Preserved Topic: problem with god (Page 2 of 4)

quote:

---

The old question, and ustoppable force vs an immovable object.

---

As a question of paradox, I think the best answer I've read was by Dr. Isaac Asimov in a Q&A he used to publish.

The gist of it was that the existence of either one would preclude the existence of the other. In the physical universe, defining something as an immovable object would preclude the possibility of an unstoppable force due to the fact that they are contrary by their very definition. Thus, neither can exist in the same universe.

pffft.
The unstopable force is deflected...

what if the unstoppable force was the immovable object?

"Salting the back of a snail... My turkish prison is knowing that i fit in...."- Glassjaw

jade: you ask for comments.. what you posted is one theory. read this thread again, nethermind and a few others have some comments relative to your theory. also check the FAQ the emperor refers to - along with the threads posted there.

{edit-fix spelling}

[This message has been edited by velvetrose (edited 03-12-2003).]

VR

My comment is not theory. Summed up, it all is contained in your scriptures. Thread doesn't elaborate on my comment. Divine science defies science of mortal men.
Still waiting.

It is a theory, because it has not been proven.

Or if it has been proven, please show us the evidence.

Do I have to give quotes on scriptures again and do alot of your work. Evidently you are not bible read. Check the web & I want views on what I wrote, not why I wrote it. Your fielding.

You can't use an unprovable source (the bible) as concrete evidence to prove a theory. Your belief does not validate the contents of the bible, however much you wish it did. The bible provides one possible answer of many. It just so happens that a lot of people believe in it. That doesn't necessarily make it true or particularily accurate. Divinely inspired or not the bible was written by "mortal men" to use your term. There are going to be discrepencies and errors. Things that can be and will be questioned. Deal with it but deal with it nicely rather than challenging every opinion that is offered in as callous a way as possible.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

!#REF

=)

Definition of God:

He is beauty itself and he contains within himself all the perfections beyond all desire, he is amiable without defect, delightful beyond comparison, pleasing without the least flaw, in wisdom he is estimable, in goodness without measure, in power boundless, in greatness immeasurable, in essence infinite, in judgements, terrible, his counsels, inscrutable, in his words, most true. in his works holy, rich in mercies, Space cannot overreach him, narrowness cannot define him, sorrow cannot disturb him, joy cannot cause any change in him; nor does he ever fail in his wisdom, or change his will, abundance cannot overwhelm or want come near him, memory adds nothing, forgetfulness takes nothing from his knowledge, what was is not past for him; the beginning gave no origins to his being, and time will bring him no end. Without being caused, he causes all things, and he has not need of anything but all things need participation in him; he preserves them without labor, he governs them without confusion. Those who know him are happy, who love and extol him are blessed; for he exalts his friends, and at last glorifies them by his eternal vision and loving friendship.

Just thought I would share this on this thread.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 03-12-2003).]

LOL DL-44!

Uh... Okay, Jade. First off... where did that come from(source)? Secondly, what is the point you are trying to make(if you're trying to make one)?

From the looks of it it seems to run in the same vein as Nethermind, CFB, and Silence's posts (sorry if I've mistaken your POV) but I don't know without some qualifying input from YOU not just the source material that has been regurgitated.


GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

jade,

I think you need to know that there are quite a few different points of view on this forum.

I am the so called "bible only" type of Christian. So is Fig and a some others.

But there are atheists, agnostics, mystics, neo-pagans, etc here too. You need to get to know your audience a bit more to make sense of the myriad of responses you're liable get on any one topic, especially religion. I just thought that might help you a bit

I thought I could put anything on thread. Its not my made
up descripiton.

If I told you guys where I got this, I would be crucified.
Its not a proven source. Its mystic revelation from Angels.

You're really confusing me! You can post just about anything you want, that's what I meant.

Your source is your source. People don't have to accept it but it's your source all the same, who would crucify you?

It came from here Definition of God

Oh, I think I see now. I didn't realize what jade was referring to but it was the quote above. Thanks, GN. But I'm still confused as to why jade wouldn't want to cite the source. Maybe, I'll do more reading in this thread and less typing for a bit until I can get my bearings

Hmmm...so these writings of Mary? really exist? Why were they excluded from the Bible?

WTF??

The first 'holy writs' from a woman that I have seen mentioned...and it's not part of the Bible? Why? Who decided that?

You know, these last threads, on Catholicism and Christianity have really been opening my eyes...why is this information so hard to come by?

WB. Do you really think all the view of god can be contained in a book. That is limiting God and he is limitless.
Look in the last chapter of John.

And after the cannon of the bible was officially closed. It only closed scripture that nothing could be added to it or taken out. IT was never decreed that since that time God would not reveal himself to his people. Gosh look how long its been that he hasn't sent us messages or revealed himself to us. Would a good and loving god leave us a book that we could bicker about for centuries in charge. I don't think so. He loves us too much.

Do you wonder since that time, (2000 yrs) that God through beings or sect would keep in touch with us to let us know if we are going the right way or doing ok. Most of all to still know him. Can he send emmisionarys or angels or his own mother if he wants since he is god. Why in our boastful self knowledge do we determine how he should come to us. Isn't that what the jewish leaders thought.

WS: That is not in the New Testament because it came about 1,700 years too late to get included:

quote:

---

The Mystical City of God; is the collected revelations made by the Blessed Virgin Mary to the Venerable Mary of Jesus of Agreda (a 17th Century nun).

---

from:
www.sacredheart.com/MysticalCityOfGod.htm

An awful lot was left out of the NT and quite a bit of what went in was written long after Jesus died - its less of a document of the early church as it is propoganda for a specific version of Christianity that emerged at Nicea (sp?) - I'm sure we covered something along those lines a while back

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Hmmm...I'm pretty well aquainted with the Old Testament (a nice read, actually), but the New Testament just baffled me...except for Revelations, of course (also a good read).

Who was the Blessed Virgin Mary, then? I thought that was Mary...hoboy.

Thanks for clearing that up, Emps...

ws - jesus' mother was Mary aka blessed virgin mary (to catholics). protestants don't consider her a virgin

also, the only biblical story (written by a woman, i think) is the story of Esther.

jade

quote:

---

Why in our boastful self knowledge do we determine how he should come to us. Isn't that what the jewish leaders thought.

---

nope, the expectations of his reappearance are based on biblical prophesy.

I was always more partial to the other biblical mary.

LOL, jesus did make some changes with her too!

quote:

---

I'm pretty well aquainted with the Old Testament (a nice read, actually), but the New Testament just baffled me...except for Revelations

---

WS, say what? Revelations is a very difficult book to get a handle on. The rest of the New Testament is written so much more plainly. What major part did you not comprehend in it? I know there are plenty of things to question there but the overall theology couldn't be much more apparent.

Emps, all of the books contained in the NT were finished by around the turn of the first century. I don't consider that to be "long" after Christ's death considering the eye witnesses were alive during the writing of the majority of the texts. Were you thinking the books were written in the time frame I just mentioned or did I perhaps miss a topic that occurred on this subject some time ago?

velvetrose, according to Catholic dogma, Mary not only was a virgin after having Jesus but remained a virgin her entire life on this earth. And if that isn't enough, one of the infallible doctrines uttered by the Pope is that Mary was assumed into heaven *and* lived a sinless life.

You are correct in pointing out that Protestants do not accept the perpetual virgin doctrine, nor do they accept the sinless life and assumption. But they do believe in the virgin birth as do I.

WS, you are asking for an entirely new thread if you want to get into the whole "women" issue with regards to the Bible and the history of its adherents. Are you up for that? ( or is the current slang are you down with that? LOL! )

Hmmm...would be an interesting topic, I agree...I'll create one.

As for the New Testament, it's the reaccounting by those Apostles...again, and again, and again...blah! (with minor differences, here and there...)

Revelations is a hard read??!!?? Nah. It's an interesting read, I found...

Waking up this thread after a long sleep.

This post is for bugs and for anyone else that would want to post on why Mary would have to be considered a non-virgin after the birth of the savior.
Interested in your logic or reasoning.

It's quite simple. Jesus had siblings.

Yup. Jude is Jesus half brother. (right?)

I don't know about anyone else though.

--

WS: Despite what you posted, I still can't understand how you couldn't get the New Testament, but were totally fine with revelations. It seems to me like someone saying that they can't drive, yet being able to take apart and rebuild the cars motor with a blindfold on.

Who are the brothers & sisters?. In those days if you read the history of the people they referred to each other in a family of cousins, etc as brothers and sisters. There is no proof he had siblings and why are they not mentioned in the gospels? Surly they, his own flesh & blood would be known and spoke of?

And at the foot of the cross, why did Jesus tell his apostle John to take care of his mother, not his own brothers and sisters if he had any. Why not them.?

Because his mother was obviously elderly, whereas his brothers and sisters could of fended for themselves.

Mary was around 14 yrs old when she delivered Jesus. He was cruified at 33. I would say she was quite young.

Is there a possiblity the words at the foot of the cross that were directed to John

" Son behold your mother, Mother behold your son."

might have a deep meaning? Jesus is dying for the salvation of mankind and these are almost his last words. From this time on John took Jesus's mother into his home and cares for her the rest of her life.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-02-2003).]

Hmm. well I can't speak on the issue of siblings (though I ahd thought it was accepted that he did have siblings...), isn't it known that the word actually used in the original texts was *not* actually "virgin", but rather a term that meant an unwed girl?


Not to mention 47 years old, 2000 years ago, seems a pretty significant age.

Before the birth of Christ and upto I would say she had to be. If God the creator was going to overshadow her to manifest itself in to the Godman, she would have to be untouched.

The actual "Virgin title" was added by dogma of the church by reasoning that no one else could be in the place God was. Meaning her womb.

All philosophy and no sprituality makes Jack a dull boy...

Did you ever try running a 100,000 volts through a strand of human hair?

Things can be so simple...
Matt.11 Verse:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.


Jesus Brothers and sisters:
Matt.13 Verse 56
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Mark.6 Verse 3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

( DL-44 ) In the bible the Hebrew word 'bethu-lah' signifies a woman who has never been united to a man in marriage and has never had sexual intercourse. The Greek term 'par-the-nos' however, can aply to both single men and women. Although the Hebrew word 'bethu-lah' means 'virgin', another term ( 'al-mah') appears at Isaiah 7:44: "Look! The maiden (ha'-al-mah') herself will actually become pregnabt, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Immanuel." The word 'al-mah' means maiden and can apply to a virgin or a non-virgin. It is applied to the maiden Rebekah before marriage when she is also called "a virgin" (bethu-la). Matthew employed a Greek word 'Par-the-nos' (virgin) when showing that Isaiah 7:14 found final fulfillment with the virgin birth of Jesus the Messiah. Bothe Matthew and Luke state clearly that Jesus mother Mary was then a virgin who becane pregnant through the opreation of the holy spirit. Matt 1:18-25 Lu1:26-35.

...xpi..
.
"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-02-2003).]

Xpirex, I was composing this while you posted. There is a bit of overlap I think

Jade, I gave my short and sweet answer above and now you get the long and sour one Let me just say that this question really comes down to a simple "he said she said" situation between Catholic Tradition and a Sola Scriptura approach. The RCC teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin, lived a sinless life, and was assumed into heaven. I believe all of that is ?de fide? is it not, Jade? Certainly the Assumption is. (de fide means an infallible utterance from the Magisterium)

If I knew nothing about the traditions that the RCC maintains about the Mother of God, I would have no reason to believe that all of the mentioning of Jesus' siblings in the Bible really meant cousins. Let me list several of the passages so we can get a feel for what's there.

Rejection of Jesus in his hometown of Nazareth: Matthew 13:53-58, Mark 6:1-6, and Luke 4:16-30 These are all basically describing the same event so I?ll quote the Matthew one:

quote:

---

When Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there. He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?
"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
"And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household."
And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.

---

Notice, Jade, that this passage refers to Mary directly, Joseph directly as the carpenter, and it would seem to me a direct reference to brothers by name. What reason would I have to read cousin in this case?

quote:

---

After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days. --John 2:12
. . .
Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing.
"For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world."
For not even His brothers were believing in Him.
--John 7:3-5

---

quote:

---

These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. --Acts 1:14

---

quote:

---

Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? --I Corinthians 9:5

---

Here?s another synoptic view of another event. Matthew 12:46-50, Mark 3:31-35, and Luke 8:19-21. We?ll go with the Mark one this time:

quote:

---

Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You."
Answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers?"
Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother."

---

Here?s a good one in Paul?s letter to the church in Galatia chapter 1 verse 19:

quote:

---

But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

---

Here we?re not talking about some group of ?cousins? but a specific name and identification as the Lord?s brother.

CFB, yes, conservative scholars believe Jude was Jesus? brother because he identifies himself as:

quote:

---

Jude brother of James?

---

Since James is named as Jesus? brother above, they connect the dots. But this is not a dunker because other scholars think Jude was written by an unknown author (other than the book of Jude unknown that is). We can?t really say for sure.

Here?s another argument to consider, Jade. In Hebrew culture having children was a very cherished ability, in other words, women who were barren were considered to be cursed by God. What reason would we have, other than Catholic dogma, to believe that Mary would never have had normal relations with her husband? Matthew 1:24-25 says:

quote:

---

And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

---

Let me appeal to your logic on this one. Why does it say ?kept her a virgin until??

DL-44, it is widely accepted that Jesus had siblings from Christians outside of the Orthodox world. But I believe most of the orthodox churches have similar views to the Roman church on this issue. The Greek Orthodox, for instance, teaches that all the references to siblings are Joseph?s children from a previous marriage.

About the ?virgin? word, it is Parthenos in the Greek. Take a look at the link to get an how and where it?s used in the NT.

I think what you may be thinking about is the Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah:

quote:

---

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. --Isaiah 7:14

---

Some Jewish scholars who don?t accept the NT claims are quick to point out that what we would translate from the Hebrew as ?virgin? they would rather use ?maiden?.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-02-2003).]

So who came first, amongst Jesus and his brothers and sisters?

I believe Jesus came first, but if you take the Greek Orthodox view then some of his half-siblings from Joseph's previous marriage would have come first.

Interesting. Thanks for the info Bugs, and Xpirex.

This might be a tad long so bear with me.

Bugs you still havent answered my question on why Jesus told John his beloved disciple those words at the foot of the cross?.

In Jewish law and if there are any jews out there correct me if I am wrong, in regard to a widow, the eldest son was to care for her. If he died, the caring of her would go to the next oldest. Where was he at the foot of the cross and why did Jesus direct these words to the beloved apostle John? He did care for her the rest of he life. This kind of blows your theory that Mary had other children.
Also in the scripture you quoted, I have reflected on them all as I have many times b-4 and can't understand why the writer wouldn't use the term "the other sons & daughters of Mary, instead of always referring to brothers & sisters of Jesus.
The church classifies them as kin and close friends.

Also look at the early greek word for brother "adelphos". Wasn't it used to describe brother not born of the same parents, like step-brother, half-brother and other relationships as well.
Correct me if I am wrong. Velvetrose your good at detail and history, where are you? Look at Genesis 13:8 & 14:1416 the word adelphos was used to describe relationship between Abraham & Lot(?), however these two men did not share a brother relationship, but of one of uncle and nephew.
Another was Laben or Leban?, who was "adelphos" to Jacob, but he was a uncle, not brother.
In Matt15:40 James & Jose were sons of Mary & Cleophas Mark14:40 Jude was the son of James LK 6:16 James the Lessor was the son of Asphaes Luke6:15 James the Greater & John were sons of Zebedee with the mother other than the Virgin Mary Mt20:20.

Plus there is no mention in the gospels of Mary & Joseph having other children.

There is an early christian writing before the canon of the bible was put together called the THE PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES. This gives you a clearer picture of the family of jesus and birth. Good read since it was written before CC cease to become the Church christ had intended for some. Part of CC traditonal writings.

The greek word for until "heos" does might not imply anything happened after the birth of Jesus or does it deny it. Just that Joseph was not responsible for the birth. Look at Luke 1:80 how "until" in ref of a John the Batptist on how he became strong in spirit & was in the desert "until" the day of his manifistation to Israel. Does this mean her never appeared in the desert again.

What about the great protestant reformers, Martin Luther, John Calvin and that Zwiglii(?) guy. They all believed thru scripture the Mary was ever virgin. What happend along down the road in the protestant way to change this belief?



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-02-2003).]

I could spent many days and nights in here but I must restrain myself from allowing a billion questions and trains of thought to sprout and branch off in a plexus of directions in my mind. This is a topic of potentialy biblical proportions... (haha.. pun intented) I mean gargantuan...
alas I have to resist getting drawn in too deep...

...xpi...

"nuff said"