Yorick?

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Yorick: Fljotsdale, let us not forget: The word of God Logos - Written word of God Rhema - Spoken word of God A believer should be relying on both of these in their walk. The two are harmonious with each other and generally confirm each other.

Uuuummmmm - you're saying Jesus is writing on a bit of paper, right?!
Sorry! Couldn't resist!

Anyway, I have no argument with that. Both are to be found in the bible. Why the 'blue murder' smilie?

PS. Back later. I need food!
------------------




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 06-24-2001).]

[Yorick]

About three years ago I lost half of my blood supply due to a problem in my intestine. I nearly died. I received constant transfusions for days as doctors performed test after test to locate both the source and the cause of such blood loss. The stress it placed on my wife led to long term illness on her part which put further strain on a troublesome marrige, which ended in divorce. Whenever the subseqent messy and problematic divorce led me to thoughts of taking my life (which at one point were quite often), I remembered nearly dying and the sacrifice she and others made at the time, and honour it.

This week has been particularly hard for me, as I am teaching music at a college run by a huge church. The church, aside from having problems with divorcees have problems with post marital relationships. I had one which ended about a year ago, but it followed me here due to the machinations of my ex-wife (six months ago) and ex-boss (last week).

Fun and games for me

Why did I bring this up? Because the blood transfusion allowed me to live, and in spite of any crap I am very very grateful for that simple fact. I am glad to be alive and wouldn't change a thing.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: I appreciate that to people brought up to believe in a trinity, it is very difficult to either see or accept anything that seems like an attack on their faith. We shut our eyes and say ‘NO!’ regardless of the evidence. I have done it myself! (Though not about the Trinity!) However, it is NOT an attack on faith. The faith of a Christian should be firmly rooted in scripture, not in church doctrine, and if one contradicts the other, then the bible should be the preferred source of information since it declares itself to be ‘the word of God’. As you know, Yorick, I myself do not subscribe to any belief system, but I DO have a good knowledge of the bible and am quite picky about accuracy. (I don’t mean I am always right!). Yes, I was a JW for many years and learned a lot while with them from studying the bible. You believe that the association ‘coloured’ my outlook. It did. It made me a Christian in outlook and practice, and I still hold to those high standards to the best of my ability – not because of faith but because those standards are right. But primarily it gave me a grasp of what was actually written in the bible. I was taught to LOOK at and EXAMINE what I was reading and to PROVE my beliefs not by reference to just a few scriptures but by examining every reference I could find. Most people read the bible (if they even bother!) with set beliefs in mind and consequently they do not ‘see’ anything that does not tally with those beliefs. The Trinity doctrine has been established for so long that most christians do not even think of questioning it, and many faithful men and women would shrink in horror from the thought that it may not be biblical, honestly believing the idea of ‘no Trinity’ to be blasphemy. However, I believe that a careful consideration of the bible on this topic will show that it is the Trinity belief that is blasphemous in the eyes of the God of the bible.

Fljotsdale, I was brought up the son of a fundamentalist Anglican minister. I do not have the Theology of a fundamentalist Anglican. I do not believe in an eternal hell for example. I am more attuned to certain pentecostal practices than most Anglicans. I have openly read Buddhist, Hindu, Confucionist and New Age thought, and indeed been influenced by some of their ways of thinking - even if that influence manifested in a swing to the opposite of that thought (LOL) no one can ever tell me that I have my eyes shut, nor that I believe because of my upbringing because I simply don't. I do not however delve into examining the myriad Greek, Hebrew references and various translations for two reasons. a) there are many more skilled and better versed at such things that I, a professional musician can ask and refer to on this matter; and b) My relationship with God, while rooted in the bible, and an understanding of it's contents from an early age, is now, dependant more on the Rhema aspect, and what I see in creation. The bible serves to keep me on the track and highlight aspects, but now I spend more time praying than reading. I feel you may have argued me into a corner in some areas as you have more specific information at your fingertips, however - I draw my conclusions about the Trinity from the bible, from logos, from the written word. The beginning of John is as clear as day to me:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--
13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth

Come on Fljotsdale! "We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only"? yet also "who came from the father". Same but different.
"The Word was God" AND "he was with God from the beginning"? "Through him all things were made"? Again, same but different, the Son who created the world. How much more do you want? Whether you agree with the sentiment or not, in this quote from the NIV, the most reliable translation available, the Gospel of John starts by setting down the concept of the Trinity. The concept is, as I said, certainly not "unbiblical", which was your initial phrase that I took issue with.


1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2
The same was in the beginning with God.
3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not


10
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth


In these quotes from the King James Bible, which drew on different sources than the NIV we see the same thread. Reference to the Word - Jesus - as THE CREATOR! "and the world was made by him"

Regarding the Holy Spirit:

Acts
17" 'In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19I will show wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

Peter is actually quoting from the OT book of Joel in this speech in Acts, there is no specification that the day of the Lord is either Jesus or God, just the day of the lord. Frequently Jesus is refered to as "our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ" and referred to Jesus later on in this same speech :

36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

"Made" in this context not meaning "created", but "employed, "assigned the role of", or "given the job of".

God says he will pour out his spirit. If I pour out my spirit into my music, it sure means I am pouring fourth some of myself. No-one else is that's for sure.


Fljotsdale, what more do you want? Let me define bible. The Bible is the collection of books widely regarded by Christians worldwide as the inspired word of God. In English, the most accurate versions are deemed to be the NIV and the KJV depending on the school of thought. The word "biblical" refers to ideas and facts that are referred to or discussed, mentioned directly or implied in the said Bible.

The Trinity is a biblical concept.


------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!


[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 06-24-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Yorick: About three years ago I lost half of my blood supply due to a problem in my intestine. I nearly died. I received constant transfusions for days as doctors performed test after test to locate both the source and the cause of such blood loss. The stress it placed on my wife led to long term illness on her part which put further strain on a troublesome marrige, which ended in divorce. Whenever the subseqent messy and problematic divorce led me to thoughts of taking my life (which at one point were quite often), I remembered nearly dying and the sacrifice she and others made at the time, and honour it. This week has been particularly hard for me, as I am teaching music at a college run by a huge church. The church, aside from having problems with divorcees have problems with post marital relationships. I had one which ended about a year ago, but it followed me here due to the machinations of my ex-wife (six months ago) and ex-boss (last week). Fun and games for me Why did I bring this up? Because the blood transfusion allowed me to live, and in spite of any crap I am very very grateful for that simple fact. I am glad to be alive and wouldn't change a thing.

You have my compassion, Yorick. Looks like you went through hell. And I do not question your choices - why should I? I did not say that blood did not save lives, because it obviously does. And I, for one, am VERY glad it saved yours. It would be a great sadness for the world to lose a man who shines with as much sincerity as you do.

I, too, have seen lives saved by blood transfusion. Equally, I have seen people become sick as a result of blood transfusion, and was aware of people in the hospital where I was a nurse who died as a direct result of transfusion - one of whom was a healthy woman, apart from the problem she needed the operation for (I forget what it was - long time ago); but it was traditional to give everyone a pint of blood before an operation in this hospital. This raised her blood pressure excessively and she bled internally at the operation site, dying in her sleep, and the cause was discovered post mortem.
I have also had major surgery myself without blood and I was up from bed days befor other women who had the same op on the same day as myself, and out of hospital when the others were only beginning to think of going home.
I do not knock the value of blood transfusion, but I respect the right of anyone to opt for alternative, safer treatment. The main value of blood is that it is a cheaper option than safer methods.


------------------

[Fljotsdale]

Sorry, Yorick! We are not going to agree!
The Lord in the quote is YHWH. This one in Joel is one of the many places the copyists subsitituted another word in place of the Tetragrammaton, I think, though I have not taken time to check it out 'cos I've only just come on-line. You keep on quoting that 'the Word was with God and the Word was God' Yorick, in EVERY OTHER instance in the NT of the use of the word theos it is rendered god, NOT God. Ask yourself why the translators use a different rendering in just this one place alone? It is because they are trying to convince us that God is a trinity!
However, let's not fall out over it! You are convinced. I am equally convinced, lol! My conviction is less important than yours because I am a non-believer anyway - although, thinking about it, it may be that my status as one 'on the outside' allows me a better view, perhaps
I do not want an enjoyable debate to cause any loss of mutual understanding.
Basically, Yorick, I feel our attitudes are the same, and our outlook on the world is similar, even though we are viewing things from different sides of the road.

------------------

[Zateel]

Hey, it's me again...

First off, I'm sorry about my rant. To indirectly criticize a group, whether I'm right or wrong is not acting in love in this case, and it probably borders on crossing the Ironworks rules. Although it was futile to argue my points on issues with the JWs in my home, perhaps I could be indulged to post them here so another might have an alternative perspective if approached with the JWs hypotheses.
Let me get ready to duck. I *sort of* believe in the Bible. To paint a clearer picture of myself, let me add that I COMPLETELY believe in Christ and Jehova. I also believe in the Holy Spirit, but I have little opinion on its relationship with the other two. You are correct to say that "The Trinity" is not directly addressed in "The Bible" in those terms, or so I've read. My speculation on this would be pale next to yours and Yorick's. So, about the Bible- When 1 Timothy 3:15-17 speaks of scripture, it can only refer to the Old Testament. If it refers to any other writings those were lost in the fire when Vespasian or whoever burned the temple around 68 A.D. Our "Bible" was very debatable, as your reference to Erasmus earlier points out. Collections varied from church to church. Later when it all was compiled (mostly according to the opinion of Eusebius, Constantine's chief religeous adviser, and later at councils of "men", namely Nicea and then Carthage) did we have our "Bible", or collection of little books.
So when you said earlier that the faith of a Christian should be firmly rooted in scripture, I argue that the scripture which defines Christianity(that written after Jesus' death)was not included in Paul's definition to Timothy. I say rather, that faith should be in the goodness and validity of The Son's sacrifice, and to look for knowledge in the Counselor (John 14, vs16-18, 26). To me, "The Bible" is church doctrine. It is not infallable. If only one error over the centuries were made in copying between manuscripts (and this is the case, only more so) then it is a product of man. I have great respect for the book, and probably have upwards of seventy (I collect 19th century ones), although I confess I've never read the entire contents, nor have I attended church since I was sixteen (twenty-nine now). I didn't say I believed anything was "wrong" included within the Bible, but I don't believe that because something has been omitted from the Bible means that it IS wrong. Do you understand my distinction? This particularly applies to the purpose of man in the JW view. Because Genesis 2:15 says(NWT, 1970 revision)"And Jehovah God proceeded to take the man and settle him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and to take care of it" or that Genesis 1:28 says, "Further God blessed them and God said to them: "Be fruitful and become many and fill the Earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth." doesn't mean that I think that is man's only purpose. So God decides to make an Earth. It's empty. So he decides to make some trees and fish and people. Then it's done? God says elsewhere that his wisdom and purpose are beyond us. I don't claim to know "Why" but it just irritates me a little that other people are so certain they have God all figured out.
The reason I think that God appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18 is what Abraham says after Jehova appears in vs. 1. Ch18 vs3-5 "..."Jehova, if now I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be taken, please and you (HE SAID YOU!! TALKING TO JEHOVA!!!) must have your feet washed. Then recline under the tree. And let me get a piece of bread, and refresh your hearts. Following that, you (YOU AGAIN!! TALKING TO JEHOVA!!) can pass on, because that is why you have passed this way to your servant."...
In verse two it describes the three as men, but as Jehova stays and the other two travel on to Sodom, they are described as angles in chapter 19. Regardless, man or angel, it would seem that Abraham was indeed addressing one of the three before him as Jehova, and offering physical goodies. Can you see my point of view? Perhaps this is another reason why I hold my view of the Bible as a whole if you still think this conflicts with other references within itself.
I've saved the best for last. I too am a registered nurse, and I've seen the effects of blood, and the effects of its absence. I will not argue that transfusions are overprescribed. I will not argue that on occasion, they can be deadly. I will defend that a blood transfusion is NOT inherently wrong to a Christian.
Let me try to put the major background on the table. Blood transfusions were first attempted mid 1800's and failed miserably as a result of using non-human blood. The last reference in the Bible concerning abstaining from blood was written in the first century. Obviously, a direct ruling against the ACTION of transfusing blood could not have been written, therefore the argument relies on the blood itself.
Genesis 9:4, leviticus 7:26-27, Deuteronomy 12:27 all give examples of prohibitions against eating blood. A transfusion is not a meal. How about fat? Can a Christian eat bacon? Let me quote (I'm going back to NIV, because it stays folded open easier in my lap while typing) Leviticus 7:22-25 "...Do not eat any of the fat of cattle, sheep, or goats. The fat.... may be used for any other purpose, but you must not eat it...." This is the same sacrificial law that pertains to blood. How about Lev 3:17 "This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood."
How about that piece of hamburger meat or that ribeye? What do you think that red color comes from? How much blood is blood? Greater than .5 grams of hemoglobin per pound? Even the JWs are not obeying the rule, which they quickly conceeded to me was null after Christs death. The "Laws of Moses" were no longer applicable they told me. So what then, is the argument?
Acts 15:19-20 (James, head of the church council)"It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
and then Paul delivering his message in verse 28,29 "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangle animals..."
Well, that about says it doesn't it? No blood. Do you know why? For *love* of your neighbor. When James is talking about making it easy on the Gentiles, he means making it easy to be accepted into the church. For a good explanation rom Paul's own mouth, lets look at Romans 14. I'm just going to paraphrase this one, or I'll fill up all of Ziroc's bandwidth with the Bible. Paul discusses the ceremonially clean foods. In verse 14 he says NO food is unclean. What about blood sausage? He says that if your eating a food causes emotional upset for your brother, then the act of upsetting your brother is the sin, not the food.
The same applies to the early church. You had Jews, you had Gentiles. The Jews wanted all the Gentiles to get circumcised (Galatians) which really got Paul hot. The Gentiles brought their own customs to the church. IN ORDER TO GET ALONG IN A DESEGREGATED CHURCH, they asked the Gentiles to please not offend the Jews by doing these things. The things in themselves were works and were not IN THEMSELVES related to the salvation by grace/ new covenant thingie. Galatians makes this point very clear.
Is there anything that supports giving blood transfusions in the Bible? Could be! How about breaking a law of God for healing purposes? Does that sound a little like a JW interpretation of a blood transfusion? How about when Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath (Matt 12, 9-14 and two other parallels in Mark 3 and Luke 6) or his parable of the good Samaritan who helped the nearly dead man, whom the priest and Levite passed by on the opposite side of the road, to avoid becoming unclean (if he were dead). In this parable, it is not the wise, law abiders that are praised, it is the heathen, who has mercy on another, and respect for precious life (Luke 10, 25-37).

Thanks for reading.

[onthepequod]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: You keep on quoting that 'the Word was with God and the Word was God' Yorick, in EVERY OTHER instance in the NT of the use of the word theos it is rendered god, NOT God.

Perhaps I do not understand the argument you are posing but in my copy of the original Greek text “God” , as used in John 1:1 & 2, in original form is Theos and Theon, both with capital thetas. Later in John 1:12 & 13, “God” is derived from Theu (again with capital thetas). Consequently, the original text leads me to believe that the author, whom I believe to be God since the original text states that it is Theopneustos (God breathed), intended John 1:1 & 2 to read “God” and not “god.” This is my understanding and if I have misunderstood the intent of your point please set me straight.





------------------

onthepequod

[Yorick]

Thanks Onthepequod, Zateel for your contributions.

Fljotsdale, whether you or Onethepequod are right, the reference is to Jesus as Creator.

3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. This is the creator being spoken about. Let us not turn a good solid debate into hair splitting over a capital G. There is an obvious intent, theme and context that line calls need to be seen in light of. That said, thanks for your compliments and your time once again. As iron sharpens iron, through this I have become even more convinced of the biblical truth of the Trinity. For that I thank you.

Have a great day Fljotsdale.



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Fljotsdale]

Hi, Yorick! Sorry to neglect your posts, but it's been too darned hot here to think. Still is! But anyway, I've made a start!
Since I wrote the above, the board has been down and I’ve only just got back on. It’s all I’ve done, too, but I WILL reply to the other stuff – promise!

I'll see what I can write later as I think we may be coming to a standoff soon, however let me leave these points.
When I was a baby I was smaller, unable to walk, communicate and think the way I do now. I looked different (blond straight hair, different bone structure, different size and proportions etc), I was different, yet it was me - the same person as now. The link, and what enables the separation is the fourth dimension: time. Remove the chains of time and what do you have? At least two different people that are also the same person. If God is indeed outside time then......
Ermm – but doesn’t that make God the baby and Jesus the man? I know that isn’t what you meant, lol, but, hey…! It is a good example of what you mean, though.

My issue of God creating the potential for negativity is not dangerous ground at all. It is the consequence of free will. It is generally accepted by christians that God knows the future - as a being outside time would - so before creating he would have known the outcome of every human choice. No surprises there, it is just a slant that many preachers don't emphasise. It takes maturity in a christian relationship to look at the negatives and thank God for them as much as the positives, without one the other wouldn't exist.
To me there is much genius in the whole plot. A lot of planning. I'm not saying God makes bad stuff happen, but allows a certain randomness resultant from our choices.
The other toss of the coin is that God is everything positive - life, light the source of all positive, and that negative is where God is not. That is, before God created light there was nothing - no thing. (Actually, Light was not the first thing created – the heavenly being that eventually became Jesus was ‘the beginning of the creation by God’. I haven’t checked, but I think Light was on the Third day). If all creation continues at his will - that is stays in existence because he wills it (Mentalists believe thought energy holds atoms together I believe) - then the absence of that will would cause it's end. Absence of will being a passive action rather than the proactive instigation of will.
Any man made negative actions to each other would then be as a result of forcing God from their decision making, even on a small scale.
This is not quite what is meant by the word pre-ordained (‘to determine, decree, or appoint beforehand), the word you used previously. Pre-ordination would mean we had no free will at all, an idea I dislike intensly!
I sort of take issue with you as well regarding the Time factor. God being outside of Time does not automatically mean the God would know every detail of the future, or the outcome of every decision. The bible seems to show, on some occasions, that he is not omniscient. An examination of Abraham’s attempt to sacrifice Isaac in accordance with God’s command is a case in point. Genesis 22:12, an angel speaks God’s words to Abraham: ‘Don’t hurt the boy or do anything to him,’ he said. ‘Now I know that you honour and obey God, because you have not kept back your only son from me.’ (Good News Bible)
This seems to me a pretty clear indication that GOD DID NOT KNOW beforehand that Abraham would actually obey the command to kill Isaac.
Granted, the bible also says that God ‘knows the end from the beginning’. I do not think that this contradicts his not knowing every detail. It is often perfectly possible even for us fallible human beings to see the outcome of something without knowing the details! And God had a purpose, so would take steps to ensure that the purpose did not fail – he COULD know the end from the beginning, but still be unsure of the outcome of each and every human ‘crossroads’ decision until the choice until it was made. However – I cannot say that I am totally sure of this conclusion since it is based mainly on Gen 22:12, and several other scriptures that indicate God didn’t know things.

My statements about "the" (cd player, air, villiage idiot etc) were in relation to THE son of God. It is not A son of God, or one of the sons of God, but THE (only) son of God. "The" implies an only after it, either the only one of it's kind or the only one in the immediate surroundings. Jesus was surrounded by others. If there are other sons of God, they certainly are not of humanity.
Yes, I understood what you were saying – but I was puzzled because it appears to be supporting MY argument!

Re. the 144 000 mentioned in Revelation, are they not all Jewish male virgins?
That is pretty well what the bible says. But JW’s take the line that it means ‘spiritual Jews’ in accordance with the scripture at Rom 2:27-29. Which makes sense.

Re. the early Christians, they were monotheistic, not Polytheistic. God is quite clear that there is only one God throughout the enire Bible. If another, or two other eternal Gods existed at the same time there is no way he would have been that clear about it, nor changed his mind and created another God.
Well, yes! That is what I have been saying all along!
That is why Jesus is the SON of God, not God himself. The son of a god, is by definition, also a god, but one lesser than the father. This in no takes away the singularity of the Godship of the father.

Let me be clear about my definition of (a) God. It is not a supreme being that cannot die with higher powers than a mortal as in a D&D game or Buddhist/Hindu fable, it is an awareness, a being beyond comprehension that enabled and enables existance, it cannot die and had no beginning because, as you said, it just IS. It is all-powerful in the respect that it has created the very laws that empower and limit, our own abilities.
I have no argument with that.

This creator awareness through whatever means - seven days, millions of years in evolution, big-banging, spurring life in a small pond, or shaping Adam from clay is the thought behind every law, every quirk, every food chain, and ultimately every random encounter. The concept of it - or "him" for relational purposes - wishing or desiring relationship with creation is at once incredible, yet brings some sort of sense to the question: Why are we here? Throughout creation, if viewed with the perspective that an artist - a four dimensional artist - has painstakingly designed everything, one can see love, see care - from the way Dolphins and Whales care for their sick and young, to indeed any mammal caring for and feeding its young, to the beauty in sunsets, rainbows, waterfalls, mountains with snow, snowfall, beaches, and weeping willow trees, to the poetry of a bird in flight, the melody of a lyrebird or kookaburra, the ordered social structures of ant and bee civilisations, and the confused, blurred definition of a Platypus - a carnivorous mammal that lays eggs, has a duck bill, teeth and poisonous barb on its right hind leg, the strength and flexability of hair, the rhythmic crashing of waves, the hum of the said beehive, the feeling of a cool breeze on a hot day, water on bare skin, soft grass or scratching an itch, a massage or sexual pleasure, the smell of a rose, the smell of the sea, the smell of hay, the way a cat cleans itself or a possum tugs at your trouser leg for food. So much of this provokes positive feeling and is artisticly brilliant in that aside from the genius involved in each, there is a shift in our emotional state upon reception of such information, which truly good art will do!
By becoming Jesus-on-earth, or "sending his son" this relationship is enabled, and a further display of love, grace, forgiveness is given. By becoming the Holy Spirit and residing in us, the relationship is furthered still, with us each day, affecting our reception of events, sights and encounters in a way that provokes communication with the creator, love for the creator and joy, peace, healing and awe.
I agree with all that.

On earth there is a timeline, and Jesus appears to us after the start of creation; but if God is outside time, then Jesus existed always - The creator as he would/does/did exist in human form.
See my comments above regarding time and the creation of the being who became Jesus.

The Bible, written by humans, inspired by the creator as a means of communicating some of that desire, is quite clear there is but one creative force, but that Jesus is that creative force. "The Word was God" Of course the concept can be bewildering, but then that is the way of things. As soon as we gain new knowledge, we realise how much more there is to know, how much we don't understand or grasp.
I choose to interpret the bible as we have it as stating that God, Jesus and the Spirit are one and the same, yet different, if for no other reason than it rings true with all I have seen and makes sense of all existance to me. Of course another will disagree, but then my perspective is my own and I have no control over what another sees.
True! We ain’t never gonna agree on the Trinity construct, lol!

Where I have seen a God of love, you have seen a God of destruction and loathing,
Where I see one God, you see two or three.
Er, NO! YOU believe in three gods in Trinity, Yorick! I believe that the biblical God is ONE! SOLO. Jesus is his Son. He is divine, as is his right. He is A god, as is his right as THE Son of God. (Just as the son of The King is The Prince, not the King). He is not God, and never claimed to be, as some of the scriptures I have quoted make clear ; eg - ‘Christ Jesus, who, though being in God’s form, did not did not meditate a Usurpation to be like God…’ (Phil 2:5,6)

The difference dear Fljotsdale, is that I am loving my God and communicating my awe, my thanks, my pleas and my concerns with him, with his Spirit nearly all the time, while you have turned your back on yours. I am being affected quite regularly and have have an ordered coherant worldview, that is reinforced by communication with God.
I think the bottom line is, we have not known the same God at all.
Yes, I can see that you are sincere in your beliefs, Yorick, and I honour you for that sincerity. And no, we do not see the same god in the bible – but please do not call him MY god for he is not! I like yours MUCH more!

Yours is one of three, and one that you see blackness within; mine is the only one in existance, has three aspects and IS love.
As I said above, Yorick, it is you that worship 3 gods, not I. Or at least, that is what you claim. I do not think you worship the god of the bible at all – I believe that the one you worship is Jesus Christ, because he had all the qualities that you love so much. And I can go along with that. If I was going to worship any god at all, it would have to have those qualities manifest in Jesus. I endeavour to live by those same standards, although, as I have said before, it is not due to worship but the knowledge that Christ’s teachings are good, and they work when people put them into practice.

I have another long one of yours to reply to yet - I only did so briefly before, I think. I'll get back to it when I am less hot and can think better, lol!
After that, I think we will have pretty well come to the end of it - for now, anyway!

Zateel, Onthepequod, etc, I will get back to you when I'm cooler!


------------------

[Fljotsdale]

ZATEEL! Here you go!

First off, I'm sorry about my rant. To indirectly criticize a group, whether I'm right or wrong is not acting in love in this case, and it probably borders on crossing the Ironworks rules. Although it was futile to argue my points on issues with the JWs in my home, perhaps I could be indulged to post them here so another might have an alternative perspective if approached with the JWs hypotheses.
Let me get ready to duck. I *sort of* believe in the Bible. To paint a clearer picture of myself, let me add that I COMPLETELY believe in Christ and Jehova. I also believe in the Holy Spirit, but I have little opinion on its relationship with the other two. You are correct to say that "The Trinity" is not directly addressed in "The Bible" in those terms, or so I've read. My speculation on this would be pale next to yours and Yorick's.

From what I have seen of your comments so far, I think you seem pretty well-informed!

So, about the Bible- When 1 Timothy 3:15-17 speaks of scripture, it can only refer to the Old Testament.

Yes, obviously that is true.

If it refers to any other writings those were lost in the fire when Vespasian or whoever burned the temple around 68 A.D.

I think this was done by Titus, during the second Roman seige.

Our "Bible" was very debatable, as your reference to Erasmus earlier points out.

This was Yorick’s reference, I think.

Collections varied from church to church. Later when it all was compiled (mostly according to the opinion of Eusebius, Constantine's chief religeous adviser, and later at councils of "men", namely Nicea and then Carthage) did we have our "Bible", or collection of little books.

Yep.

So when you said earlier that the faith of a Christian should be firmly rooted in scripture, I argue that the scripture which defines Christianity(that written after Jesus' death)was not included in Paul's definition to Timothy. I say rather, that faith should be in the goodness and validity of The Son's sacrifice, and to look for knowledge in the Counselor (John 14, vs16-18, 26). To me, "The Bible" is church doctrine. It is not infallable. If only one error over the centuries were made in copying between manuscripts (and this is the case, only more so) then it is a product of man. I have great respect for the book, and probably have upwards of seventy (I collect 19th century ones), although I confess I've never read the entire contents, nor have I attended church since I was sixteen (twenty-nine now).

I think it should be pointed out here that if the bible is indeed, as it claims, ‘the word of God’, then God is/was quite capable of ensuring that everything he wanted preserved in it WAS preserved – don’t you think? Yes, we can say that even one error can change the sense of something. But from the evidence of fragmentary texts and quoted texts that we have available, we can be pretty confident of the accuracy of the text we use today. Scholars have even shown up a number of ‘additions’ to certain portions of the bible which were used to prop up dubious doctrines spawned by early church fathers to encourage pagans into accepting Christianity – the Trinity being one of them. The fact that these have been shown up for what they were can be seen by the faithful as evidence of God ‘keeping his word clean’. (Took him a darn long time though!)

I didn't say I believed anything was "wrong" included within the Bible, but I don't believe that because something has been omitted from the Bible means that it IS wrong. Do you understand my distinction?

Yes, I do.

This particularly applies to the purpose of man in the JW view. Because Genesis 2:15 says(NWT, 1970 revision)"And Jehovah God proceeded to take the man and settle him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and to take care of it" or that Genesis 1:28 says, "Further God blessed them and God said to them: "Be fruitful and become many and fill the Earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth." doesn't mean that I think that is man's only purpose.

No, surely not. But the bible seems to indicate that God was to reveal his purpose to mankind when they had been perfected after the 1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ, and the final destruction of the Devil; Christ will then hand back the Kingdom to his father (you need to read the book of Revelation for this) and we discover what the score is.

So God decides to make an Earth. It's empty. So he decides to make some trees and fish and people. Then it's done? God says elsewhere that his wisdom and purpose are beyond us. I don't claim to know "Why" but it just irritates me a little that other people are so certain they have God all figured out.

Well, yeah, but you can’t blame people for trying, lol!

The reason I think that God appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18 is what Abraham says after Jehova appears in vs. 1. Ch18 vs3-5 "..."Jehova, if now I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be taken, please and you (HE SAID YOU!! TALKING TO JEHOVA!!!) must have your feet washed. Then recline under the tree. And let me get a piece of bread, and refresh your hearts. Following that, you (YOU AGAIN!! TALKING TO JEHOVA!!) can pass on, because that is why you have passed this way to your servant."...
In verse two it describes the three as men, but as Jehova stays and the other two travel on to Sodom, they are described as angles in chapter 19. Regardless, man or angel, it would seem that Abraham was indeed addressing one of the three before him as Jehova, and offering physical goodies. Can you see my point of view? Perhaps this is another reason why I hold my view of the Bible as a whole if you still think this conflicts with other references within itself.

Yes, I can certainly see your viewpoint. It is something I argued about myself! The scripture seems quite specific on the point. It is also one of the texts used by some to ‘prove’ the Trinity doctrine, even though it is quite clear that the two who went off were angels with a job to do, as we discover later in the account. But yes, one seems to be Jehovah. However, there are two things to be born in mind:
1] God used angels on several occasions in just this way to deliver messages. The angel spoke the words of God and was addressed in turn as if it were God. These other scriptures make it clear that it was an angel speaking, though.
2] The bible is VERY clear both that ‘no man has seen god at any time’ and that ‘if any man sees God’s face he will die’. Therefore, the mere fact that Abraham did NOT die can be seen as clear evidence that he was not in fact seeing God, but an angel representing God.

I've saved the best for last. I too am a registered nurse, and I've seen the effects of blood, and the effects of its absence. I will not argue that transfusions are overprescribed. I will not argue that on occasion, they can be deadly. I will defend that a blood transfusion is NOT inherently wrong to a Christian.
Let me try to put the major background on the table. Blood transfusions were first attempted mid 1800's and failed miserably as a result of using non-human blood. The last reference in the Bible concerning abstaining from blood was written in the first century. Obviously, a direct ruling against the ACTION of transfusing blood could not have been written, therefore the argument relies on the blood itself.
Genesis 9:4, leviticus 7:26-27, Deuteronomy 12:27 all give examples of prohibitions against eating blood. A transfusion is not a meal. How about fat? Can a Christian eat bacon? Let me quote (I'm going back to NIV, because it stays folded open easier in my lap while typing) Leviticus 7:22-25 "...Do not eat any of the fat of cattle, sheep, or goats. The fat.... may be used for any other purpose, but you must not eat it...." This is the same sacrificial law that pertains to blood. How about Lev 3:17 "This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood."
How about that piece of hamburger meat or that ribeye? What do you think that red color comes from? How much blood is blood? Greater than .5 grams of hemoglobin per pound? Even the JWs are not obeying the rule, which they quickly conceeded to me was null after Christs death. The "Laws of Moses" were no longer applicable they told me. So what then, is the argument?
Acts 15:19-20 (James, head of the church council)"It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
and then Paul delivering his message in verse 28,29 "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangle animals..."

Actually, I think I remember reading that one of the Pharoah's of Egypt tried it first. Failed, of course!
But did you notice that this particular ‘LAW of Moses’ WAS carried through from the OT? Not only that, but it was made even clearer: the Christian was not merely to refrain from ‘eating’ blood, as the OT said, but to ABSTAIN from blood. You know the meaning of ‘abstain’. You do not merely refrain from eating or drinking a certain thing, you totally shun it! A person who has been instructed by his doctor to abstain from a certain food item – like peanuts which can kill some people – would not be so foolish as to think it would be ok to rub it on his skin, or liquidise it and inject it into his blood stream. Abstain means abstain. So JW’s do.

Well, that about says it doesn't it? No blood. Do you know why? For *love* of your neighbor. When James is talking about making it easy on the Gentiles, he means making it easy to be accepted into the church. For a good explanation rom Paul's own mouth, lets look at Romans 14. I'm just going to paraphrase this one, or I'll fill up all of Ziroc's bandwidth with the Bible. Paul discusses the ceremonially clean foods. In verse 14 he says NO food is unclean. What about blood sausage? He says that if your eating a food causes emotional upset for your brother, then the act of upsetting your brother is the sin, not the food.

Yes, this is true for all food – BUT - it did not apply to blood. ‘Abstaining from blood’ was one of the ‘necessary things’ mentioned in the scripture. As a ‘necessary thing’, the Christian was under obligation to obey that law. That includes all undrained meat, as well as pure blood and blood sausage. We in the Western world rarely find meat in the butcher or supermarket that has NOT been drained of blood, for the simple reason that it lasts longer on the shelf when the blood is drained out. Sure, there is still some residual blood in the tissues. For this reason, some JW’s don’t eat meat at all, but most are just like you and me and don’t worry about the little remains, even as the Jews never worried about the little that remained the meat that they killed in accordance with the Mosaic Law.

The same applies to the early church. You had Jews, you had Gentiles. The Jews wanted all the Gentiles to get circumcised (Galatians) which really got Paul hot. The Gentiles brought their own customs to the church. IN ORDER TO GET ALONG IN A DESEGREGATED CHURCH, they asked the Gentiles to please not offend the Jews by doing these things. The things in themselves were works and were not IN THEMSELVES related to the salvation by grace/ new covenant thingie. Galatians makes this point very clear.

Yup. But the blood ban was binding on them all. Remember these words: ‘…these necessary things, to keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things you will prosper.’ Acts 15:28,29

Is there anything that supports giving blood transfusions in the Bible? Could be! How about breaking a law of God for healing purposes? Does that sound a little like a JW interpretation of a blood transfusion? How about when Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath (Matt 12, 9-14 and two other parallels in Mark 3 and Luke 6) or his parable of the good Samaritan who helped the nearly dead man, whom the priest and Levite passed by on the opposite side of the road, to avoid becoming unclean (if he were dead). In this parable, it is not the wise, law abiders that are praised, it is the heathen, who has mercy on another, and respect for precious life (Luke 10, 25-37).

Good examples! However, since the ban on blood was so specific, and binding on ALL Christians, and never rescinded, I don’t think you can use it as a let-out! But then - most Christians don't bother with 'abstaining from fornication' either, do they? And whoever heard of 'abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and things strangled' either!

Thanks for reading.

It was a pleasure!


------------------