Preserved Topic: problem with god

walking home today, i thought up an interesting paradox... assuming, as i think the Bible suggests:

• god exists
• god is all knowing
• god is all powerful

BUT if god knows everything, therefore the future as well, then he knows how he will act in the future, his actions are predetermined, therefore in my opinion he is not all powerful... anyone have any thoughts on this?

Yes, I think that you are basing your conclusions on some presupposed ideas. First, you are assuming that God operates within the same structure and confines of Time that we do to be subjected to any foreknowledge of future events. If I was writing a book about a group of people, I would be effectively outside of their framework of time and also (in this humble context) all powerful. Second, you are assuming that the definition of an all powerful God is something that we are able to quantify. I think the very nature of the term all powerful implies that God has an ability to do things beyond our own scope of understanding.

Granted, I don't think I understand much at all about God on those levels. I am just trying to understand how God interacts with people first.

Just my thoughts.

my assumptions were based on the god of the bible, which is a fairly human one i would say. still your comments were very interesting. have you (or anyone else?) read "sophie's world" by jostein gardner, that sounds exactly like what you suggest, the book concept. i'm not very good at literature, so never thought to extend it as far as a metaphor for god...

RTFM!

krets: There's a manual??

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

rtfb

b = bible

InSiDeR: Come on - you know there is only one source for all the answers to your such universal questions on life, the universe, etc.:

:FAQ:

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

every beginning is some other beginnings end

of course, by definition, God has no beginning or end

God, i love paradox

god is a concept.

therefore there is no paradox.

concepts can be altered to fit the current need.

If that were not the case, there would be no god.

Because people cannot accept - en masse - an unalterable entity.

I have problems with God too. That cheap bastard owes me money.

WHOA!!!
Satan has posted...
now all we need is a post from God himself...

*runs in circles pretending to dance*

outcydr: Satan isn't a moderator of this forum - the Devil is:

:FAQ:

Its a subtle but important difference

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

oh

darn it

edit/ *dances anyway*



[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 03-02-2003).]

Are people still looking how to get to heaven?

I think I said all they need to know

clicky

Get to heaven? Why on Earth would I want that? I'm still having fun, exploring all those paths up the mountain!

The moonlight could be stronger, though...pretty dark, on some of those paths...hehe.


WebShaman

Though there are many paths
At the foot of the mountain
All those who reach the top
See the same moon.

My opinion is that God created time, and is therefore not bound the limitations that consist of Time.

I heard it described this way once: Got operates on an eternal basis, which means that there is no time. Therefore, he doesn't know what he is going to do. He has choices, just like us, it's just that God is perfect. God is all-powerfull and all knowing, so he knows everything that we will do because we are bound by time.

Therefor, since God does not operate within a world bound by time, there is no way to look ahead into the future.

I'm not sure if I'm correct, but maybe someone with more insight into this could tell better what I'm trying to say.

--

I'm confused now, who's Satan? (the poster )

^^??

Ahhh...ok...I'm confused...

WTH are you trying to say?

I think that I mean the in Gods world time doesn't exist, so theres no way to "look forward in time." But, in ours, there is, so God is able to look forward, or backwards, in time.

Hmmm...you are suggesting, that God is outside of Time, then? Well, Time is a tricky thing...it's all relative, after all.

However, if God is really outside of Time (the same would apply to any being), then it would know everything at once...there would be no linear progression, there would be no progression at all. Progression is a form of Time. So, why all this then? God would already know all the answers...and all this would not be necessary. Irregardless of what one may, or may not think is God's plan, it would already know (and have) it. That is a direct result of being outside of the timestream...one would exist simultaniously everywhere at once and everywhen at once. What then, would be left to do? Nothing...just be.

Because this does not directly relate to what is in the Bible (God does this, takes that back, destroys this, creates that...etc, etc), this does not represent a view of a being that is outside of the timestream, but rather of a being that is immortal (undying). Obviously, God doesn't know everything...otherwise, it wouldn't have needed to create anything. Unless it is, in reality, of a cruel nature, that is. Then maybe it just enjoys torment. Or worship. Strange, that God would get angry about the lack of recognition, or worship...or the admitance (or denial) of its existance. No all-powerful being outside the Timestream would be interested in such things - they are only human values...connected with living in a Time-stream. Were you (or I) to be dis-connected from the Timestream, and therefore Timeless, we would have no need of most of our 'humaness'...for we would be one with everything (everywhere and everywhen at once).

Just like a video game!....."Black and White"

I'm thinking that omnisciense shouldn't equate knowledge of all but knowledge of all possiblities. It removes the paradox and explains why we're here. I.E. Start this human race and see where it actually goes out of all of the possiblities available.

I wonder if God is a gambler. Maybe he's guessing where we're going to end up and playing the odds.

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

i've seen this a lot, people explain god by saying he does not operate on the terms we perceive, time, space, energy, etc.. - that is to say he is outside them. even if this were true, i've never understood how god affects everything if he is outside it, like watching tv, save changing channels i can't realistically affect what is happening on tv at the moment - i can't make the people do things. and that is even if god does exist outside them, as this seems to be little more than an escape clause, IMHO. as science progresses further, and somewhat disproves more and more common religeous beliefs, this seems a convienient way of allowing a god, by making him outside of all these things. in the middle ages they used to believe heaven was between the earth and the moon or something similar, i can't quite remember what - but then gallileo came along, so that put an end to those ideas. the late douglas adams explained it better than i can:

quote:

---

A man didn't understand how televisions work, and was convinced that there must be lots of little men inside the box, manipulating images at high speed. An engineer explained about high-frequency modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, transmitters and receivers, amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, scan lines moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now understand how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few little men in there, aren't there?"

---

Think of it in dimensions. Imagine people who live in a two dimensional world, such as on a piece of paper. Now, you have two stick people throwing a ball back and forth. For them, there are only the directions of up and down. If you were able to pull that ball off the page, then, for those 2D people, the ball would have disappeared, but to you nothing out of the ordinary would have happened because you live in 3 dimensions.

Now, imagine God exists in, say, 18 dimensions. Whatever He is able to do would be wholly unfathomable to us in our 3 dimensions even more than us interacting with a 2 dimensional world.

Oh, and everything I've said is completely untrue, but it's a good lie. It's good enough to give us the pretense of understanding something we cannot possibly fathom.

Here's a quick snippet from "The Thief of Time" by Terry Pratchett that illustrates another point as well. In the scene, Lobsang, the incarnation of Time, is talking to Susan, Death's granddaughter (it's a bit complicated ):

"I can see it all. I can see everything." - Lobsang
"So what's going to happen next?" - Susan
"You misunderstand the meaning of everything." - Lobsang

ahh in the words of George Carlin

"If god is all powerfull could he make a rock so big that he couldn't lift it?"

Same question no time paradox



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

You see thats where limitations of space come into play. Theoreticly God could lift any rock. The problem would be that the rock got so big, it couldn't get any bigger, and therefore the problem was not with god, but with the universe. God could expand the universe, infinately, and same with the rock, and everytime he could lift it. like his power, the size he could lift is infite. the problem lies not with god, but with the space the rock occupies.

I'm going to the moon, I cant stand it here anymore.

^^^^^ Now that is funny...why make it bigger...just make it more massive. Eventually, one comes to the infinite point...infinite power, against infinite mass...which wins? The old question, and ustoppable force vs an immovable object. However, even with infinite mass, it would move...even if it was of such a short space, as to be unmeasurable.

I don't think God could make an object that it couldn't effect...by definition. If it could be created (by God), it could be affected (by God).

So it is not all-powerful...it cannot rise above itself.

Everytime I read these postulated "explanations" of god's omniiscience and omnipotence, I just have to think - wow, you guys have way too much time on your hands to be thinking of such bizzare explanations for things that you state outright we can't understand anyway.

Things are just way over-thought sometimes in an effort to justify "god".

careful there man, you've been advocating lack of thought a lot lately

Jason

i'm certainly with DL-44 on this one, looking at the dimensions analogy, sure we work in three dimensions, or four if you include time, but there are currently understood to be 10, and even these are things that science can comprehend, and i can comprehend just about as concepts at least. so even things that we can't actually perceive, like extra dimensions can be shown to exist.

Nope, not advocation *lack* of thought at all.

But there are times when it is very possible to very signifcantly *over* think a situation, making it far more complicated in your own mind than it is in reality, and missing the point entirely.

I'm all for keeping simple things simple. =)

Our minds have certain limitations. There are some things that we simply cannot comprehend and trying to fully comprehend something that can only be done in part can lead to great consternation. So just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? ~Bugs strolls down the halls pondering endlessly~

Pssst! There aren't any Angels...they are just figments of your imagination

The real question is, how many words can one carve on the head of a pin, without going blind.



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-07-2003).]

No, see, the question is - how mnay pseudo-scientific theories can we create to explain why imaginary angels would dance on pin-heads!

DL-44, I have a question for you since I consider you a purist when it comes to your atheism. Have you met the types of "atheists" who have a passionate "belief" in the non-existence of God? Do you know the ones I'm referring to?

I totally understand that atheism should be a simple disbelief in a deity, but there are some who take farther than that. I've always considered those types to be the alter-ego, as it were, of the religious fanatic types.

Point in case would be Madeline Murray O'Hare who vehemently opposed religion and belief in God. She stated as a fact that there was no God. Joseph Michael Straczynski, the creator of Babylon 5, on the other hand used to be in her organization but left because of her fanaticism. Yet he remains an atheist much in the same vein as you, as far as I can tell.

Yes, I know the type all too well.

Very akin to satanists (without all the blood and stuff ) who rather than develop their own actual religion simply mirror and mock chritianity.

Atheism is not, and should not be, a belief system. It is simply a lack of beleiving in gods.

Now, I will go so far as to say that I personally hold it as "fact" that god does not exist. But of course, nothing is absolute and nothing is infallable, so I also reserve the possibility that I'm wrong (contradictory? no - as I said, nothing is absolute, especially fact).

I believe that the effort exerted in making the lack of belief into a belief system is futile and absurd.

Does this make me "non-spiritual"? Of course not. You can't equate religion to spirituality any more than you can equate atheism with religion.

=)

i have absolutely no problem with you or anyone believing in god, being a muslim, believing in the tooth fairy - whatever. i think people are perfectly entitled to their own beliefs, if they can reasonably justify them (which you, bugimus, quite clearly can). that is not to say i don't think things like this shouldn't be debated, quite the contrary. why, other than my being fairly liberal (PoliticalCompass)? the way i see it is that it's a case of probablity that is argued here, that is to say, i believe it more probable that god doesn't exist, and you the opposite. and essentially we're both taking our chances and trusting our judgement - that's why the debate is important.

Amen, DL. Well said...

Yes, it was very well said. Thanks for the honesty and clarity

Ive read where God is an instant. Always in the present and he emptied himself, not diminishing his greatness in anyway and formed all things. Created time for himself to come as a God- man for mankind and in his being outside the realm & limits of time. The beginning & end of all things already determined by him. So it means we have already been judged, we are just living it through. Right? Since we are made in his spiritual image, meaning God lives in each of us as our soul constantly beckons to him. Do we have eternity in us? Is that why when most people are dying they want to go home because that is where they come from? God. Someone elaborate on this for me.

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"

You asked me about John at the foot of the cross. Why would Jesus say this to John if Jewish law was as you point out?

In the verses I quoted above, Jesus points out that his actual brothers and sisters are not his true family but rather his true family are those who do the will of God. It also says that His own brothers at the time were not believing in Him. So Jesus making sure His dear mother was taken care of by a true brother makes very much sense to me.

I agree that adelphos can be used generically just like the word brother is used that way in English. You don't have to point out cases where it is used that way because I am not disputing that at all. But I do want to ask you why the New Testament verses didn't use the words for relatives or cousins if that is what they were?

quote:

---

Even Elizabeth your relative (greek Anepsios) is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. --Luke 1:36

My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin (greek Suggenes) of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.) --Colossians 4:10

---

You see the problem I'm having? If the same authors that used the word for Jesus' brothers also used the word for cousins, why didn't they just say it like it was?

There is no mention of Mary and Joseph having children other than all the verses I have already quoted above. But I have more to say about this when I wrap this post up.

The Protoevangelium of James seems to support what I said about the Greek Orthodox church believing Joseph already had children. Is that your view too? Were they cousins, half-siblings, or other? And the dating was probably 150 or so? We do know that there are early writings that have a more legendary approach to stories about Jesus but they were not deemed worthy of the canon. I actually think there's a good reason for that. If your own church didn't include it in the canon, who am I to argue its wisdom?

It seems to me that heos is used quite similarly to the English word until. I only brought that up because if you don't have an agenda for having the scripture point to the doctrine of Mary's perpetual verginity, then there would be no reason to believe that Mary and Joseph didn't lead a normal married life after the birth of Jesus. And I think it is quite reasonable to read that verse the way I suggested... if you're not trying to justify another doctrine outside of the New Testament, which I'm not.

Ok, now for the bottom line. Please read this next bit very carefully because it is important.

I do not accept that your church possesses the authority it claims. Therefore, I look to the earliest writings we have describing the early church as the model for the Christianity I practice. You, my dear Jade, are bound to the teachings of your church and therefore read the New Testament according to its teachings.

I can see *zero* evidence of the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity in the New Testament. That is why I do not accept it and that is why I will read the verses referring to Jesus' siblings in the most plain interpretation possible which is that they were what they were called, namely His brothers and sisters.

Let me conclude with this. I do not care either way whether Mary and Joseph had children together. It has *nothing* to do with the theology in the New Testament which I adhere to. As with so many teachings of your church which I regard as tangential to the doctrine of the early church, I can't see a huge problem believing them as long as they are not abused. But unfortunately history, as I read it, leaves me disappointed in that regard.

Whoaha! Isn't that actually blasphemous, in certain belief circles? I know that some christian religions hold the Virgin Mary as a truth...wow, I'm really interested to see where this is leading...

As for these old texts, that didn't make it into the New Testament...how many are there, and what do they say? I mean, if the 'truth' isn't revealed in the New Testament, shouldn't one search for it elsewhere (especially if there are other sources)?

Now, I know this brings up the spectre of reliablility...but the New Testament was gathered and put together by a group of men, anyway...which leaves the spectre of reliability open, IMHO. Man is, after all, fallable.

I'm really interested in jades reply to this...and any others...man, this thread is a great read. Keep it up!

Web

The books that the protestant reformers took out: Tobit, Judith, Books of Maccabees, Book of Wisdom, Sirach(beautiful book), Baruch, Additional parts of book of Esther and Daniel. I might add that Martin Luther himself rejected the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude & Revelations because he felt it went against Paul's teachings. He deemed it his supreme authority to change the canon of the bible after 1100 yrs. And he did some editing in the new testament. So to have a King James version, would mean you don't hold the oldest writings included. If you want to read up on the early christian writings under this title or early church fathers, check the web.


Bugs, the early church has always figured Joseph was a widow and had other children. Plus we believe Mary & Joseph gave their lives totally to Jesus and remained celibate after the birth. Their marriage was not like any other marriage. Since they were like superspiritual, earthly desires did not affect them. They were totally submissive and obediant. Do you think Joseph would ever want to touch Mary after she delivered a God, a human God? We are limited in our way of understanding how God operates in the supernatural mystical way. They were very holy holy people. Think about this, if she had other children that would mean they would be blood related to Jesus. And I don't feel that God would want anyone else having the same blood as the Son as far as blood line. We must remember Jesus did not have a biological father, so he only carried Marys DNA. In the Eucharistic miracles (host that bleed and turn into real flesh) and the weeping madonnas when they test the blood, it is the blood of a woman.


According to angel Garbiel in his greeting to Mary "Hail, Mary full of Grace" Mary was without sin. She was FULL, meaning lacking in nothing as far as grace. Are we full of grace? We are given grace freely from God. But she was totally perfected in Grace in order for God to overshadow her. Now she could of said "No" since she had free will. But she said "Yes". Because she said yes you have a savior today. Look up the translation for the original word for "Hail". It was only used for royality (prophetic) in those times.

Lets set aside the question of church authority because this can cloud the christian to christian approach to what we are try to understand. In order to understand the NT you have to read the OT because there is lots of revealing in this. We know how the NT fulfills the OT. There is lots of typology (prefigurement of a person, place or thing.) We know throughout OT history God made bonding convenants with his people. In the convenant with his people the Isralites it was done thru Moses. on Mt. Sinai. If your familliar with Genesis, Exodus,Leveticus, Numbers, check out how holy Mt. Siani was. Only Moses could climb it and the other Isralites could not come near it. Why? It was just too holy. Even the ground near the burning bush was so holy, Moses had to take off his shoes. Read how after God gave Moses the ten commandments how he wanted them encased. So much work and detail was given to the construction of the Ark of the Covenant. It had to have exact measurments and detail and was to be housed in the holy of holies.
No one could enter without permission or they would die. One person could only enter once a year. Traveling thru the desert, if the Ark looked like it were to fall, no one could touch it or they would die. The Isralites fought many wars to get to the promise land with the help of the Ark because it had the power to level mountians. And this was the sign of God's covenant with his people so it was sacred to them. It represented a visible God to them.

Now in the NT who is the type to fulfill the Ark of the Covenant?
It was Mary. She did not bring the laws written in stone, she brought the lawgiver himself, God. And because of this we believe she is more powerful that the Ark was. God being so holy entered into the womb of Mary, so she could give God to us. I am sure she radiated her whole life on earth and still does today from the holiness of it all. In the Ark carried thru the desert was the commandments, Aarons staff and a cup of manna. These are symbolic for us today. The typology in that the commandments being the laws of the church, the staff, Christ being the leader of the church and the bread being the bread of life in the mystic way. We see in the OT how God wanted the Ark perfected & in the NT how God perfected the mother of his son.

I am sure to honor & venerate Jesus's mom would make him so happy in his glory. Because when you do that you glorify him. I am sure he dearly loves his mother and honored the 4th commandment as a Jew. Since we are called to imitate christ, we are called to give honor where it is due, to the Mother of the Savior.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-03-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-03-2003).]

Nowhere in the bible are we told to venerate or worship Mary... Mary also went on to have other children and hence did not remain a perpetual virgin. Mary was never and is not the mother of God. She was the mother of Jesus.. who is not god but Gods son. That concept is a trinitarian doctrine which has no foundation in the bible at all.

But I forget this thread is not necesarily a persuit of truth but rather one man intelectualy bulying the opinion of another... pure democracy...

...xpi...

"nuff said"

original word hail:

Strong's Number: 5463
caivrw

1. to rejoice, be glad
2. to rejoice exceedingly
3. to be well, thrive
4. in salutations, hail!
5. at the beginning of letters: to give one greeting, salute

quote:

---

Think about this, if she had other children that would mean they would be blood related to Jesus. And I don't feel that God would want anyone else having the same blood as the Son as far as blood line.

---

the only reference we have that i know of with regard to jesus and a blood line is that he was decended from david, a very relevant fact in the prophecy of him being the messiah. if anything that would seem to contradict the negative picture you paint of jesus' sharing a bloodline.

quote:

---

Since they were like superspiritual, earthly desires did not affect them.

---

forgive me if i'm wrong, but that would seem to be a rather opinion-filled statement. even jesus was tempted which would indicate he had earthly desires, even if he didn't act on them, true?

bugs has pointed out some of the other references, in particular with regards to james, that i was going to mention.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

is this true?

quote:

---

The books that the protestant reformers took out: Tobit, Judith, Books of Maccabees, Book of Wisdom, Sirach(beautiful book), Baruch, Additional parts of book of Esther and Daniel.

---

i'm not sure about all these books, but i do know that Esther is in the original bible.. does the christian bible not include her story?

where in the OT (as you call it) does it say anything about the Ark?

quote:

---

We see in the OT how God wanted the Ark perfected & in the NT how God perfected the mother of his son.

---

X, Are you positing that you don't believe Jesus was God? And I don't classify this as bullying just discussing faith.

Look in Luke 1:5 thru 56

In this chapter the angel said " you will concieve a son and shall name him Jesus, he will be great and called son of the most high and God will give him the throne of David his father and he will rule the house of Jacob forever and his kingdom will have no end. The child will be called holy, the son of God" When Mary went to visit Elizabeth her relative, when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting she was filled with the holy spirit and being with child also (John the Baptist) cried out in a loud voice, "Most blessed are you among women & blessed is the fruit of your womb" and John the Baptist leapt in Elizabeth's womb also because even in the womb he knew Mary carried God and at this time Jesus (God) santified John in the womb of Elizabeth. In Luke 1-15 "and he (John) shall be filled with the holy ghost (cleansed from original sin) even in his mothers womb. Look what Elizabeth says too " she proclaims that the mother of my lord (What lord is this?) should come to me. Plus its all over in scripture that Jesus is God. When he was berating the Jewish leaders at the synagouge for trying to trick him, he gets angry and tells them that he would not return to the temple until they learned to cry " blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord for I and my father are one in the same" Also look what he reveals to Peter when Jesus asked him "Who do you say that I am" And Peter replys "the son of the living God" because the holy spirit revealed that to Peter also. And I never said you had to venerate Mary, but I would assume since you know she is the mother of jesus you would think that maybe you would hold her in high esteem. If the mother of the president was in the same room with you, would you show her great honor and give the right protocol, because her son holds the highest office in the land or maybe her son might save us from terrorist. Mary's son Jesus saves us from final damnation.

How about when Abraham was going to sacrifice his son as God was testing Abrahams faith and God knew how much Abraham loved his son and was just about going to kill him when an angel interviened. God blessed Abraham after this as a reward. As we all know. In the NT God asks Mary to do the same thing, but this time no Angel interviened. Did Mary love her son any less? Because she gave up her son for the salvation of mankind why could God not bless her too?
Even Jesus in the NT refers to Abraham as "father" Why can't Mary be referred to as "mother" in the NT?

I was meaning on the "Hail" in the original wording text was meant to describe royality like "Hail Cesar" for instance and since this wording was used by the angel Gabriel it could imply power and rule. In regard to the blood line, David was not God, but a prefigurment of rule on the kingdom that was to come. David did not have a blood like Jesus though. It was the human blood of God henceforth that could not be transmitted to kin or offspring. I agree with you on Jesus being from the line of David. Since it was only Mary's blood that Jesus had, how could it mix with any other bloodtype. That would mean biological brothers and sisters would have some God in them thru Mary in they having the same bloodtype of God and have the same royal blood type as David the king too. Do you think this could happen? In the temptation of Christ, even though he had the will to sin he didn't. I agree he could be tempted and as I see in the desert before his ministry, he overcame temptation. So couldn't you say that the earthly parents resisted temptation also?

VR
I know of Esther in the new american bible and there are all kinds of different christian bibles out there and I am sure that book is in some of them. Esther does have alot of prefigurment of Mary in it, especially Chapter 4.

And if you want to read up on Exodus in the construction of the Ark look or start in Exodus if you start reading Chapter 25 on.

Xpirex,

You are completely welcome to offer your opinions here and I am hoping to learn more about your views but you seem reluctant to explain them in more detail. Please don't hold back. Your last post has me very interested when you said:

quote:

---

She was the mother of Jesus.. who is not god but Gods son. That concept is a trinitarian doctrine which has no foundation in the bible at all.

---

I explained about 3/4 down in this tread plenty of foundation for the deity of Jesus. Can you please tell me why you say there is none? Basically, I am really hoping you will begin to back up the things you're saying. I am still waiting to hear what the heck you meant about prophetic significance in this tread too. It's kind of hard to take you seriously if you just drop in a comment here and there without information to explain it. Thanks in advance

quote:

---

But I forget this thread is not necesarily a persuit of truth but rather one man intelectualy bulying the opinion of another...

---

I don't understand where this came from. What bullying? If you are seeing this, perhaps you can point it out? Are you reading the same post I am?

[edit] Jade I'll be responding to your stuff soon too. I just wanted to join you in supporting one of the things we both share, namely service to the Big 3 in 1 [/edit]

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

jade - as i've no copy of the bible, i'll have to get back to you on that...

VR

Its all over the web too if you want to try that approach in reasearch on the Ark of the Covenant. Although the Old Testament gives great detail and the history better explained.

LOL, not sure what i was thinking of.. yes, the Ark is in the original bible
still, i don't see the connection with mary.

I always wondered why when I was small did Mary have the title of the New Ark in reference to the OT Arks and I didn't understand until I starting digging in the OT as an adult. I was presenting a view but can see where it would not make sense to someone else.

Bugimus forgive me, you are right I need to spend more time and give reasons for the points of view I expressed .. and I will, just been in a mad rush lately, I apologise. Back soon.

...xpi...

"nuff said"

Feel free to electrocute me if this posting is way too big...but the topic merits it... I found a wonderful source for this material and used it unashamedly....

The Trinity Doctrine
This study is about the trinity doctrine, which turns out to be a case study for two other important topics: how the Holy Scriptures interpret themselves & how doctrines of men crept into Christianity after the Apostles died.

Its History

First, it should be noted when the trinity doctrine was introduced to Christianity. And I challenge anyone reading this to look through their encyclopedias to verify what I've already done extensive research on and what I am sharing with you now.

Encarta Encyclopedia:
Trinity (theology), in Christian theology, doctrine that God exists as three persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-who are united in one substance or being. The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, where the word God almost invariably refers to the Father; but already Jesus Christ, the Son, is seen as standing in a unique relation to the Father, while the Holy Spirit is also emerging as a distinct divine person. "Trinity (theology)," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the trinity doctrine was nonexistent in the original first century church. And they should know, they were the first "Christian" church (the Church of Rome) to make the doctrine official before they literally force fed it to the rest of Christendom. Then they did the same thing with other illegitimate doctrines.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967:
"The formulation 'one God in three persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century."

Catholic Encyclopedia 1991:
"The term 'Trinity' does not appear in scripture"
"(The Doctrine of the Trinity) - hammered out over the course of three centuries of doctrinal controversy against modalism and subordinationism"

The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism 1995:
". . . scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament."


However, before it became official with the Church of Rome, how far does it go back? It's roots are in paganism, as plurality of gods and triune godheads are traceable right back to the beginning of recorded history and even earlier as the book of Genesis reveals. The pre-christianized version of the doctrine goes way back to the time of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel. But, the first "Christianized" version only became prevalent after all twelve Apostles died! There was a movement afoot between the 2nd & 3rd centuries AD generated by the Gnostics who were basically gentiles incorporating pagan mysticism into a Christian-like framework. See Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2000:

Gnosticism, esoteric religious movement that flourished during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD and presented a major challenge to orthodox Christianity. Most Gnostic sects professed Christianity, but their beliefs sharply diverged from those of the majority of Christians in the early church (see Heresy)."Gnosticism," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Paul the Apostle warned the churches which he established even through tears that doctrines of men & of devils would creep into the churches.

Acts 20:29-31
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

He also warned them saying that just as the serpent beguiled Eve, they too would eventually succumb to Satan's trickery. He said they would easily accept a different Christ and a different gospel (2 Cor 11:2-4). He called it the "Mystery of Iniquity," which was already at work while he yet lived (2 Thes 2:7), but foretold that the son of perdition would come (2 Thes 2:3 & 8) and thrive only after he that prevents him is taken out of the way, namely himself. I know he was speaking of himself as being the one that prevents this evil one from coming because Paul said, "Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what prevents him... (2 Thes 2:5-6)" He prevented this antichrist from coming by his words of warning which was God's Word, a double edge sword (Eph 6:17)! Likewise, the other Apostles would also be preventative medicine against such false doctrines, needless to say. Moses made a strikingly similar comment as Paul did:

Deut 31:27
For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against Yahweh; how much more after my death?

This wicked one, Paul described as claiming himself to be God himself (2 Thes 2:4)! Of course the word for "God" in this verse is the Greek, "theos" which could also mean "a god or magistrate," but in this particular context it means the God because he states that he is sitting in the Temple of God, claiming to be God. Also, in this very context, Paul was speaking concerning the coming of Messiah and our gathering unto him (2 Thes 2:1), and began by warning them not to be shaken by reports that Messiah is at hand (had already come)..."Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed...(2 Thes 2:3)." So, what we have here in these verses is a false Messiah claiming to be God, which is basically what I'm proving that the trinity doctrine is all about. Read on...

Now the Gnostics accelerated their strange theories about Messiah in the 2nd century just after the the last Apostle died, John. Paul had already been long dead by then. They were spreading doctrines like: Messiah didn't really suffer, he wasn't really in the flesh, but an illusion or apparition, and finally that he was God.

By the 4th century, 325 AD, the Roman Emperor at that time, Constantine was thoroughly indoctrinated by these wackos and summoned a council of Bishops to meet at Rome in what is known as the Council of Nicea or the Nicene Council where he intimidated the majority of the Bishops to sign a creed stating the official Roman Church's position that "Jesus" is God the Creator, from everlasting to everlasting, the Eternal.

Now, if that was already an original doctrine of Christianity from earliest times, why the sudden need in 325 AD to put it in writing and have several Bishops from all over to sign it? A few of them even refused to sign it and were immediately excommunicated from the church! And for the next several centuries those that did not agree with this creed, or any other that they dictated, were called "heretics." They were persecuted, tortured and murdered in many cruel ways if they didn't recant. By the way, Constantine himself murdered his son and current wife for allegedly having an affair. John the Apostle said that no murderer can inherit eternal life. This was long after he claimed conversion to Christianity. Although, the "Christianity" that he greatly helped to transform bore little resemblance to the Christianity the Apostles taught, before they were "taken out of the way."



Does it Square with Scripture?

Do the Scriptures support this doctrine? Well, there are about three or four verses which Trinitarians point out which is suppose to "prove" the theory that "Jesus" is God. By the way, that rendition of Yeshua's name, "Jesus" probably came from "Je-zeus" the paganized version of his name to keep their god Zeus in remembrance as it means God-Zeus (instead of Yah saves the real meaning of Yeshua). Anyway, there are the same tired old three or four verses (which on the surface appear to be contradicting the majority of verses to the contrary) apparently suggesting that Yeshua is God the Creator. However, in order to be taken even remotely serious (when they contradict the majority of airtight verses to the contrary), they better be airtight themselves. But, they aren't. They are only airtight when the intended meaning is read & understood accurately. But when used to prove that Yeshua is God the Creator, their translation or interpretation of them have so many holes that they sink like stones! And I'll point out those holes in a moment.

So, which are the majority airtight verses that contradict their so-called "proof texts?" There are too many to list. By the way, there are about 72 verses throughout Scripture that say in no uncertain terms that Messiah is the Son of God. There are no verses that say in point blank terms that Messiah is God. That is a fact. I am proving that right here on this page. If you love Yahweh enough, you will be honest enough to stick around and weigh the evidence, and your mind will be changed by the truth (if you believed contrary to the truth). There are seven other facts accompanied with their verses, which any one of them alone proves that Yeshua is not Yahweh, but listed together, they really blow the whole trinity theory out of the water. There are more but we'll do the following seven.

Fact One: For starters how about: "...Nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done (Matt 26:39, Mark 14:36 & Luke 22:42)?" How can ONE God have two wills? He can't unless he has a multiple personality disorder, but, the Scriptures say that God is perfect. Besides, why would Messiah need to pray at all if he is God. He would pray to himself???


Of course, Trinitarians make excuses for this doctrinal inconsistency. And they all recite the same speech that they themselves have heard before, only the speech doesn't come from the Bible, it comes from men. "You see," they say, "he was all man, yet, he was all God. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." And they continue, "The Spirit is his God nature, and the flesh is his human nature, and they were at variance with each other." The Spirit is already supposed to be one third of the trinity. God the Father is one third, where is Yeshua the man third? His flesh is not the last part of the trinity? In order for the trinity to be true, Messiah's flesh had to be God as well. But, there above explanation admits that his flesh couldn't be God. So, already they admit that it isn't a trinity. At best it is only two sided, like a coin, Father and Spirit. But, I can prove that the Father IS Spirit (John 4:24). So, that puts Yahweh our Father back at being ONE! So, they practically admit that Messiah isn't God, but they think it actually helps their argument. And by the same token as their above argument, they would have to be God too, since they think the holy spirit in them is God. So, they must be all God and all man as well. No? And their "water, steam and ice' analogy that comes from men, not the Bible, contradicts their above argument as well if you think it through. There is just no logic on their side at all.

Messiah said, "not my will, but thine, be done." And he prayed those same words at least three times, and three Gospels are witnesses to it, so there's no mistaking that he said it and that he meant it. Prior to that occasion, Yeshua taught that he did not do his own will, but his Father's will that sent him: "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me (John 6:38, see also John 5:30)." He did not want to do what His Father wanted him to do, but he did it anyway. What do you call that? Obedience. And that brings us to Fact Two:

Philipians 2:8
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

If Messiah was the Creator God (to whom Trinitarians actually pray), how could he need to pray to someone else, "not my will, but thine, be done;" and how could he need to be "obedient" to someone else if Messiah was the highest authority?

The above shows that Yeshua has in own will, yet, he was obedient to his Father's will. That's two facts that contradict the trinity doctrine. Here's Fact Three:

Mark 13:32
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Those were Messiah's own words. So, Messiah Yeshua of Nazareth, the Son of the living God does not know everything that Yahweh, his Father knows. Can we all agree that the Creator God knows everything? If He knows everything, why would Yeshua say that the Son doesn't know what the Father knows? Would God say, "...no one knows, not the angels.., nor God, but only God"? Is this how the "Word" - which in the Greek is "logos," where we get our word "logic" from and means virtually the same thing - would this same Word of God be this illogical? No, it wouldn't. Stop trying to twist your brain into a pretzel to make the trinity work. It's really very simple in fact. All you have to do is let go of your prejudices, your brainwashed indoctrinazations and realize finally the simple truth: Yeshua of Nazareth is the Messiah the Son of the living God!

Fact Four:

1 Cor 15:27
For "He has put all things under his feet." But when He says "all things are put under him," it is evident that He who put all things under him is excepted.

Trinitarians must surely have to avert their eyes at that one and try to forget it. I bet they cringe at a lot of Scripture that contradicts their long held and most cherished false doctrines, but, they'd never admit it.

Why would Paul feel the need to add that sentence, or to explain that point? It's obvious. His point wasn't to prove that Yeshua isn't God, because there was no doctrine taught at that time that Yeshua was God. He just didn't want them to think that God included Himself as being put under Messiah's feet, that's all. He had to make that point clear, because God knows that people are a little slow sometimes. I'm glad he felt the need to explain that because that is one more verse that proves that Messiah is not Yahweh, the God of Israel.

The last three are quick and easy as is often the case with truth; "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein (Mark 10:15)." Yeshua our Lord stated on several occasions that - Fact Five: He did not speak his own words, but, the words of Him who sent him, the Father's words (John 12:49-50). And - Fact Six: That he didn't do his own works but the works of Him that sent him. The Father did the signs & wonders (John 5:17, 9:4, 14:10). And - Fact Seven: Two testified that he is the Messiah. Yeshua was one and the Father with signs and wonders was the other one (John 5:31-21, 10:25).


Too Many Holes
in the Trinity "Proof Texts"

Let's put aside the 72 verses that all say that the Messiah is Yahweh's Son for now. And let us focus on the four or so verses or texts that Trinitarians use to "prove" that Yeshua (Jesus) is God (the Creator). The objective is three pronged (no pun intended). First, to demonstrate that these verses do not in fact prove that Yeshua is Yahweh. Second, to demonstrate how Scripture interprets itself. Third, to allow Scripture itself to show us what the real points that these texts are really trying to make. We'll start with the most frequently used text and end with the most obscure one.

John 1:1

The first is John 1:1&2 used in conjunction with John 1:14. Here is how it appears in the New King James:

John 1:1-2
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

Then in verse 14 it says that the word became flesh. So, they conclude that Yeshua must be God even though it clearly states in that same verse that he is the only begotten of the Father, and four verses away in verse 18 it clearly states that no man has seen God at any time! So, if the Bible is not to contradict, there must be an error in the translation of verse one. With an objective honest look at it, it is very easy to find two possible mistakes in the rendering of this verse into English. The easiest to spot possibility is found in the definition of "theos" and in the scribes of King James own initiative to capitalize what ever words they elect to capitalize. Let me explain:

In the original Hebrew & Greek, there were no capital letters. All letters appeared the same. The Greek word for "God" in those verses is "theos," meaning: God, a god, gods, object of worship, and magistrate. The word "theos" is the same word used every time "God" appears in your Bible; it is also the same word used every time "gods" or "a god" appears in your Bible. Also, the Greek put an extra word in front of just the first & third appearance of "theos" in this text, and NOT the second! That word is a Greek word with just two letters, "ho." It is the equivalent of our "THE." It was written like that originally because John the Apostle was distinguishing between the first & third "theos" (verses 1 & 2) and the second "theos" (in verse 1). Therefore, a completely legitimate translation of John 1:1 & 2 can be rendered more accurately this way:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with THE God, and the Word was a god. The same was in the beginning with THE God.

OR:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. The same was in the beginning with God.

The verse wouldn't make grammatical sense otherwise. How can someone be with someone else and also BE that someone else?

Two areas of Scripture help to shed a great deal of light on the above verses. The first is John 10:33b-36:

...Because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God [a god - theos].
Yeshua answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods [theos]? If he called them gods [theos], unto whom the Word of God [theos] came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father has sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest: because I said, I am the Son of God [theos]?

See? Right there Messiah said that if they are gods [theos], then the Son of God [Son of THE Theos] is a god [theos] also. I'll say it again: Yeshua just said in the above verses that the Son of God is a god in the same sense that the law said that "ye are gods!" That confirms that the above translation is Scripturally accurate. That leads right to the next verse that I would like to bring to your attention:


John 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

There it is again. If the Spirit in the above verse is God (Yahweh), that which is born of Him is spirit with a lower case "s." This time the King James has it right, with the capital "S" in the right place, and the lower case "s" in the right place. That follows the same exact rule as in John 1:1&2, as if he had said, "That which is born of God is a god." Or, that which is born of Theos is theos. Or, he that was with God, is himself a god. I don't need to belabor the point.

The second possible and completely legitimate translation is the one that I favor most due to its less esoteric nature and its not veering off of its contextual theme and point. And it's theme and point it that the word is OF God. Let me explain:

I discovered, using my Englishman's Greek New Testament that the article "of" is seldom or never used in the ancient original Greek, at least not as we use the word. Nor is it used at all in modern Greek. How do I know? When I compared John 1:1 & 2 to the 1st Epistle of John chapter 1 in Greek (and there are plenty of similarities there which prove that the same John wrote both) I discovered that in verse 2:5 the "of" in "love of God" was not included in the Greek! It had "THE theos" or "ho theos" with the same spelling of theos as the 1st & 3rd usage of theos in the Gospel of John, but no "of." I said to myself, "Hmmm. That is curious... What if I applied that same logic of adding an "of" where the Greek didn't have it in order to make the English more comprehensible in John 1?" God knows, it doesn't make sense as the Trinitarians translated it. And frankly, my earlier explanation, although sound in logic, doesn't seem to flow the way John would have spoken in real life. I mean, why would he feel the need to make a loud point like that, that "the Word was a god" in the middle of explaining that God's plan of creation and eternal life was all thought out and finalized as His "Word" before the universe was created? That was the main point. Not that the Word was a god. Although true, that statement seems too bulky and cumbersome to inject there where it would detract from the main point. And it does detract. People are so hung up on that one half of a sentence that they miss the whole point of the first two verses!. So, just like the translators had to do there in 1 John 2:5, and, as I discovered, in most, if not all other instances in the New Testament where an "of" was imperative to make sense to the English readers, I inserted it where it would bring sense and flow and no distractions to the main point, and sound like a normal person speaking. Whereas before, it made John come off sounding like some mystical esoteric speaker of cryptic paradoxes, now, however, he sounds like he is actually making sense:

"In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was of God. He was in the beginning with God."

It flows, it makes perfect sense. It is legal and consistent with the way the translators translated the rest of the New Testament. It is grammatically correct. It is consistent with the way normal people speak and make their points. It is much more likely that John the Apostle spoke those words fluidly and even poetically. There is no ambiguity there, or dubious double meanings. It's pure and simple the way humans were designed to speak and read language.

Plus: He was saying that the Word was with God from the very beginning, and that the Word came from God. Just like in Revelation where the same John states that Messiah's name is "the Word OF God!" Not God of God. Or, a god of God (although true)! But, simply the Word of God. How simple. How true! And we were predestined as was Messiah in Yahweh's foreknowledge before the universe was even created (but that's too much to get into right now).

I asked the owner of a Greek auto body shop about this, and he said that he reads anything but the Bible. I told him my dilemma, and he tried to read it, but, he said it was ancient Greek and that no one can read that anymore. It's like comparing apples with oranges, he said. Then I asked him about "of" and he said that there is no word in Greek for the English "of," that they don't speak that way. Like instead of saying, "Jack of Spades, " they say something like, "Spade's Jack." So, in modern Greek there is no "of," and I doubt the ancient had it either. The guy did say sometimes they use a word where we might use "of" but he says it means the equivalent to our "'s." The English scribes had to insert "of" every time it was needed in the New Testament in order for the texts to make sense to the English reader. My assertion is that they neglected to supply the "of" in John 1:2 because of their Trinitarian agenda!

Besides all this, "the Word became flesh" (verse 14) doesn't mean that some spirit-man materialized like some Star Trek episode! 1 John 1:1 & 2 interprets for us (so that we don't have to interpret it ourselves) "becoming flesh" literally means "manifestation" of that "Word of life which was with the Father." And we know from eye witnesses that Yeshua said himself that he did not speak his own words nor do his own works, but as he hears of the Father, that, he speaks, and what he sees his Father do, he does also. No one has seen God at any time, but the Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. Messiah had all the fullness of God in him bodily. He was so obedient that when people looked at him, it was like seeing the Father; as Messiah was his perfect representative here on earth. He manifested the Word of life perfectly in his obedience. That is our model. If we can be that obedient, people will see Yahweh by looking out our deeds and hearing our words. Intense!

1 John 1:1-4
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life -- the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us -- that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Yeshua Messiah.

Remember, no man has seen God at any time, John 1:18!

So, the Trinitarian can try to use John 1:1 to "prove" that Yeshua is God, but one can plainly see if he is honest, that it doesn't hold up that way. However, the point of that verse is meant to go with the rest of the verses in the context, making the point that all things are of God and that he planned it all before creation!


"By" Him were All Things Created

While we are in the area of this verse already, Trinitarians point to verse 3 of John 1 to show that Messiah is THE Creator (that verse is similar to Colosians 1:16-17), that "by" him (Messiah) were all things created. This is a word study, the Greek word "by" needs to be looked at.

In John 1:3, the word which our English versions have as "by" really means "through" according to the Strong's Hebrew & Greek Concordance:

The Greek Pronunciation Guide: dia {dee-ah'}
Definition: a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through, the ground or reason by which something is or is not done.

The "Word" in John 1 is the Greek word "logos" which literally means "reason" and "logic". "Logos" is where we get our word "logic" from. So, in the context of the first few verses of John 1, the whole point is that Yahweh, God the Creator had with Him before all things were created a plan. He had with Him before all things, reason and logic and wisdom (see Proverbs 8:22-31). Everything was created through that channel of reason, according to that master plan, the Word. Messiah manifested that wisdom which is also called the Word.

This holds true to other texts stating that things were done or created "through" or "by" Messiah. Did Messiah exist in physical or spiritual form before he was born to Mary? No more so than we were, as the Scriptures say in several places: Messiah was predestinated before the world was formed, as were we.

Acts 2:23:
Him [Messiah], being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death.

Romans 8:29-30:
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Ephesians 1:4-5:
...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy
and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by
Yeshua Messiah to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.

1 Corinthians 2:7
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory.

So then, why would God say that He created everything "through" His Son who was in his foreknowledge? The simple answer is this: God would not have created a single thing without having the plan of salvation firmly in place, for what sense would it be to create a universe for fellowship with mankind if the whole thing would fall from grace and be damned for eternity? Therefore, everything was created through the master plan of salvation through faith in the Son of God.



His Name Shall be Called

The first thing one should know when looking at references like these that Trinitarians love to quote (as they leave out facts that would detract from their position) is the never mentioned little fact that the first English translation of the Bible was around the year 1600. It was ordered by King James and it was carried out by Trinitarian scribes long after the Roman Catholic Church ordered all "heretics" put to death if they did not recant their "heresy." They called "heresy" anything that went against Catholic doctrine. The trinity was one such doctrine. I do not want to get into the gory details of that. Why is this important to the following verse in question? Because of the scribes inconsistency...

They translated Isaiah 9:6 this way:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

YET, they translated Isaiah 8:3 this way,

"And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said Yahweh to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz."

Why would they leave "Mahershalalhashbaz" in Hebrew, when they did not treat 9:6 the same way? "Mahershalalhashbaz" when translated is: "In making speed to the spoil he hastened the prey." That is a name, a long name. It is so long that it is actually a full sentence! The question then becomes: just because his name is called "In making speed to the spoil he hastened the prey," does that make the child automatically one that quickly chases spoil and hastens prey? No. When reading in context, we see that Yahweh was making a symbolic prophecy about the politics of Damascus and Samaria using the child's name.

Similarly, the name "John" means "God is gracious." Does that mean that everyone that is named "John" is God in the flesh walking around being gracious? Of course not. Many, many people's names in the Bible have meanings like "Yah (God's name shortened) is just," or "Yahweh saves" and so forth. A huge amount of Hebrew names are basically named after God. Doesn't make all those that are named like that God. Someone named "Rose" doesn't mean she is literally a flower. The only reason why people don't know how common it was to named something like "God is the mighty and everlasting Father" is because the scribes left their names in Hebrew, that is unless it suits their agenda by translating it. The above name may have been slightly edited also. Some have the name you sited as: "Wonderful in Counsel is the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." That would seem more likely anyway when compared to: "In making speed to the spoil he hastened the prey," because both would be in a logical sentence form, not all cryptically chopped up.

Also worth noting is the phrase, "his name shall be called." In 8:3 it says, "Call his name." Virtually the same thing. What it does not say is, "For unto us a child is born... and he IS... The mighty God..." It says, "his name shall be called" which is the same as saying, "his name means..."



My Lord and my God

John 20:27-29:
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

This section is called The Holes in the Trinitarian"Proof Text." In light of the seven facts that prove that Yeshua can not be Yahweh, this Trinitarian"Proof Text" must have some kind of hole if the Holy Scriptures are to be a consistent and true. As promised, here is that hole:

Matthew 16:23:
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

So, if John 20:28 proves that Yeshua is Yahweh, then Matt 16:23 proves that Peter is Satan.

I don't need to add anything more to this, but I just want to show that there are actually two holes in this so called "proof text." A) "Answered and said unto him" and "said unto him," in Biblical usage obviously means: in response, and not necessarily directed personally at him. Understanding the importance of Biblical usage is imperative to understanding the Holy Scriptures as a whole. Can we agree that when trying to understand the Scriptures, it is not important how our present day society uses words and phrases, but how the Scriptures use them? B) The Greek "theos" for "God" in John 20:28 can also be translated "godly," and that phrase, "my Lord and my God" is an Eastern expression called "hendiadys" which uses two nouns to make make one descriptive point, with one or both nouns used as an adjective. In this phrase, he may actually be saying, "my godly Lord." Having said that, it is my personal opinion that Thomas was just acknowledging that Yeshua is his "Lord" and that Yahweh is his "God." He was addressing BOTH the Father and the Son. The way it was recorded for us in the Gospel of John uses the same style of writing as in Matthew 16:23. So, if Trinitarians try to use that to prove that Yeshua is Yahweh, then they MUST also have to believe that Peter is Satan! Obviously both conclusions are ridiculous.

(end of source material)


"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-07-2003).]

quote:

---

Whereas before, it made John come off sounding like some mystical esoteric speaker of cryptic paradoxes, now, however, he sounds like he is actually making sense:

---

i forget the date, but Harpers (literary magazine) devoted a whole issue to jesus as god several years ago. one of the points made was that when paul was in rome, he met with the mithraic priests (yes, i misspelled that name before ) and the two religions were combined as their god, mythra(s) was of the "dying and reborn" tradition. they were able to tell the roman soldiers/centurians (who were most of their believers) that mythras had been reborn and had died - that jesus was the word (their teachings) made flesh. so that may account for the mystical tone...

sidenote: a second point which stayed with me, is that the mithraic priests had a compound which was their center of affairs and living quarters for their priests. that compound still exists, only today it is known as the vatican and the priesthood there are spiritual descendants of those early mithraic priests.

i checked the magazine's site, but they don't have online archives back that far

Xpirex, you didn't just use it unashamedly, you copied and pasted the whole darn page! You can post the link next time and then use quotes to highlight the good bits

I read through it entirely during lunch today and I would love to offer some analysis, if I find some time. But I really need to know just how much of that you actually have examined for yourself? Are you affiliated with the author in any way? Just curious.

X
Thanks for your long post. I guess it all boils down on how we interpret scripture wording.

Where you post on the heresies, I can agree that the early christan church had to address all sorts of movements within and outside the church. And the reason they did was to take a stand and clarify for the believers so they could understand. They took issue and agreed with some and reformed. Therefore thats why the councils met. In the case of the Council of Nicea, I believe they also addressed Arianism along with Gnosticism. And agreed that both movements went against the beliefs of the christian church on the trinity at the time and issued a creed called the Nicean Creed that is still said in the churchs today.

But I wanted to post scripture if you take heed to the bible so you can see where it reveals Jesus is God. Even though they are 3 separate persons, they are one God. No human will understand this mystery because I don't think it can be revealed to us yet.

So, see if you can comment on some to enighten on where you don't agree,

Exodus 3:13 And God said to Moses, I AM THAT AM: and he said. "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel. I AM hath sent me unto you"
(Children of Israel also refers to us today)

Matt 4:7 Jesus said to the devil: " It is writtien again, thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God (the devil was tempting Jesus himself)"

Mark 9:37 " Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: an whosoever shall receive me receiveth not me, but him that sent
me."

John 5:26 "For as the Father hath life in himself: so hath he given to the son to have life in himself"

John 7:29 "But I know him: for I AM from him and he hath sent me."

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I AM ye shall die in your sins" (Refers to God at Mt. Siani when Moses asked who God who was, God replied " I AM")

John 8:28 Then Jesus said to them, When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall ye know that I AM and I do nothing of myself; but as my father hath taught me, I speak these things"

John 8:58 Jesus said unto, them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I AM.

John 10:30-33 I and my fathers are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him, Jesus answered them. "many good works have I showed you from my father, for which of those works do ye stone me" The jews answered him , saying, "For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that you thou, being a man, makest thyself God"

John 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know, and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him"

John 12-44-45 Jesus cried and said, " He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth him that sent me"

John 13:19 "Now I tell you before it come, that when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I AM"

John 14:7-10 "If ye had known me, ye should have know my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it suffieth us. Jesus said unto him, "have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that that seen me hath seen the Father, and how sayest thou " Now show us the Father? Believest thou not that I AM in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works"

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Isaiah 6:1-5 In the year that King Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims; each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said Holy, Holy, Holy the Lord of Host: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the post of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. Then said I Woe is me for I am undone, because I a man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a pople of unclean lips, for mine eyes have seen the King, the lord of host.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him My Lord and my God"

Acts 20:28 "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood"

Romans 9:5"Whose the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen Christ, who is God over all"

Philippians 2:5-6 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Jesus Christ: who being in the form of God, thought is not robbery, is equal to God.

Colossians 1-18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead: that in all things he might have preemience. For it pleased the father that in him should all fullness dwell.

Colossians 2:9-10 For in him dwelleth all the fulllness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power.

John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true in his son Jesus christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Isaiah 42:5 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee in the womb, I the Lord that maketh all"

Hebrews 2:10 For it became him, for whom all things and by whom all things,...

Corth 8:6 But to us, one God the father of whom all things, and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom all things, and we by him.

Ephesians 3:9 God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 1:2 Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds

John 5:23 That all men should honour the son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Matt 28:18 Jesus said, " All power is given unto me in heaven and earth"

Isaiah: 9:6 the govermant shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, the everlasting father, the Prince of Peace"

Romans 11:33 "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowlege of God! how unsearchable his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord or who hath been his counseller?"

Colosssians 2:3 In whom(Jesus) are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge

Matt: 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I (Jesus) have commanded you: and lo I am with you always unto the end of the world.

Psalm 44:21 Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart & Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and of great power, his understanding is infinite.

Mark 16: And Jesus said "I AM and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven"



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-09-2003).]

Jade - the vast majority of the quotes you posted seem to rather clearly say that god *sent* jesus, or god *taught* jesus, or that by accepting jesus you accept god, or other similarly oriented concepts.

I don't see anything to say that jesus *is* god...can you point out which ones you are saying are proof of some osrt of jesus being god?

DL my dear, are you not seeing? Can you like let yourself tap into a possible 4th dimension and see beyond the veil. It is so much more sweeter on the other side.

Haven't you ever had a spiritual encounter like a ghost, spirit, or experienced some dejavu and if you have, can you explain it?
In your life, is there something that has happened to you that you cannot explain. Me, a God fearing person, believe I have some kind of entity in my house. I don't know why its there, but
it truly exist. So I know there is a whole other realm out there.
That being said, isn't it possible to believe that there could be a spiritual realm out there that has guidance, and dominion?

You point out a verse and we will go from there.

Whether you are atheist or theist, I would think it would not be too difficult to demonstrate that the New Testament, as written, claims Jesus to be God. I've already posted the verses in another thread and I've relinked them just a few posts above. Xpirex, other than copying & pasting verbatim an entire page, at least addressed all but one of the verses I posted.

I think the page he posted had a lot of volume yet it fell short of debunking the "proof texts". I also think I found an enormous discrepancy on the site from which he got that article but I need to hear from him first to see how much he is attached to the teachings found there before I comment further.

Jade,

quote:

---

I don't see anything to say that jesus *is* god...can you point out which ones you are saying are proof of some osrt of jesus being god?

---

If you can't point them out then please just say so. There is no harm in admitting you don't know. You can always say you don't know and then go dig up the answers but simply dodging a perfectly honest inquiry doesn't help you or us.

Bug

Whats your problem? Are you having a bad day.

I can't prove that Jesus is God? No one can. I know that Jesus is God by faith & scripture helps to shed light on the point. To me all the scriptures I posted do. I was merely asking DL to point out one to me that he would be more interested in discussing.

I wasn't evading.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-09-2003).]

Jade this

quote:

---

Haven't you ever had a spiritual encounter like a ghost, spirit, or experienced some dejavu and if you have, can you explain it?

---

has happened to me, many times...and many cultures (including those of my people) have been explaining them much earlier than yours...

But of course, you don't believe in that...

And I guess that is the point, isn't it? It all comes down to what you believe...this is the essential 'question' of belief.

As for explaining such occurances...there are as many explainations, as cultures...

However, Science does give us a tool, that no belief system does...the ability to prove, and factually base such explainations on. That is the power of science. Just because there are still unknowns out there, doesn't mean they are unexplainable. If this was true, there wouldn't be any religion, and this thread would be moot. Life would also be pretty boring, with every thing explained, and known.

As for DL, well, he's asking you for concrete information...you see things through the 'glasses' of your faith. Maybe you should take them off for a minute, and consider DLs position. And then, try to explain it, so he can then make a decision, based on just that. Because what you are basically saying is 'Without my faith, you cannot understand me'. And that will not convince anyone, nor is it a positive way to do so. You say 'Come to me'...well, why don't you try 'going to him', instead? After all, he is awaiting answers from you, and not vice versa.

*Pictures God as being bored out of his mind* 'I think I'll bug Moses today...'

Web

I do believe in the spritual world with good and bad spirits. And that,for some reason they communicate with us and science does not have to prove it. This is faith.

As for DL, he does not want to make a decision. He has his view and opinions in life. He is not asking me questions to understand me or my faith. He wants to prove me wrong. He is content the way he is.

What he sees, I don't see. What I see, he doesn't see. So where do we go from there. Nowhere.

He chooses not to see a light, so the light with not reveal itself to him. DL may never want to see the light in his lifetime. I would want everyone to believe in God, no matter what religion or I wouldn't be a Christian. I can't force God on anyone. All I can do is hope and pray for all.

No jade, your conclusion is not sound. DL is not trying to disprove you. he is making the case that your...arguments, if you will, or answers, for lack of a better term, don't stand up. This is much more dangerous than trying to disprove you...it's an assualt on your credibility. I personally know, that were you to make an effort, he would at least try to understand...not necessarily agree, but understand as long as it is well thought out, and makes sense!

You say he hasn't made a decision? I find that not only hard to believe, but laughable. You obviously have let your emotions blind you. Some of the discussions here between DL and Bugs are legendary...and they have quite the respect for one another...because of how they present the information, and their convictions behind what they say...they both walk, what they talk.

By putting him in a place in your closet, you are doing both DL, and yourself, a disfavor, IMHO. But that is your choice.

I have tangled with DL before, as well. He can be a fearsome opponent, but only when you don't have your shit straight. Don't expect him to pull punches, because you can't formulate what you believe precisely. He doesn't want to hear the repeating of scriptures, or the words from others. He wants to here your genuine opinions, straight from the heart, and be prepared to back them up. In other words, can you think for yourself? How did you come to the conclusion of your faith? What motivates you, to be the way your are? Why do you believe, the way you do? Can you communicate this, in your own words? Are you a thinking being, or are you blindly following?

It's about who you are, and what you are. If you believe as you say you do, then you shouldn't be ashamed to admit and defend it. In other words, back up what you say, with your own words and experiences, not the words and experiences of others.

'Walk the walk, if you are going to talk the talk.' Be a real person. Stick to your guns.

Jade, I am so sick of your piss poor attitude.

You posted a point.

I asked a question.

I know..I should know better than to think that you could actually *answer* an objective question by now. I know you prefer to simply insult me as a way out.

But I can't help it. You post things that don't make sense, so I ask for an explanation. Is that so difficult for you?

As for my view of spirituality - my dear, you have no clue. You rely on books and priests to give you your spirituality. I draw mine straight from the source.

Your inability to accept that is *your* limitation, *your* veil. Not mine.

.

My question still stands, and it's a very valid one.

The verses I'm reading in your post say that god sent/taught jesus, that by accpeting jesus you accpet god, but not that jesus *is* god.

Explain.




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 04-10-2003).]

...Sigh...

...xpi...

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-10-2003).]

Er Jade I just can't digest any of that... it defies all logic in my eyes.

Bigamus: Yes the posting was big but I feel it was required and thankyou though I will link in future.
Yes I read all of that text, in fact for about 20 years I have been researching such things. I spent 4 years as a minister (of sorts) and was trainng to be a missionary (of sorts) at one point. But after a very bad and painful and traumatic experience with organised religion and its adherants I have sadly remained solo in my spiritual quests. I have read the bible about 23 times now and used to study the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. No I am not aquainted with the author and organiser of the posted material but I did request permission. Things we think or say are rarely original and I feel no shame in using it as it was very thorough and detailed, complete and I feel rather irrefutable. I don't claim to adhere to any other views of the author and apart from that analysis of the false trinity teaching I have stated nothing else as to where I am coming from.

Whatever we believe, I think that a spirit of peace, love and humility are always good lubricants in any interaction.

... Hey I am in the Asylum with the rest of you...


...xpi...

"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-10-2003).]

Jade, let's back up just a bit. I was having quite a good day, thanks for asking

Perhaps you misunderstood that there are verses in the NT that clearly indicate that the authors believed Jesus Christ was not just the Son of God, but God too. Not all of the verses you quoted point directly to that. This is what DL-44 was asking you to be more specific about.

Does that make sense? It seems so clear to me I was just hoping you would show him the verses he asked about. That's all.

And I wanted to clear up one more thing. When you said that I didn't come to your defense, I originally thought you were serious. Later you said you were just kidding about that. Well, it's always a good idea to use these so we all know that you're kidding. Believe me, we've had some miscommunications around here where a simple little smiley could have helped avert.

But then again some of our most famous fights have also been some of the most entertaining.


Xpirex, I am perfectly fine with you citing that material, I was just offering a suggestion on how to keep the thread more readable by limiting the actual amount of text posted. Links to pages can really help in that regard.

I absolutely agree with

quote:

---

Whatever we believe, I think that a spirit of peace, love and humility are always good lubricants in any interaction.

---

I would agree with you that the doctrine of the Trinity was never mentioned in the bible. Where we disagree is that I see very strong indications of Christ's deity as well as the Holy Spirit's in the very same bible. I don't actually have any stock in the doctrine of the Trinity other than that I find it's most basic assertions backed up with scripture.

The source material seemed to leave out one of the most striking instances of Christ claiming Godhood. There are many verses that say people worshiped Jesus. Worship is reserved for God alone, so why would Jesus allow them to do this?

But my personal favorite indication is this one:

The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"
"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."
At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"
Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. --John 8:48-58

Jesus not only stated that He pre-existed Abraham but He used the title of God the Father in the words "I Am". You can see this here:

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" --Exodus 3:14

You can be assured that there was no doubt to Jesus' audience that He had just claimed to be God because according to Jewish law to do that was a death sentence and that is why they tried to stone Him right then and there.

bugs - wow.

it's so cool that you quoted that passage - i just led a study on john 5-9 last night - and gee whiz there are some powerful statements in there.

he really gets those pharisees riled up in those passages.

anyways... back to your regularly scheduled conversing...

quote:

---

Exodus 3:13 And God said to Moses, I AM THAT AM: and he said. "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel. I AM hath sent me unto you"
(Children of Israel also refers to us today)

---

no. the children of israel = the people of the book = jewish people. you, jade, are a christian. you believe in the trinity. you are not one of the children of israel. -- just had to insert that little point

Web.

I take note of your opinion of me. And please don't make this a DL & me thing again. Did I miss reading a charter where it says we had to understand each other on this site or to conform to another way of ones thinking. I thought we were posting opinions and views.
i do notice in certain idologies there are certain few who stick together like a fraternity. And lo and behold if you get too close to the waters, the shark will bite.
Fearsome opponet, Where! And I am glad that Bugs and DL respect each other. Good. Great! I for one lose my respect for someone if they have to use sewage words to express a point.

If you are into current events here, there is Catholic bias. Your the one who is blind. I don't think anyone on this thread wants to know why or how I tick. Credibility? Who on this thread has more credibiity than another? This is all about expressionsim.
First I am told to feel free to use scripture and then don't use it because its empty words. My scripture was in reference to Xs post and because he used scripture I used it too. I did not refute what he posted. Gosh! Can I please everybody all of the time?

DL.

In reference to your question on Father taught Jesus, not stating Jesus is God, I see it revealed in all the scriptures. Forgive me in my assumption if all could see. I assume too much. I will give you what I know to be true for me the way I see it and this is not a repsonse from a text or anything. It may not be to your understanding because alot of faith is involved and faith is somthing that cannot be proven. So I will have to start from the beginning in reference to the trinity.
Bear with me if its a tad long.

The supreme higher being God is all intelligence in its fullness. Supreme conscienousness in all phases of existance outward in inward in that God works in all because he is. All knowlelge in its fullness regarding life in the complexities are in this essence. Meaning the laws of the universe and of nature. In the esscence of God is a working divine family. Separate entities, but all the same. They all complete each other. This area is a divine mystery. Not comprehendable to you or me. This divinety of God is complete perfected love. Each entity perfectly loves itself and the separate divine persons. Because of the great love of in itself it wants to share itself so it can magnify itself not adding to its greatness, because God lacks nothing in greatness.
So the greatness of Good decides to extend itself and creates all things. In the creation of mankind, is where God extends itself in its image, its light. The light of knowledge of itself. This light can only be transmitted by God itself. In order for God to know us as we are he and he to us it has to become one with us. And it does so with great love, so we can know God, love God and serve God in this world, so we know how to do so in the next world God has planned for us. So God empties the second person of itself which is the Son through the workings of all three persons, itself, the son and the spirit. He becomes flesh for us to see, so we can know who the first person is. God acquires a dimension. And God the Word is saying I am going to assume flesh so you can love me. And God is asking? Can you love me back?

Now you can think of God being a huge power box of electricity that gives light and he can only give life and light to the world with a conduit or extension cord pluggged into the earth. So all of us have access to electricity if we want it and some of us don't want to turn on the switch and remain in darkness. The conduit or source being the second person of itself, Jesus the son, who is the light of the world. Now thru this extension cord God the father is feeding itself in knowlege to his other sons and daughers, mankind thru the divine son, itself. By acquiring a human nature the second person becomes a son just like us to share in Gods divinity. Thats why we are able to see the light. All this light reflected back thru the son magnifys the Father, the first person. And thur this magnified back in a way of God blessing more to the world. So what is revealed to us as brothers by being taught by Jesus is God.

The more of Gods light in the world the stronger God is in this material world thru our will to do good and avoid evil. The more darkness the more tragic occurances. So lots of people don't want to turn the lights on because they like to be in the dark r maybe don't know how to turn the light on. Thur the second person of the trintiy Jesus the son, God is only teaching us or revealing to us what God wants us to know of itself, meaning we a limited in our intelligence and understanding as of now. Because to know all would be like God and that is for us to know when we meet God in his total fullness.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-10-2003).]

Jade, this

quote:

---

Web.

I take note of your opinion of me. And please don't make this a DL & me thing again. Did I miss reading a charter where it says we had to understand each other on this site or to conform to another way of ones thinking. I thought we were posting opinions and views.
i do notice in certain idologies there are certain few who stick together like a fraternity. And lo and behold if you get too close to the waters, the shark will bite.
Fearsome opponet, Where! And I am glad that Bugs and DL respect each other. Good. Great! I for one lose my respect for someone if they have to use sewage words to express a point.

If you are into current events here, there is Catholic bias. Your the one who is blind. I don't think anyone on this thread wants to know why or how I tick. Credibility? Who on this thread has more credibiity than another? This is all about expressionsim.
First I am told to feel free to use scripture and then don't use it because its empty words. My scripture was in reference to Xs post and because he used scripture I used it too. I did not refute what he posted. Gosh! Can I please everybody all of the time?

---

is totally uncalled for, and I must say, you have done both me, and yourself a disfavor. Along with your insults, I hear a tone of superiority in your post...and that is typical of what I have encountered in Catholics. Now, first of all, I never attacked you, so I'm quite confused on why you feel you have to defend yourself against me. I attempted to reason with you, yes, and tried to build a bridge between you and DL...but you burned that down. At least DL was willing to cross it...says a lot about you, doesn't it? Second, what I meant with the scriptures (you could of just asked me to clarify if you didn't uderstand what I meant) is that putting them in context is fine - as long as you back that up with your own words, thoughts, etc. (see Bugs posts). However, just posting scriptures, and saying 'There! You see?'. Ahhh...no. One thing that has become clear in this thread, is that the Bible can be interpreted many diferent ways...so what appears to be 'truth' to you, may appear different to someone else.

Also, before your last post, I really never had an opinon of you - why should I? I was interested in the information on Angels...but a personal opinion of you? Nope. However, your totally overreacting, defensive remarks clearly do serve the point of defining you in some ways. I begin to see DLs points a bit more clearly. In other words, I find your reaction seemingly negative...and I'm not sure why that is.

Maybe you can't handle honesty? Maybe you thought I was somehow being mean, or attacking you? I just don't know. If I gave you that impression, then I apologize, that was not my intent.

*whew* try to build bridges...I think I'll go back to just watching this one...some religious people are just not to be reasoned with, I guess.

Mr. Web
Oh! Is that what you were trying to do? Build a bridge. I think me and DL were bridging before. Maybe you misunderstand me. I dont want to seem negative. I am not superior. I am a very humble person and I always think of myself as servant. If I misunderstood you in the post, since we can't verbalize to each other, I am sorry. Your points do matter as they all do. I did give you my view of angels before on how I see them.

New thread?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

velvet rose,

The way I see it is this way:

I think the children of Israel prefigures us as people.
In a sense like history repeating itself in the spiritual.
We are Gods people too in that we are going thur the
same things today in our journey like the 40 year
journey of the Isralites. We have an intercessor who
reveals who God is, we know the way, we struggle,
we fall, but eventually see God if we are faithfull like
the Israelites who get to the Promise Land. And our
promise land being heaven

Ok.

For starters - thank you for explaining, Jade.

secondly, you seem to have a big chip on your shoulder about your religion, and it is quite obviously something that you brought here with you and not something that was acquired here.

You say there is a big split here based on ideology? Have you not listened to anything here? Very few of us here actually agree on much of *anything* quite frankly. And those of use who agree on one issue often disagree on the next. Bugs, Reitsma, and Fig tend to be on the same page when it comes to religion, but that's about as big as that group gets

But agreeing or disagreeing is *completely* irellevant. If I did not want to understand where yo were coming from, I wouldn't ask. If I wanted to 'prove you wrong' I wouldn't ask, I would state, and I would simply insult you.

Hmm. Kind of like your attitude has been towards me...don't you think?

.

Now, regarding this:

quote:

---

some of us don't want to turn on the switch and remain in darkness

---

There is a very fatal flaw in that manner of thinking, IMO. Yes, I could very easily block out reality and instead flip this switch...you call it light that pushes away the darkness, I call it light that blinds you from reality. There is light all around already, and there is beauty and goodness in the shadows as well.

=)

quote:

---

There is a very fatal flaw in that manner of thinking, IMO. Yes, I could very easily block out reality and instead flip this switch...you call it light that pushes away the darkness, I call it light that blinds you from reality. There is light all around already, and there is beauty and goodness in the shadows as well.

---

What's reality? This dream I'm seeing every time I wake up? So it's consistent, but if u get to the very bottom of it, Descartes' cogito ergo sum is about as much reality as u can be sure of. Anything else, is real if u believe in it. so I think if one believes in god - god is just as real for them as science is real for the nonbelievers.

DL
Please enlighten me on the beauty & goodness of the shadows as you know them?

OOOhhh, that was a good question...

*gets out popcorn*

quote:

---

Bugs, Reitsma, and Fig tend to be on the same page when it comes to religion, but that's about as big as that group gets .

---

we let suho, eyezaer, jk, and a few others in the clubhouse too but they usually forget the secret password and suho never gets the handshake right

*grabs a handful of WS's popcorn*

chris

And we mustn't forget Shiii and Rick either.

Yeah yeah, ok...point was that we don't circel the wagons based on religion here



And I'll be back to expand on my previous point.

It won't so much be an 'answer' as it will be an explanation of the metaphor that was an answer to jade's metaphor...

=)

"There is beauty and goodness in the shadows as well"

Yes, indeed there is.

I find the analogy of an electric lamp very fitting actually, in many ways. I was not raised to believe in god. Nor was I raised *not* to. I was left 'in the dark' you might say, on such matters. Through my own interests and curiosities, I studied many paths of spirituality as an adolescant - native american philosophies, greek, egyptian and norse mythology, buddhism, hinduism, shintoism...they all fascinated me in one way or another. Perhaps to fill a void, perhaps to figure out what this 'religion' deal was all about, perhaps simply as an extension to the overwhelming curiosity that drove all of my actions.

I eventually, around the age of 13-14 or so, began down the path of christianity - becoming part of a local church youth group. All in all, it was a very positve experience, and the people involved were very postive people. Having never been baptized as an infant, I decided I would be then. No big thing, just seemed fitting. I began to pray. I began to ask personal questions of god - the same personal questions I had often asked myself - why did my life have to be the way it was, why me? why here? why so damn hard? etc... I didn't expect actual answers, I wasn't looking for things to be suddenly made better, I was just asking. I figured if god had a spare moment, maybe he'd help me figure some shit out.

I found after time, that if I so chose, I could in fact see this 'light'. I found that I could 'explain' some things very...conveniently. Not very satisfactorily, not very convincingly, but awful damn conveniently. I could simply 'want' to believe, and damnitall, I'd believe. I could simply accept the pre-fab answers, and wouldn't you know it? They'd be true.

Now, this didn't sit well with me.

I had learned at an early age that things that were so damn convenient usually didn't really hold up in the end.

I began to back away from the 'light'. When I did this, I began to see the wires, the fixture, the lampost that held it there. I began to see how mans' works had created and set in place this false light.

I also began to realize that outside of this false light, there was a natural light that already existed, and though it shown brightly, it varied and it moved, and it had a soft edge...in between the darkness and the light there were many levels of light and shadow that were irremovably intertwined with each other and were both an integral part of both eachother and of the scene as a whole.

You see, when standing in such a magnificantly bright light, anything outside the light is dark. There is nothing in between, there is no possibility of 'maybe', there is no measurement, there are no variations.

Your thoughts tend to quickly follow suit when standing in such a bright light, and things no longer require thought - they either are or they aren't. The book has the answers. But damn, it's so hard to figure out what they mean...so we have a group to tell us what they mean, and if they say it's so than it's so. If they say it's not than it's not.

From that perspective, it's impossible to see the beauty that is creatd by the interaction of shadow and light, the infinite possibilities that is life.

From that perspective, it is impossible to see that this 'lamp' is not the only source of light, and that there are sources that are far more inspiring.

So, say not that I choose not to switch on your lamp and remain in darkness, but rather that I will happily leave your lamp lit yet turn instead to see the spectacular sunrise on the horizon.

In doing so, I have explored depths of my soul that quite frankly I don't think many people have.

I also learned that I didn't need a book - or a group of people in funny hats surrounded by gold and manufacturing edicts - to tell me what was right or wrong. I had the answers within me, if only I looked hard enough.




{{edit for spelling and clarification}}



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 04-11-2003).]

I just have to keep returning to this thread, so many twists and turns and more heads than a hydra...

Jade: "Circling wagons?" I wish such a thing existed in my life, it would be most useful in other areas but sadly I personaly am an independent and unafiliated operator. My thoughts are my own and the kicks in the butt I sometimes recieve as a result are my own too.

Well said DL-44. I appreciate that little glimps into your experience. Mine has been uncanily similar.. almost identical and not suprisingly I have arrived at similar beautiful conclusions. I have learned to trust myself and see far wider then prescribed by the so called bearers of the light. It took me half a life of struggle against myself and deep rooted attitudes, fears, blocks and so-called needs and insecurities but I eventualy got around that corner and total vision combined with an exquisite simple clarity opened up before me. Everything is okay...everyhting has the potential to be fine in my world. Despite having taken many wrong turns on the path the journey has been nothing short of a miraculous adventure.

Bigamus: I am familiar with the quote you offered and how it is often rendered and will get back to you on that one (a bite sized response I promise).

..and I appreciate everyone's sincere offerings and contributions in here...

...xpi...

"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-11-2003).]

*chuckes*

um, that's not how you spell b-u-g-i-m-u-s' name, x.



he likes bugs - not polymatrimony.

*Munch, munch...gotta love popcorn*

Very nice post, DL...reminds me of posts of olde...*sigh*

Now we just need Peter to poke his head in here...

*Sends the wafting, irresistable smell of hot, freshly popped butter-n-salt popcorn down the halls, and out to the Garden*

hm.....
->god=mercy
right?
->We all should forgive
right?
So.....just tell me something...
WHY IS THERE A HELL?


*Bleargh* Get lost!!!

Thank you DL & X for sharing. I am grateful to know you
as posters better.

One day I may share myself as well.

On the issue of hell, I would like to know what the posters who do not believe in a life after mortal death, to share what they think happens to their consciousness?

I read a passage in the christian bible one time on the question of what it was like when you died. The answer was something like "Remember what it was like before you were born?"

This is the first time here in a long time. This board has done some good changes from what I remember and looks great. Some very interesting people here. Good day to you all.

I thought that was a beautiful response DL.

I must have spent over an hour reading this entire thread and it has been enlightening to say the least. Several times I wished I could interject points or ask for clarifications and I am truly sorry I didn't follow this one earlier.

~Hands out the drinks and helps himself to some popcorn~

interesting stuff DL, and i can certainly see how you arrive at your conclusions. i'm extremely involved in a youth ministry so i can also relate to a lot of what you've probably experienced. that being said, i'll share a story.

at a conference a worship/music leader from a very well-known church was speaking, he was from one of these churches that had made the news even in the secular world because of the attention their services had received and the flood of people that were attending because of the way God was moving there. one of his comments went something like this:

"sometimes when i'm up on stage i'm just not feeling connected to God, i might be at a spiritual low or just having a bad day. but i can lead worship on a sunday morning and i you'll think i'm just overflowing with the spirit of God and that the spirit is moving; i'm just that good."

this sort of shocked the crowd but he went on to make an important point, and one that relates a lot to what you talked about. most churches are full of good people who want to do good things, and they tailor their services to meet the needs that people have both emotionally and spiritually. and as people, we sometimes get so comfortable in a pattern of behavior that it just becomes how things are, rather than what's really happening. we react without really reacting if you will, because we know what's expected of us in certain situations.

the thing is, that's not where God really shows up. God starts where we leave off, its where we realize we can't handle the situation or act outside our comfort zone because we believe God is really in control. i'd wager most christians don't ever get to that point because they don't need to and don't want to step outside their bubble, they're comfortable where they're at and that's all there is to it. sometimes events force them to step into that area of total trust in God, and that's where truly awesome things happen.

i've had things happen just like you mentioned, where i look back and wonder if i created a situation in my mind that made everything seem a certain way. but i've also seen and experienced and been thru things that have no rational explanation whatsoever except God. one of my close friend's brothers has been in the hospital for about 6 months now, he made some really bad decisions and hung out with the wrong people and had something explode in his lap; that resulted in 3rd degree burns over 75% of his body and almost killed him. but he's at least 8 months ahead of schedule on his recovery and will soon be released. he has had no infection resulting from his burns. zero, absolutely none. ask anyone in a medical field and they'll tell you that doesn't happen, its impossible, that's why his hospital stay was estimated at 18 months and not the 8 months that its looking like. and that's correct, it is impossible, these doctors at one of the top burn centers in the country have never even heard of this occurring. it just can't happen.

but true light makes anything possible.

chris

jade - i can see why you say,

quote:

---

I think the children of Israel prefigures us as people.

---

but that's different from saying you are one of the children of israel.

interesting, this is the first time i've seen the trinity described as a committee :

quote:

---

In the esscence of God is a working divine family. Separate entities, but all the same. They all complete each other... Each entity perfectly loves itself and the separate divine persons.

---

dl- i have made a similar journey and though i've encountered different views on the reality of god, what i found on my journey is what resonates inside of me.

[edit] fix punctuation

[This message has been edited by velvetrose (edited 04-12-2003).]

That is interesting VR

It seems to me what you or DL & X has described of you inner self is Godlike in a way in that your self knowldege is connecting.

DL, thank you very much for that view into yourself. I feel I know you that much better now. I hope to have plenty more times to exchange views with you on topics such as these.

velvetrose, I also consider the church to be Israel... now. [edit] There are gobs of passages to support that in the NT. But you have to keep in mind that we are talking about a Christian view. If Jesus was not the Messiah and the Jews are right in waiting for the real one, then you are correct that the chosen people are still the Jews. [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-13-2003).]

thanks for the explanation bugs. i'm not sure i understand your view and i don't recall encountering it whilst i was catholic, but given your knowledge of things christian, i'll accept that it is a recognized xian viewpoint.

There is some disagreement in the Xian world on this topic, I would be happy to go into it more if ever you are interested. The basics really are that the Jews were given the privilege of receiving God's plan first and then they were to transmit it to all peoples. So Xianity really is just the fulfillment and natural extension of Judaism. Of course, this idea *really* pisses off most Jews today, which is understandable. But like I said, it's right there in the book.

[edit] someday I'll learn to type properly [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-13-2003).]

Jade, I wanted to get back to something with you if I could. You said way up there somewhere:

quote:

---

Lets set aside the question of church authority because this can cloud the christian to christian approach to what we are try to understand.

---

Please understand that when you and I approach these questions, Roman Catholic authority has everything to do with our differences. Your church teaches quite a few things that I will not find in the bible and the only way I could know about them is to listen to the RCC authority. So please understand that we are at an impasse before we even begin talking.

The only way that could change is if you can convince me your church really is what it claims to be. You're certainly welcome to try as I'm sure that would be interesting

Bugs

I am not interested in converting you to Catholicism.
As long as you consider your bible your church, that
is your authority. The sacred book and how you individually interpret it works for you. I am glad you are Christian. I myself feel the CC has and still is evolving with the times. Meaning scripture will never change, but tradition does with the times. CC is still growing. Our dogma will never change, but some doctrines will. I just present what I as a Catholic see the faith thru study and experience. But as christian to christian no matter what sect, I think dialogue is important as we have a certain man in common.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-13-2003).]

*shudders and exits the conversation*

Jade, I am not questioning your sincerity at all. I'm glad we've had this opportunity to get to know you better.

But let me just finish this by saying what bothers me the most about your position is that you seem to shy away from *thinking critically* about your faith. I know your church historically has discouraged questioning of its core doctrine and you seem to be very comfortable with that.

I believe Xianity demands the best from our hearts *and* our minds. I also believe that if Xianity is true, then it should be able to stand up against any alternative on its own merits. It should therefore be approached critically to allow it to prove itself to one's own self as well as to others.

[edit] correcting very poor grammar [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-15-2003).]

I know you might not be able to understand this statement.

But in the doctrine of CC belief, Christ is the church , the people are the church. My family is a church. I am a church. The church is an instituion, a building, a concept. I cannot separate all of this from me. I am in all of each entity and it in me. To criticize it, is critizing me and all the other entities. I can live with the criticism. Thur the sacrament of confirmation I am commissioned to defend the church & to explain it.

I might not explain myself or my belief very well to make you understand me. I know thur history of the church and pesently there is lots to criticize. Look at the history of the apostleship of the chosen. All twelve knew him, one betrayed him and they all abandoned him. So if they lost faith, or erred, why can't their successors fall too. The church is not yet perfected, but one day it will be. Until that time I remain as faithful as I can.

I will not hold it against you if you do not want to discuss faith with me. I thought to bridge would be a good thing. But it is not always possible.

jade - there is a big difference between "criticising" and "thinking critically about" your faith.

you have accepted your faith without asking any questions, which is fine by me.

however, you also wish to win other people over. chances are, they will ask questions, they will need answers, they will need to be convinced.

as such, it is very useful if you compare, for yourself, your religion against other religions, your denomination against other denominations, so that you can provide a more compelling argument for why you chose this faith.

John 7:16,17 says:

quote:

---

"My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me. If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. "

---

Open question: what do you think Jesus means when he says this? Why does he not just say "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will just accept that my teaching comes from God"?

Reitsma,

Your right in the "thinking critically about" remark.


The bible passage from John you posted means this to me:

Jesus who is the son of God also grew in wisdom and knowlege of his father. When the son speaks of the father, he speaks to reveal the will of the father, which Jesus himself follows. Anyone who sees the son sees the father. If you accept just to see the son who is God but do not do his will, you will not come to know who the one who sent the son is. By doing the will of the father which requires faith you get to know him by growing in wisdom and knowlege just like the son who we are called to imitate. The more you look for God , the more you find him. God doesn't reveal to you all at once. Its a journey of revelations here & there. You know he is God, but you desire always to know him on a more personal level.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-15-2003).]