:14pm

Wicknight said:

I suppose one way of thinking about the trinity is the idea of a family.

When you talk of an individual in a family you can discuss what they did, but you can also talk of the family as a whole, in the context of what the whole family did. This context will be quite similar to the context as if you were talking about what an individual does. For example the statement "Pat O'Toole walked to Clare" is very similar to the statement "The O'Toole family walked to Clare".

The same is true of God (if one accepts the trinity). God can be thought of as an individual or a collection, and can act in the same capacity as an individual or as seperate entities acting as an individual.

He is after all God. If He can exist forever outside of space and time the idea that He is an individual entity as we would think of individualism is not necessary.

Bingo, again!

God I'm beginning to sound like a theist ... I feel so dirty

Saul of Tarsus had similar trouble: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=9&verse=4&end_verse=6&version=50&context=context

robindch · 16-10-2006 3:16pm

> I also have a tiny question for those who believe there is The Creator.
> Hebrews 1:2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He
> has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

Sorry guys, but I have to ask this question of you both:

Have you ever considered that uncritically believing every story written down in in two old books may cause you to have an unreaslistic view of the world?

JimiTime · 16-10-2006 3:17pm

wolfsbane wrote:

JimiTime said:

Agreed. But is He only the Father? Is He not the plurality that said in Genesis 1 Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness?

but the question is does begotten mean created?

Yes is what I would say. Firstly let us deal with begotten. To cause to exist. If we take it that everything but the son came into existence from The Father through The Son, Jesus is unique, in that he was the only thing directly created by God. Thus when in Genesis he says, we will make man in our image, he is talking to The Son as the Son had been beggotten before creation of the world began, and through him the world was created.

Is this plurality not revealed in Hebrews 1 when God says of His Son, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
and
You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.The latter quotation is from Psalm 102 and there the context makes it plain that it speaks of YHWH.

Have you not taken the scripture out of context here? Leading up to that scripture, it says that, god has 'given' him a place above all the angels as he has 'given' him a greater name. All the time, there is a greater authority than The Son. If you then take the scripture that you quoted, I would look into the translation of the word god etc, because by the surrouding text he's clearly saying that The Father is greater than he.

When he claims the same titles, does this not mean the same?

The following is the start of A Revelation to John:

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Does this not say that, he was passing on Gods Word to his servants. He is 'The Word of God' afterall?

You are right, even if your terminology is a bit off. The Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead, but is fully God. Jesus told us that all blasphemies could be forgiven, except those against the Holy Spirit. That reveals the Spirit's deity, but also His separateness from the Father and Son as a person, for He alone is singled out here.

It could be said here however, why is it that blasphemy against the Son is forgiven, but blasphemy against Gods Holy Spirit is not, if they all have equal standing? or do you believe The Father is greater than the Son? If so how are they both part of a trinitarian Godhead? As far as Holy Spirit goes, I can see that almost like, Gods personality and power, but I find this falls short of proper meaning.

Cantab. · 16-10-2006 3:26pm

JimiTime wrote:

As someone who is still looking to expel un-truths, I wanted to raise this issue with the Christians on the forum to discuss the following issues with an agenda to expelling Dogma from fact.

1. The Trinity. My standing on this is clear for me. Jesus is seperate from God, they are in union, but different beings. It also grieves me that people have said if you don't accept the trinity doctrine, you don't accept Christ. Something I wholeheartedly do.

2. Hellfire. My standing is that this is an untruth, as it contradicts Gods personality.

3. The bible being the word of God. My standing at the moment is that it contains Gods words i.e. the ten commandments and the prophets visions etc, but as a whole is not 'the word of god' like for example a muslim would call the quaran the word of god. I can accept inspired by God, or being guided to a degree, put, calling God the author of all scripture, don't know about that?

I'm sure there is more than this, but if we could stick to these 3 for the time being. I know that you could have a forum for each of these and there has been for some, but I'm looking to collate the debate to here. Looking forward to your posts.

What you're effectively saying here is that you want to build your own religion? Yes, that's great, but we know there's a slight problem. With what authority can you concoct your own religion, get yourself crucified and rise on the third day...

wolfsbane · 16-10-2006 3:27pm

babyvaio said:

You statements are very honest and sincere. I agree with you that if you are to accept the word of God, then you accept it completely, not only passages which maybe suit you. The problem is that the Bible, as it is today, is not direct word of God as a whole, although it maybe contains some of His words. God knows best!

Thank you for your kind words.

Why do you think the Bible is not God's word? Christians hold it to be the word He inspired various men to write. We do not have the original manuscripts but we have sufficient copies from which to collate all that He intended for us to have. His message has been preserved intact. I take it you believe there are originals in existence and that these contradict some of the Bible we have today. Can you tell us where these are, how they were preserved, and their history?

JimiTime · 16-10-2006 3:39pm

Cantab. wrote:

What you're effectively saying here is that you want to build your own religion? Yes, that's great, but we know there's a slight problem. With what authority can you concoct your own religion, get yourself crucified and rise on the third day...

This is the attitude I'm trying to erradicate from myself. A sleepy yes man who feels that to question doctrine is to question your very faith. I certainly do not want to establish a religion, I am seeking answers for myself. The comment you make is both ignorant and un-becoming of a Christian if thats what you are!

Cantab. · 16-10-2006 4:06pm

JimiTime wrote:

This is the attitude I'm trying to erradicate from myself. A sleepy yes man who feels that to question doctrine is to question your very faith. I certainly do not want to establish a religion, I am seeking answers for myself. The comment you make is both ignorant and un-becoming of a Christian if thats what you are!

Don't you see the irony in your use of the word "ignorant"? AFAIC, there's one truth - that of the Catholic Church. You seek to come up with your own version of what the truth is. Fine, but who are you? Are you a world-reknowned theologian? People have spent their whole lives in the quest for the truth and institutions have been around for centuries (i.e. the Pope, and his Cardinals and Bishops). You come along, as an individual in 2006, and start asking the same old questions that have long-since been discussed and thought-out to death because you seem to somehow know better than everyone else. What is this new knowledge that you have come across all of a sudden? My advice to you is to stop, think, pray and do everything you can so as to love God (i.e. don't offend Him by seeking to undermine Him and his apostles on earth).

There comes a time my friend, especially when someone seeks to question the Holy Trinity, Hell and the Holy Bible, that you need to be told that you are in fact (should you persist in your meanderings), but a heretic. Go and preach your new ideas from the comfort of crawling on your belly, but don't accuse me of being "unchristian" for pointing out your evil errors.

Zombrex · 16-10-2006 4:22pm

This should be fun

Let the religious war begin!

JimiTime · 16-10-2006 4:28pm

Cantab. wrote:

Don't you see the irony in your use of the word "ignorant"? AFAIC, there's one truth - that of the Catholic Church. You seek to come up with your own version of what the truth is. Fine, but who are you? Are you a world-reknowned theologian? People have spent their whole lives in the quest for the truth and institutions have been around for centuries (i.e. the Pope, and his Cardinals and Bishops). You come along, as an individual in 2006, and start asking the same old questions that have long-since been discussed and thought-out to death because you seem to somehow know better than everyone else. What is this new knowledge that you have come across all of a sudden? My advice to you is to stop, think, pray and do everything you can so as to love God (i.e. don't offend Him by seeking to undermine Him and his apostles on earth).

There comes a time my friend, especially when someone seeks to question the Holy Trinity, Hell and the Holy Bible, that you need to be told that you are in fact (should you persist in your meanderings), but a heretic. Go and preach your new ideas from the comfort of crawling on your belly, but don't accuse me of being "unchristian" for pointing out your evil errors.

I implore you to take yourself from the seat of Judgement. Do you also see the crusades as Christian? You call the Catholic Church as the truth. That in itself is a blasphemy, as Jesus is the Truth. Was limbo a truth? Were indulgences a truth? Go your way, if you will, but don't spout your doctrinated drivel to me and claiming that you are talking in Christ. How dare you even use the word Evil when describing my quest for truth! If heracy means that I disagree with Catholocism then I accept it gladly. Will you now burn me at the steak? Be going your way from here until you have something constructive to add.

Cantab. · 16-10-2006 4:54pm

JimiTime wrote:

I implore you to take yourself from the seat of Judgement.

Oh I'm not judging you - you're a free man. Judges put free men in jail. God is the one who will judge. You won't be able to plea ignorance once you're finished with me.

JimiTime wrote:

Do you also see the crusades as Christian?

I take it you've never heard of just war doctrine then?

JimiTime wrote:

You call the Catholic Church as the truth.

Yawn.

JimiTime wrote:

That in itself is a blasphemy, as Jesus is the Truth.

No it isn't you fool.

JimiTime wrote:

Was limbo a truth?

Limbo is under current theological scrutiny and you know that. My understanding is that, the Church is a living organism and there are many great questions yet unanswered - only through prayer, study of the Church and the Bible can we find answers to these questions.

JimiTime wrote:

Were indulgences a truth? Go your way, if you will, but don't spout your doctrinated drivel to me and claiming that you are talking in Christ. How dare you even use the word Evil when describing my quest for truth!

I don't claim to be a bishop nor a priest nor speak on behalf of the Pope. I am but a Catholic lay person (and proud to be such). I am perfectly capable, however, of identifying the odd heretic here and there especially when they start ridiculing the Bible and the Trinity.

JimiTime wrote:

If heracy means that I disagree with Catholocism then I accept it gladly. Will you now burn me at the steak? Be going your way from here until you have something constructive to add.

Good. You're are indeed a heretic in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Go ahead and make up your own religion - I really don't think you can ever find happiness and I pray for you.

wolfsbane · 16-10-2006 4:55pm

JimiTime said:

OK, here is a radical view for some maybe. But instead of taking certain scriptures as an 'evidence' of a certain doctrine. If we are to take scripture as a whole, as an insight into Gods personality, alot more becomes evident in my experience. If you recall the pharisees even adhered to scriptures but lost the meaning. How did they lose the meaning, because they used it as a rulebook rather than shall we say, an insight into the creator. If I may use an example, 'If I'm taliking to a friend and say, I hate Chinese, they know I'm not a racist and therefore I am most likely talking about food. Someone else who doesn't know me may think I'm saying I hate chinese people. Its probablya very simplistic (bad even) analagy to make, but I think it puts my point across ok?

Yes, I accept your point about not seeing the forest for the trees. But the answer is not to not see any tree, but to see them all. God reveals himself to us in individual truths. Taken as a whole, we have our picture of God's personality.

The difficulty you have in seeing Him as opposed to hellfire is in establishing that from the truths He has revealed. Not just one or two truths, but all of them. Most folk I have met who deny hellfire do so on what they think God should be like, not on the Scripture that actually tells us what He thinks. Usually it comes down to what they think is just and good. They face the awfulness of hell as outlined in the Bible and say it cannot be so, for it goes against all that they think is right.

But we need to ask ourselves what does God say is right, and conform our ideas to that. Being sinful creatures, our logic and understanding is prone to err. The fate of all mankind is revealed by Christ: Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Quote:
The objection to the Scripture as the infallible, inerrant word of God must explain those texts that declare it to be so.

Sorry to be ignorant to this Wolfsbane, but could you tell me where I find thse scriptures. Thanks.

Quote:
What then did Christ mean when He said 'The Scripture cannot be broken'? How can the words of mere men be inerrant and infallible?

As above, could you tell me where to find that so that I may check its context. Thanks again.

John 10:35. Context: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010;&version=50;

But Christ refers to it as Moses' guide, in that in talking of divorce said that 'Moses' granted you divorce, and then went on to correct that by saying that only in fornication you have the right to divorce.

Yes, it was a temporary provision. It was not God's eternal moral law. But that does not mean Moses or a later copyist inserted that bit in Scripture. Moses wrote what God told him to. The Pentateuch, the Books of the Law, are God's word just as much as the Gospels or Romans, etc.

What do you mean seperate lineages? they go from Joseph back. How is that a seperate lineage?

From http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm:
26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.

This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of view.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband's name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)

This is the bit that worries me. Paul gives his opinion in parts, and says it so. When he says,' this is my opinion' how is that the word of God.

I see how you are getting confused. When we say the Bible is the word of God, we are not saying everything in it is true or good, etc. For example, Genesis 3:4 says, Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. This is the word of God, an accurate and faithful record of what transpired in the Garden. But what the serpent said is not true or good. Only the record of it. So with anything any man says in the scripture: what is not presented as from God is not to be taken as if it were. But the record of it is to be taken as God's truth. One way we put it is to say the Bible is inerrant in all that it asserts.

I do not want to lessen its importance, but as I said, does it have to be the word of God in order for you to have faith in him?

Just to clarify something that seems to be cropping up. I am saying that the bible is not 'the word of god'. I am not saying however I nit pick what I believe true or false in it. I find alot of the contentions that people have with it such as the lineage of Jesus account is not very significant anyway, but it becomes significant if its argued that it is the actual word of god. Just because I'm saying its not the 'word of god' does not mean that I see it as un-true. Its message rings true in any case. I am contending that it actually does not say it is the word of god, and I've asked if there are any scriptures that do.

If there are bits of the record that are mistaken, how do you tell which bit is true and which mistaken? If the genealogy is wrong, why are you sure about the resurrection? The ascension? The promise of His return?

Cantab. · 16-10-2006 4:58pm

robindch wrote:

> Let the religious war begin!

Monotheists have always had the best religious wars -- let the cries of "heretic" and "Burn 'em!!" ring out across the land once again!

All in the cause of Truth (with a capital 'T'), of course!

And of course you have your own truth - that of relativism. If you listen hard enough, you'll hear cries of "fundamentalist", and "brain-washing" echoing through the ether of debonair nihilists.

wolfsbane · 16-10-2006 5:01pm

Anyone know why my last post extended beyond the page? Thanks.

wolfsbane · 16-10-2006 5:08pm

JimiTime said:

OK, here is a radical view for some maybe. But instead of taking certain scriptures as an 'evidence' of a certain doctrine. If we are to take scripture as a whole, as an insight into Gods personality, alot more becomes evident in my experience. If you recall the pharisees even adhered to scriptures but lost the meaning. How did they lose the meaning, because they used it as a rulebook rather than shall we say, an insight into the creator. If I may use an example, 'If I'm taliking to a friend and say, I hate Chinese, they know I'm not a racist and therefore I am most likely talking about food. Someone else who doesn't know me may think I'm saying I hate chinese people. Its probablya very simplistic (bad even) analagy to make, but I think it puts my point across ok?

Yes, I accept your point about not seeing the forest for the trees. But the answer is not to not see any tree, but to see them all. God reveals himself to us in individual truths. Taken as a whole, we have our picture of God's personality.

The difficulty you have in seeing Him as opposed to hellfire is in establishing that from the truths He has revealed. Not just one or two truths, but all of them. Most folk I have met who deny hellfire do so on what they think God should be like, not on the Scripture that actually tells us what He thinks. Usually it comes down to what they think is just and good. They face the awfulness of hell as outlined in the Bible and say it cannot be so, for it goes against all that they think is right.

But we need to ask ourselves what does God say is right, and conform our ideas to that. Being sinful creatures, our logic and understanding is prone to err. The fate of all mankind is revealed by Christ: Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Quote:
The objection to the Scripture as the infallible, inerrant word of God must explain those texts that declare it to be so.

Sorry to be ignorant to this Wolfsbane, but could you tell me where I find thse scriptures. Thanks.

Quote:
What then did Christ mean when He said 'The Scripture cannot be broken'? How can the words of mere men be inerrant and infallible?

As above, could you tell me where to find that so that I may check its context. Thanks again.

John 10:35. Context: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010;&version=50;

But Christ refers to it as Moses' guide, in that in talking of divorce said that 'Moses' granted you divorce, and then went on to correct that by saying that only in fornication you have the right to divorce.

Yes, it was a temporary provision. It was not God's eternal moral law. But that does not mean Moses or a later copyist inserted that bit in Scripture. Moses wrote what God told him to. The Pentateuch, the Books of the Law, are God's word just as much as the Gospels or Romans, etc.

What do you mean seperate lineages? they go from Joseph back. How is that a seperate lineage?

From http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm:
26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.

This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of view.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband's name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)

This is the bit that worries me. Paul gives his opinion in parts, and says it so. When he says,' this is my opinion' how is that the word of God.

I see how you are getting confused. When we say the Bible is the word of God, we are not saying everything in it is true or good, etc. For example, Genesis 3:4 says, Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. This is the word of God, an accurate and faithful record of what transpired in the Garden. But what the serpent said is not true or good. Only the record of it. So with anything any man says in the scripture: what is not presented as from God is not to be taken as if it were. But the record of it is to be taken as God's truth. One way we put it is to say the Bible is inerrant in all that it asserts.

I do not want to lessen its importance, but as I said, does it have to be the word of God in order for you to have faith in him?

Just to clarify something that seems to be cropping up. I am saying that the bible is not 'the word of god'. I am not saying however I nit pick what I believe true or false in it. I find alot of the contentions that people have with it such as the lineage of Jesus account is not very significant anyway, but it becomes significant if its argued that it is the actual word of god. Just because I'm saying its not the 'word of god' does not mean that I see it as un-true. Its message rings true in any case. I am contending that it actually does not say it is the word of god, and I've asked if there are any scriptures that do.

If there are bits of the record that are mistaken, how do you tell which bit is true and which mistaken? If the genealogy is wrong, why are you sure about the resurrection? The ascension? The promise of His return?

wolfsbane · 16-10-2006 5:15pm

JimiTime said:

OK, here is a radical view for some maybe. But instead of taking certain scriptures as an 'evidence' of a certain doctrine. If we are to take scripture as a whole, as an insight into Gods personality, alot more becomes evident in my experience. If you recall the pharisees even adhered to scriptures but lost the meaning. How did they lose the meaning, because they used it as a rulebook rather than shall we say, an insight into the creator. If I may use an example, 'If I'm taliking to a friend and say, I hate Chinese, they know I'm not a racist and therefore I am most likely talking about food. Someone else who doesn't know me may think I'm saying I hate chinese people. Its probablya very simplistic (bad even) analagy to make, but I think it puts my point across ok?

Yes, I accept your point about not seeing the forest for the trees. But the answer is not to not see any tree, but to see them all. God reveals himself to us in individual truths. Taken as a whole, we have our picture of God's personality.

The difficulty you have in seeing Him as opposed to hellfire is in establishing that from the truths He has revealed. Not just one or two truths, but all of them. Most folk I have met who deny hellfire do so on what they think God should be like, not on the Scripture that actually tells us what He thinks. Usually it comes down to what they think is just and good. They face the awfulness of hell as outlined in the Bible and say it cannot be so, for it goes against all that they think is right.

But we need to ask ourselves what does God say is right, and conform our ideas to that. Being sinful creatures, our logic and understanding is prone to err. The fate of all mankind is revealed by Christ: Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Quote:
The objection to the Scripture as the infallible, inerrant word of God must explain those texts that declare it to be so.

Sorry to be ignorant to this Wolfsbane, but could you tell me where I find thse scriptures. Thanks.

Quote:
What then did Christ mean when He said 'The Scripture cannot be broken'? How can the words of mere men be inerrant and infallible?

As above, could you tell me where to find that so that I may check its context. Thanks again.

John 10:35. Context: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010;&version=50;

But Christ refers to it as Moses' guide, in that in talking of divorce said that 'Moses' granted you divorce, and then went on to correct that by saying that only in fornication you have the right to divorce.

Yes, it was a temporary provision. It was not God's eternal moral law. But that does not mean Moses or a later copyist inserted that bit in Scripture. Moses wrote what God told him to. The Pentateuch, the Books of the Law, are God's word just as much as the Gospels or Romans, etc.

What do you mean seperate lineages? they go from Joseph back. How is that a seperate lineage?

From http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm:
26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.

This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of view.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband's name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)

This is the bit that worries me. Paul gives his opinion in parts, and says it so. When he says,' this is my opinion' how is that the word of God.

I see how you are getting confused. When we say the Bible is the word of God, we are not saying everything in it is true or good, etc. For example, Genesis 3:4 says, Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. This is the word of God, an accurate and faithful record of what transpired in the Garden. But what the serpent said is not true or good. Only the record of it. So with anything any man says in the scripture: what is not presented as from God is not to be taken as if it were. But the record of it is to be taken as God's truth. One way we put it is to say the Bible is inerrant in all that it asserts.

I do not want to lessen its importance, but as I said, does it have to be the word of God in order for you to have faith in him?

Just to clarify something that seems to be cropping up. I am saying that the bible is not 'the word of god'. I am not saying however I nit pick what I believe true or false in it. I find alot of the contentions that people have with it such as the lineage of Jesus account is not very significant anyway, but it becomes significant if its argued that it is the actual word of god. Just because I'm saying its not the 'word of god' does not mean that I see it as un-true. Its message rings true in any case. I am contending that it actually does not say it is the word of god, and I've asked if there are any scriptures that do.

If there are bits of the record that are mistaken, how do you tell which bit is true and which mistaken? If the genealogy is wrong, why are you sure about the resurrection? The ascension? The promise of His return?

robindch · 16-10-2006 5:19pm

> And of course you have your own truth - that of relativism.

I never said that I have my own "truth". BTW, It would be nice if you fundamentalists would actually listen to what us lot have to say about ourselves, rather than what your uninformed cartoon-book heroes have to say about us! But then again, that's really what the problem is, isn't it?

> If you listen hard enough, you'll hear cries of "fundamentalist", and
> "brain-washing" echoing through the ether of debonair nihilists.

I think you may be hearing voices in your head. Sign of madness. Get it checked out. And you've used that "debonair nihilists" phrase before -- do try a more original or entertaining insult next time!

- robin (not debonair, at all, at all)

wolfsbane · 16-10-2006 5:36pm

robindch said:

Sorry guys, but I have to ask this question of you both:

Have you ever considered that uncritically believing every story written down in in two old books may cause you to have an unreaslistic view of the world?

First, thanks for the help with the faulty page. Apologies to all for the mess.

To answer your question, Yes, I have considered that, and found it did not apply to the Bible. The witness of the Holy Spirit in my spirit convinced me of the Bible's veracity, and hence its accurate view of the world.

Zombrex · 16-10-2006 5:41pm

Cantab. wrote:

And of course you have your own truth

Actually most atheists, including myself and Robin (I assume, apologies if wrong), would accept that the only "truth" in human existance is that we cannot ever know for the truth of the universe for certain.

There is just opinion and degrees of likelyhood.

That is one thing theists have a hard time understanding about atheists. They think we follow an alternative religion, believe in an alternative "truth"

We don't, well I certain don't. I don't know the truth of the universe, nor do I pretend to.

The atheists position is not an alternative truth, but the realisation that you cannot know the "truth" for certain, so pretending to, what ever the religion, is ultimately illogical and inherently dangerous.

wolfsbane · 16-10-2006 5:55pm

JimiTime said:

Yes is what I would say. Firstly let us deal with begotten. To cause to exist. If we take it that everything but the son came into existence from The Father through The Son, Jesus is unique, in that he was the only thing directly created by God. Thus when in Genesis he says, we will make man in our image, he is talking to The Son as the Son had been beggotten before creation of the world began, and through him the world was created.

But is that what begotten means here? We have to test that with the rest of Scripture. Can it mean begotten in the sense of being the eternal Son? The rest of Scripture makes that the only possibility. There He is declared to be God.

Have you not taken the scripture out of context here? Leading up to that scripture, it says that, god has 'given' him a place above all the angels as he has 'given' him a greater name. All the time, there is a greater authority than The Son. If you then take the scripture that you quoted, I would look into the translation of the word god etc, because by the surrouding text he's clearly saying that The Father is greater than he.

Yes, both things are true. Jesus is God and He is in filial relationship to the Father as the Son; He is also in relationship to the Father in His nature as a man. He is YHWH, but also the Son come as a man.

The following is the start of A Revelation to John:

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Does this not say that, he was passing on Gods Word to his servants. He is 'The Word of God' afterall?

Yes, it says He was passing on God's word to His servants. But it specifically says Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, a title belonging to God.

It could be said here however, why is it that blasphemy against the Son is forgiven, but blasphemy against Gods Holy Spirit is not, if they all have equal standing?

Why is blasphemy against the Father forgiven? does this imply He is lesser than the Spirit? No, it is God's sovereign arrangement for the manifestation of His holiness and glory. He reserves to Himself the line which must not be crossed. He could have made all blasphemy unforgivable.

or do you believe The Father is greater than the Son?

Only in the filial sense. Both are equally God, fully united. But each has a separate role.

robindch · 16-10-2006 5:55pm

> Actually most atheists, including myself and Robin (I assume, apologies if
> wrong), would accept that the only "truth" in human existance is that we
> cannot ever know for the truth of the universe for certain.

Almost right. I reject the notion of "truth" outright because I have been unable to find anybody who can define it more cogently than either statements of the form "truth is what I think truth is" or "X is truth", where X is some major feature of their own favourite religion. Neither of these definitions convey any meaning or understanding. The brain-in-a-vat argument also suggests -- in the most polite way possible -- that we can be mislead completely, so the views we hold must be tentative and never absolute, lest we nail ourselves politically to a tree that we can't subsequently climb down from.

Others will disagree, I'm sure.

wolfsbane · 16-10-2006 6:04pm

Wicknight said:

The atheists position is not an alternative truth, but the realisation that you cannot know the "truth" for certain, so pretending to, what ever the religion, is ultimately illogical and inherently dangerous.

I'm not nit-picking, just trying to pin-point yuor position. Does the above not make you an agnostic rather than an atheist? Does atheism not say it knows the truth about deities, that they are a figment of people's imagination?

JimiTime · 16-10-2006 8:28pm

wolfsbane wrote:

JimiTime said:

Scripture inerrant and infallible http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20119:159-160;&version=50;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=14&verse=49&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=10&verse=35&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=24&verse=44&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=13&verse=18&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=17&verse=12&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=19&verse=24&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=19&verse=28&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=20&verse=9&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=19&verse=36&version=50&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=1&verse=16&version=50&context=verse

Scripture the test of the truth
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=18&verse=28&version=50&context=verse

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=3&verse=15&end_verse=17&version=50&context=context

The Trustworthy Prophetic Wordhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:16-21%20;&version=50;

Paul's letters are Scripture http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=3&verse=16&version=50&context=verse

John 10:35. Context: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010;&version=50;

Yes, it was a temporary provision. It was not God's eternal moral law. But that does not mean Moses or a later copyist inserted that bit in Scripture. Moses wrote what God told him to. The Pentateuch, the Books of the Law, are God's word just as much as the Gospels or Romans, etc.

From http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm:
26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.

This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of view.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband's name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)

I see how you are getting confused. When we say the Bible is the word of God, we are not saying everything in it is true or good, etc. For example, Genesis 3:4 says, Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. This is the word of God, an accurate and faithful record of what transpired in the Garden. But what the serpent said is not true or good. Only the record of it. So with anything any man says in the scripture: what is not presented as from God is not to be taken as if it were. But the record of it is to be taken as God's truth. One way we put it is to say the Bible is inerrant in all that it asserts.

If there are bits of the record that are mistaken, how do you tell which bit is true and which mistaken? If the genealogy is wrong, why are you sure about the resurrection? The ascension? The promise of His return?

Indeed I feel more enlightened. My deepest thank you for the time you spent on this. The lineage of Jesus question, brilliant:) So Bible writers inspired by Spirit to portray an accurate account of things. Also Containing the literal words of God, in prophesy and the commandments. Ok I'm convinced NEXT:D

As per my previous posts, I still don't have any evidence of a 3 figure Godhead? Everything points toward The Son being seperate from The Father as I've mentioned. Even what was quoted by yourself, did not stand up to scrutiny in my eyes.Your thoughts?

As for Hellfire. I completely concur that we must not assume that we know better than God when it comes to Justice. However, can I ask you what purpose you think 'hell' as a place of fiery torment fulfills in Gods eyes. Is it consistent with the judgements he has brought upon the wicked in the past? Sodom and Gommorah, the flood. The wicked were wiped out, but they did not suffer for eternity. It is obvious you are a man learned in scripture, do you really think that God has created such a place?

babyvaio · 16-10-2006 9:00pm

JimiTime wrote:

As per my previous posts, I still don't have any evidence of a 3 figure Godhead? Everything points toward The Son being seperate from The Father as I've mentioned. Even what was quoted by yourself, did not stand up to scrutiny in my eyes.Your thoughts?

I agree with you Jimi that there is no evidence in the whole Bible whatsoever about the trinity. In fact, the 1st Commandment say One and only One True God (not in the exact words, but you kno what I mean) and yet there are people saying that Jesus made all these Commandments obsolete which is not true at all. If that is true, then why do they keep the obsolete stuff in the Bible?? I mean, Jesus did change some of the Law by God's Command, but not the obvious 1st Commandment.
And honestly, how can someone claim that up until year zerro or so, there was only One God, and then this changed all of the sudden, just like it was never there? They will say there is one God, but see, He is this & this & this (making Him to be three obviously, God forbid!)

Now, if you say to those who support the trinity, why did Jesus have to use the toilet (to give you the most ridiculous, yet true example!), they will say because that was part of him human personality. Also, why did he drink and eat and sleep and rest and pray, etc.??

See, they are cutting Jesus half - when they need to justify some accusations they use either him as a man or they attribute divinity to him, thus being so unjust towards Jesus the Prophet himself (actually, they are saying a terrible lie on him).

OK, then you ask them, how come Jesus is not equal to God Almighty (Christians would mean Father here, since I don't use that word, I'll use God Almighty just to make sure we understand each other), since Jesus himself (according to the Scripture) claims that God Almighty is greater than him.

Then again they will say, see, this is bcos in his human form he is not, but yet he is fully equal to God Almighty (of course the Scripture does not support this claim).

Then you say well OK, then, how about this: there is in the Scripture clearly stated that Jesus did not know everything, i.e. Jesus has no idea when will be the Judgement Day - therefore Jesus is not the All-Knowing and cannot be equal to God Almighty or therefore Jesus is not the All-Knowing God. Then they will say again the same thing.

Now you ask them this: how is it that Jesus was fully God in his flesh and yet there were things he didn't know? I mean at least his mind would be all-knowing, nevermind the flesh??.

And see what they say, I'm sure they will shoot me after this.

Zombrex · 16-10-2006 9:18pm

wolfsbane wrote:

Does the above not make you an agnostic rather than an atheist?

No, because I believe that the concept of "gods" was invented by humanity, by the human imagination. As such it is not something that is in the realms of things that can or cannot exist, since the concept isn't based in reality to begin with.

Now I accept the very very slim chance that something humans invented just might, by pure chance, correspond to something that actually does exist.

But I think the chances of that happening, combined with the fact that there is no evidence of a god or gods, to make that as totally unlikely as to be not worth considering.

Therefore I'm an atheist. That doesn't mean I know the "truth" that there is no God. I don't. But then I don't know the truth that a green dragon isn't going to fall on my head 5 minutes from now, but I'm pretty certain that isn't going to happen.

Truth implies a unalterable fact. I might be wrong about there being no God, but I don't think I am. If I did I would be an agnostic (or just very confused, though sometimes I have trouble telling an the two apart

)

That is different from saying I know the "truth" that I'm not wrong.

I can't really know anything as unaltering "truth", but that doesn't stop me deciding what I believe and what I don't believe. And I don't believe in gods. I'm therefore an atheists.

As I said all there is really is opinion and likelyhood. Decisions as to what we believe or don't believe. There is no "truth".

Hope that makes sense.

babyvaio · 16-10-2006 9:51pm

Wicknight wrote:

No, because I believe that the concept of "gods" was invented by humanity, by the human imagination.

It was invented by humanity, base on what (I'm asking for the concept of One True God)? How are you so sure? Evidence please.

You find no problems believing that there are black holes in universe and yet you deny Almighty God so easily? Please explain. Previous explanation was a bit foggy.

Son Goku · 16-10-2006 10:01pm

babyvaio wrote:

It was invented by humanity, base on what (I'm asking for the concept of One True God)? How are you so sure? Evidence please.

You find no problems believing that there are black holes in universe and yet you deny Almighty God so easily? Please explain. Previous explanation was a bit foggy.

For black holes there is observational evidence, for God there is personal testimony. Even if you think we atheists are in denial, surely you can see why one is easier to accept than the other.
To be honest I don't even see why you choose those two things to contrast.

babyvaio · 16-10-2006 10:18pm

Son Goku wrote:

For black holes there is observational evidence, for God there is personal testimony. Even if you think we atheists are in denial, surely you can see why one is easier to accept than the other.
To be honest I don't even see why you choose those two things to contrast.

No way, what a statement! So you're saying that the evidence that black holes exist is much firmer than the evidence that somebody created these black holes and the whole lot together?

Blind, so they cannot see. I wish you did.

PS I chose the two because for God and for black holes there is evidence. You cannot see God nor the black holes. However, there are more proofs that God is, than that black holes exist. I mean, black holes are just one little tiny example of creation, for God there are countless proofs of what He has created.

BrianCalgary · 16-10-2006 10:19pm

JimiTime wrote:

As for Hellfire. I completely concur that we must not assume that we know better than God when it comes to Justice. However, can I ask you what purpose you think 'hell' as a place of fiery torment fulfills in Gods eyes. Is it consistent with the judgements he has brought upon the wicked in the past? Sodom and Gommorah, the flood. The wicked were wiped out, but they did not suffer for eternity. It is obvious you are a man learned in scripture, do you really think that God has created such a place?

Hell is a place that is actually created by those angels that rebelled. It is a place devoid of God. A place where God is not welcome and he honours the wishes of those inhabitants. God is not invited there so He does not go.

As with us, there are those that go through this life with opportunity to come to Him and they refuse. They wish to spend a life devoid of God and they get their wish for an eternity. They get to join the place with the fallen angels where God is not welcome.

Jesus then describes to us the contrast between the two, maybe in order to help us along in our decision.

As an example, there are those of us right here who will gladly give our testimonies of where and how we met the living God. What He does in our lives today and how He is a regular contributor to our lives.

Then there is Son Goku's position:
For black holes there is observational evidence, for God there is personal testimony. Even if you think we atheists are in denial, surely you can see why one is easier to accept than the other.
To be honest I don't even see why you choose those two things to contrast.

Here he flatly refuses to give any credence to those testimonies. What we have to say doesn't matter, however he wishes that we would all accept his measurements of the universe around us as factual. I do know which is easier to accept: the testimonies of changed lives as a result of the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

Son Goku · 16-10-2006 10:36pm

No way, what a statement! So you're saying that the evidence that black holes exist is much firmer than the evidence that somebody created these black holes and the whole lot together?

Yes, what evidence is that there was somebody who created it all outside your personal opinion that this is what occured?

Blind, so they cannot see. I wish you did.

Wow, another piece of advice, in the same vein as what we hear all the time.
We have a non-religious view of things, therefore we must be pitied.

Here he flatly refuses to give any credence to those testimonies. What we have to say doesn't matter, however he wishes that we would all accept his measurements of the universe around us as factual. I do know which is easier to accept: the testimonies of changed lives as a result of the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

Sigh, groan, e.t.c.
I was originally going to write a rebuke of what you said, but to further my own understanding could you please explain what you think I'm saying. There are certain times when you respond to me that I've no idea where you're coming from.
Particularly the part in italics, black holes are observed, what does "accept his measurements of the universe around us as factual" mean?
This isn't even a creationist/evolutionist thing.

Seperating The Dogma from the Truth!

Comments