Yorick?

[Fljotsdale]

Quotes from Yorick, + my comments.
Jesus entire being and all he did - in fact the entire reason why Christians follow him - is centred around his being God, being one with God. "I and the father are one" he said (no misinterpreted by "New" Age thought as being a statement supporting oneness with everything. However he never said "We and the father are one" nor "You and the father are one.)

There are two principal words in common Greek that are translated as ‘one’. The first is ‘eis’, meaning ‘one’ (person, thing, whatever), and the other is ‘en’ (pronounced ‘hen’), which means ‘oneness in co-operation’ (or ‘at unity’). Both these words have diacritical marks over them, which are vital in knowing the meaning of the words, because the same words with different diacritical marks have different meanings. But I don’t have the appropriate marks in my ‘symbols’ page, so you will have to take my word for it or check ‘em out in a Greek lexicon or a diaglott. You can find use of the word ‘eis’ at Luke 24:18 and Luke 23:39.

OK.
Yes, Jesus said ‘I and my Father are one.’ The common Greek used the word en here, NOT ‘eis’. And no, he did NOT say ‘We/You and the Father are one’. What he did say, at John 17:20-22, AV, was (The Greek word used is again en.): ‘… that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: ‘... that they may be one, even as we are one.’
Notice that he said ‘as thou art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us’.
In other words, just as God & Jesus were ‘one’ in each other, Christ’s followers were to be ‘one’ in God & Jesus. ‘even as (God & Jesus) are one’. Jesus was making NO DIFFERENCE between the oneness of himself and his Father, and the oneness of his followers WITH God and himself.

The reason for his being was to die and offer humanity a clean slate, enabling relationship with God, with himself. He did not say much - around eleven central themes in all. Though his teachings alter radically human nature (turn the other cheek, love your enemy, and let he who is innocent of sin caste the first stone etc) and he only worked in his healing ministry for three years the impact of his life on history is because he died.
People die all the time do they not? The Romans executed thousands upon thousands of people on crosses. No doubt there were many lunatics (still are) who proclaim themselves to be God. Jesus was different, he managed to convince his closest friends - even his mother - that he was the son of God, that he and God were one.

No argument with that – just one comment: Yes – the son OF God. Not God THE SON. Jesus never, ever, ever, claimed to be god in any shape or form. Only ‘the son of god’ if that can be an ‘only’, lol!

It is only the concept of God becoming human, taking some of the worst things that can happen to a human - horrific torture, abandonment, mistrial, death by suffocation and fatal betrayal - that gives the event its significance. Without it he is a failure. People do not follow loosers for long. Certainly not 2000 years.

Not so. I agree with all of that, EXCEPT God becoming human. The bible neither says, nor implies that that was the case. (But that is a topic on its own, as well as being part of this discussion. We can discuss it later, if you would like? )
For Jesus’ sacrifice to have no significance if he were not God is just not true. His Apostles and disciples did not think he was Almighty God, but the Son of God. And they had no problem with accepting the validity of the sacrifice and in preaching and teaching the truth of it after receiving holy spirit. Abraham and Isaac prefigured the roles of Divine father and son. And just as Isaac obeyed his father without question, so too did the divine Son obey his Father. Jesus was certainly not a loser just because he was not his father! He was sent by god to provide a corresponding ransom for Adam. It was Adam who plunged mankind into sin and death, and Jesus was sent to take upon himself the consequence for Adam’s fault and so redeem mankind. This is the Jesus preached by his apostles.

There is much I could write on this as it is so central to my life, but I shall move on to the Spirit - which first appears at the aforementioned baptism. The bible describes an event at the time which culminates in the Spirit decending like a dove upon Jesus (one reason why Christians use the symbol). Jesus later mentions the Spirit as a "helper" which would be with them after his passing, which indicates the Spirit as a separate entity (as seperate as one of a trinity can be) from either him or God.
Pentecost is mentioned in Acts as the time when the Holy Spirit entered the disciples. Whatever the actuall event, the result in the lives of those who claimed it's presense in them has left a mark on history. A small group of scared witless men and women who had just seen their mentor die, appear again and along with 500 others shoot off to the heavens were practically overnight transformed into bold, eloquent individuals who risked, and suffered death, by spreading the word throughout the Empire.

Yes, those events are scripturally unarguable. But this was not the first appearance of holy spirit in the scriptures, since the OT also describes it. Holy Spirit is a pretty big topic on its own, and I think it deserves a separate post, so if you don’t mind, I would like to leave this one for the moment.

I discussed thsi very facet with a good friend of mine only today. I was taking the line that a lot of what Christ said made sense after the last "act". Sort of like understanding a film once it has finished, while my friend argued that it was more to do with the arrival of the Holy Spirit. Despite Peters proclaimations that Jesus "truly" was the "son of God", he didn't "get it" even when Jesus was willingly arrested in the garden of Gethsemane. He even denied knowing Jesus outside the trial.

No argument with that.

The same man was instrumental in founding the Church, especially in Jerusalem and is considered in Roman Catholic circles as the first Pope.

Interestingly, (without wishing to ruffle anyone's feathers, guys!) Peter himself never claimed to be a Pope (Papa, Father). Nor did he claim similar authority, nor did the apostles ascribe such status to him. Such a concept is in fact quite alien to the thought of the early followers of Jesus. Peter did NOT found any church, but Jesus Christ founded Christianity, not any of his followers.

Acts describes the Spirit manifesting in all those present with a sudden ability to communicate in foriegn languages. Dialect speakers heard their languages spoken, despite the speaker never venturing to the dialects origin.
The bible also mentions the fruits of the spirit as being patience, hope, joy, peace, kindness, gentleness and love.

No argument with that.

The fact that the bible mentions the Spirit rather than Jesus or God indicates that the concept of another independant facet of the creator is biblical, just as Jesus claim of being one with God - whether you accept it or not - is also biblical.
The word "Trinity" is indeed absent from the bible, but even in the old testament, God uses the word "we".

Yes, it is clear that he was speaking of more than just himself, on occasion. This, however, does provide proof of a Trinity. Just the presence of some other person close to him, and is more likely to be his Son than anyone else.

The concept figures God to be omnipresent.

Did you know that the bible does not reveal god as being either omnipresent or omniscient? (THIS one will raise some eyebrows, giggle! )

The "Father" being the original entity, the Son being the entity as it existed on the planet in human form, and the Spirit the entity that exists in individuals today.

OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! NonoNO! Look. God first. Right. Created son. Son stated in bible to be ‘The BEGINNING of the creation by God'. Son NOT same entity as God. It is so OBVIOUS! But that was discussed in a previous post, before I saw this one, so I will shut up for now, lol! (Holy Spirit to be discussed later).

The Spirit, to believers is quite "feelable". One can feel his presence, and departure - as loopy as that may sound to an unbeliever. I would hope that those that have read my posts and met me would back me up when I suggest I am a rational being that does not radiate a lack of reason or coherat thought...... guys?
However the Holy Spirit is the part of God that gives strength for a task, peace during turmoil, patience during resistance and joy when approaching despair. It is the part of God that dwells in me resultant from that "little prayer" that gets so overly thrown around in some churches.

I have some small disagreement here, but it can wait. Most of it is perfectly biblical.

The Trinity is a way of conceptualising the differing known aspects of an omnipresent creator awareness. It is no different to regarding Ice water and steam as seperate despite containing the same ingredients. The differing temperatures, or environments create a different manifestation.
An orange - skin, juice, pulp is another common simile drawn.

Nice examples!


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






[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 06-22-2001).]

[Yorick]

Yes, Jesus said ‘I and my Father are one.’ The common Greek used the word en here, NOT ‘eis’. And no, he did NOT say ‘We/You and the Father are one’. What he did say, at John 17:20-22, AV, was (The Greek word used is again en.): ‘… that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: ‘... that they may be one, even as we are one.’
Notice that he said ‘as thou art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us’.
In other words, just as God & Jesus were ‘one’ in each other, Christ’s followers were to be ‘one’ in God & Jesus. ‘even as (God & Jesus) are one’. Jesus was making NO DIFFERENCE between the oneness of himself and his Father, and the oneness of his followers WITH God and himself.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

2 Cor 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.


Fljotsdale, we have digressed from the original issue which was whether the Trinity was biblical into discussing whether the Trinity is an actuality. I have no objection to that, but it is a topic which has raged for centuries. A Christian by definition is one who acknowledges Y'shua (Jesus) as God - as "The Word" mentioned in John that became flesh - who died in the place of humanity, resurected and ascended to be with YHWH, the "father". A Christian also believes that the Spirit of YHWH lives within them, strengthening shaping and assisting them to be closer to YHWH and to live a perceptionally more fruitful existance. The source of these beliefs is drawn from the bible, as the above quotes certify. Granted, one can interpret the same words to mean differing things, but over the years the majority of people that give credance to the collection of books known as the New Testament, have concurred that Y'shua, YHWH and the Spirit are one and the same, have always existed and always will.

Jehovahs Witnesses are not by definition Christian. As I stated before, even followers of Islam believes Christ was a super being, the greatest of prophets but still a creation rather than the creator. Islamics believe they are the true followers of Christ, and refute the validity of the Christian bible.

Regarding the JW bible, there is an issue with it. I asked around, and the "New World Translation" is indeed very different to the translations Christians use. Aside from the failed predictions of Jesus return, the belief in a finite number of souls saved (originally 144 000 until Church membership exceeded that number ) their beliefs about the Trinity are no different from the rest of humanity that acknowledges Y'shua as a historical mortal figure.


No argument with that – just one comment: Yes – the son OF God. Not God THE SON. Jesus never, ever, ever, claimed to be god in any shape or form. Only ‘the son of god’ if that can be an ‘only’, lol!

"The" usually refers to only. "The CD player" (singular reference)as opposed to "a CD player" or "one of the CD players" (one out of implied plural). "The Air we breathe" is not "an air", yet is the only air we indeed inhale. "The centre" implies a singluar focussed point as opposed to "one of the centres" or "a central point" which imply more than one focussed point. "The villiage idiot" is the (singular/only) winner of the (singluar/only) moron prize. Need I continue?

I disagree with the extension of Jesus being a puppet, because a puppet is still in the same "painting" as the puppeteer. My attempted analogy is still flawed however because, like you are saying in my example, the Creator is existing before the creation and the subsequent image of the Creator within the creation, whereas the verses I quoted point to Y'shua always existing as a distinct yet conjoined entity.

Bear in mind that an eternal creator need not be restricted by time, or bound by either it's laws or the physical laws involving seperate existance. The concept of a being without a beginning is bizarre enough and quite difficult to grasp, as our own experience itself has a start. Trying to limit God to the known physical laws, is like the painting insisting that the painter must be two dimensional and immovable because it itself is. I cannot be one person and yet three at the same time. However I cannot even create outside my own experience let alone create light.


It was Adam who plunged mankind into sin and death, and Jesus was sent to take upon himself the consequence for Adam’s fault and so redeem mankind. This is the Jesus preached by his apostles.

I would argue that it was preordained that at some point humanity would "fall" and require "salvation" as it is through forgiveness that Gods love and grace are shown more fully. It is easy to love someone who has never hurt you or done you worng. It is much harder and involves more emotional investment to make yourself vulnerable, and to forgive and keep loving an individual after extreme hurt from them. If Adam caused all of this, then God is out of control and didn't know this would all happen, and "sending" Jesus is a reactionary move.

Interestingly, (without wishing to ruffle anyone's feathers, guys!) Peter himself never claimed to be a Pope (Papa, Father). Nor did he claim similar authority, nor did the apostles ascribe such status to him. Such a concept is in fact quite alien to the thought of the early followers of Jesus. Peter did NOT found any church, but Jesus Christ founded Christianity, not any of his followers.

I didn't say Peter was the first Pope, merely that he is regarded by Roman Catholics as such. I agree with your sentiments as I am not R.C. however I'd have to disagree about Christ founding the Christian Church. Although he said to Peter "I name you Cephas, and on this rock I will build my Church" there is the argument that Jesus was referring to himself as the rock, using Cephas, or "rock" (Peter) as a clever pun. I don't care which it is, but I would argue that the Church was formed after the ascension as a result of Jesus actions. The Church is the "body of Christ", the collective believership who follow Jesus and put their faith in him, and meet from time to time to gather strength, spiritual insight and fellowship (fun) with each other. In that regard, the Apostles founded the Church (Apostle means I believe "Church planter") with the guidance of the Holy Spirit...... so I suppose if the Spirit and Y'shua are one then I have come full circle and ended up agreeing with you in that in one sense Christ founded the church


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

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!



[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 06-22-2001).]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Absynthe: Given: That Jesus was a part of God as set forth in the AV version Did Jesus fully understand that He would be returned to be with God after he died. Specifically, that there was no chance of damnation/purgatory/harrowing as he was a "piece" of God? And if so, would that sort of negate the whole sacrifice concept, as Jesus would return to eternal bliss after a short, albeit unpleasant, journey? The key, to my thinking, is whether jesus had to face the same decisions/consequences as the rest of us. If so, it was a meaningful gesture on God's part. If not, it didn't mean diddly. Any thoughts?

Hi Absynthe. Good points mate. This is what I can figure.

Firstly, Jesus had foreknowledge of his circumstance, but was powerless to prevent it. In Gethsemane he prayed the whole night that God would "take the cup" from him. I think he would have been s--t scared myself. On the cross he called out "Father, why have you forsaken me?" Very interesting stuff IMO. Would Jesus have been able to tear himself down or did God render Jesus powerless at the time? The Bible speaks of the "lamb" (Jesus as a sacrificial metaphor) "willingly led to the slaughter" so perhaps he restrained himself.

The bible speaks of Jesus descending into hell. Is not purgatory a temporary hell? I personally don't believe in purgatory (unbiblical Catholic addition) and hold to the interpretation that at the end of time those that "reject" Gods offer of eternal life simply cease to exist, rather than spending an eternity in torment. However, the book of Revelation speaks of a place where Satan and Death are cast into which is eternal. It seems to be a different place from where the "rejectees" and up. Where then did Jesus go? It says he fought and conquered Death. Eh??? Is this metaphorical or is Death a being?

As a Christian there is much I am still pondering and dwelling on. At only 29 I still have much time to chew on these issues, but I do feel that my understanding of Jesus/the Holy Spirits love, and personality grows constantly.

However back to your question, I think that he faced many of the issues which are central to our existance. I think in some areas he clearly had it better than us, and in others worse. The same could be said of any individual in this life - our walks are all different are they not?

So he knew he was going to die. So does someone on death row or with an incurable disease. Indeed, we all know we will die just not the time or place. At what point did Jesus know that time and place? Was he born with the exact knowledge or was it revealed over time?

I think whether he had total foreknowledge or not makes little difference to the crap he endured. If anything the knowledge that everything would "be all right in the end" was tempered by sleepless nights knowing that he would get flayed, beaten and spat on, and have to endure nail-like thorns digging into his skull for hours. Add to that huge nails driven into his wrists and feet for hours, public humiliation, having his distraught mother see him die, receiving contempt and ridicule from the perpetrators of his suffering and being totally abandoned by his father, friends and followers.

Pain is pain is it not. Say you break your leg and it resets incorrectly. Say also that it has to be reset without anaesthetic. You'd know everything is going to be o.k. and that the pain will end up being better for you, but by hell I for one would be sick with anticipation waiting for the blows of "correction".

The other difference is that humans "sin" and so "earn" the cosequences of our decisions. Jesus, if you accept the bible, did not sin, yet endured our consequences. So in that regard, he didn't face all the decisions, but took on all the consequences. Perhaps the "Death" he conquered was the final "Death" of the soul and so enabled eternal life for humanity? Whatever the truth it's interesting nonetheless.

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

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!



[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 06-22-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Too darn tired to add to this tonight Yorick! I'll have a proper look at it tomorrow!
See ya!

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

[Fljotsdale]

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Yorick, you will not find the above text in ANY modern translation of the bible, for the plain and simple reason that it is spurious. Let me quote from comments on this text in The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament (Chicago; 1943): “This has not been found in Greek in any manuscript in or out of the New Testament earlier than the 13th century. … it occurs in no ancient Greek manuscript or Greek Christian writer or in any of the oriental versions. … Erasmus did not include it in his first edition… nor in his second. When criticised for the omission… He felt obliged to include (it) in his 3rd edition… It is universally discredited by Greek scholars and editors of the Greek text of the New Testament”.
Today, not even modern Catholic bibles include the text in the body of 1 John 5, but relegate it to a footnote which points out that it is not in the oldest texts. It was added by some pious Catholic to lend support to the highly dubious Trinity doctrine, a doctrine which was culled from very ancient pagan beliefs and which was vigorously denied by many faithful christians of the time.
The other scriptures you cite do not actually support a trinity either. You can say, for example, “Jim, Betty and Jojo send their love.” That does not make Jim, Betty and Jojo a trinity.

A Christian by definition is one who acknowledges Y'shua (Jesus) as God - as "The Word" mentioned in John that became flesh - who died in the place of humanity, resurected and ascended to be with YHWH, the "father". A Christian also believes that the Spirit of YHWH lives within them, strengthening shaping and assisting them to be closer to YHWH and to live a perceptionally more fruitful existance.

JW’s believe that Jesus (Yehoshua, Yeshua) is A god, The Word, who died in the place of humanity, was resurrected and ascended to be with YHWH (Jehovah, Yahweh), his Father. They believe that the holy spirit is with them, strengthening, shaping, assisting to be closer to YHWH, and to live more productive and useful lives.

The source of these beliefs is drawn from the bible, as the above quotes certify.

The source of those JW beliefs is the bible as the scriptures I cited previously verify.

Granted, one can interpret the same words to mean differing things, but over the years the majority of people that give credance to the collection of books known as the New Testament, have concurred that Y'shua, YHWH and the Spirit are one and the same, have always existed and always will.

Early Christians did NOT have that belief. Such a belief would have been anathema to the original body of Christ’s followers, who were Jews, believing in ONE undivided and indivisible God. Why, Jesus only saying that he was THE SON of god had the Jews up in arms! It was the prime reason they wanted him killed – they believed that by claiming to be a Son he was claiming equality with God, which was arrant blasphemy! No, his followers would not have followed him had he claimed to be God-made-man! But he did not. The scripture at Philippians 2:5-7 makes that plain. “… Jesus Christ, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped…” (RS version). Even in heaven, before he was sent out by God to become a man, he was not, nor did he seek to be, equal to his Father.

Jehovahs Witnesses are not by definition Christian.

Not by Christendom’s definition, no. Nor do they wish to be. They perceive believers in the Trinity doctrine to be sadly misguided, ‘by false apostles, deceitful workers’ (2 Cor 11:13) and not worshipping God with ‘spirit and truth’.

Regarding the JW bible, there is an issue with it. I asked around, and the "New World Translation" is indeed very different to the translations Christians use.

You have NO IDEA how cross that comment made me! And I have no axe to grind for the JW’s either, lol!
I would like to know in what way it is supposed to differ!!?? I have done a great deal of careful comparison myself and I have found it different in only two ways, as mentioned before – it is in modern Languages and it uses the name of God in every location where the ancient scribes removed it. A number of modern bible translations use the Tetragrammaton in the OT, though fewer in the NT (where it was not much used anyway, as Jews did not use the name in speech much, either, at the time of Christ, for fear of blaspheming). JW’s have always been happy to prove their points using any bible people prefer. I have myself used the old Duay, the AV, the RV, the King James, the Good News, - anything. Makes no difference at all. I prefer modern English, because that is the language we speak.

Aside from the failed predictions of Jesus return, the belief in a finite number of souls saved (originally 144 000 until Church membership exceeded that number )

I go along with that, lol! Though Revelation DOES state that 144,000 are the full number of those the bible says will go to heaven. The rest are to live on a restored Paradise earth, as was originally meant for Adam & Eve and their descendants. But that is a different issue! But as for JW’s belief that the 144,000 are to be only JW’s I think that is somewhat... erm… arrogant, to say the least!

their beliefs about the Trinity are no different from the rest of humanity that acknowledges Y'shua as a historical mortal figure.

That is not quite right. They perceive Jesus to be Divine, a god, second only to his father, not merely another man.

"The" usually refers to only. "The CD player" (singular reference)as opposed to "a CD player" or "one of the CD players" (one out of implied plural). "The Air we breathe" is not "an air", yet is the only air we indeed inhale. "The centre" implies a singluar focussed point as opposed to "one of the centres" or "a central point" which imply more than one focussed point. "The villiage idiot" is the (singular/only) winner of the (singluar/only) moron prize. Need I continue?

Sorry, Yorick? I guess I am being a bit stupid, but I don’t understand what you are saying here.

I disagree with the extension of Jesus being a puppet, because a puppet is still in the same "painting" as the puppeteer. My attempted analogy is still flawed however because, like you are saying in my example, the Creator is existing before the creation and the subsequent image of the Creator within the creation, whereas the verses I quoted point to Y'shua always existing as a distinct yet conjoined entity.

No, I don’t believe Jesus to have been a puppet. I was simply following your argument to what seemed to be its logical conclusion.

Bear in mind that an eternal creator need not be restricted by time, or bound by either it's laws or the physical laws involving seperate existance. The concept of a being without a beginning is bizarre enough and quite difficult to grasp, as our own experience itself has a start. Trying to limit God to the known physical laws, is like the painting insisting that the painter must be two dimensional and immovable because it itself is. I cannot be one person and yet three at the same time. However I cannot even create outside my own experience let alone create light.

Yes, the creator of time must, logically, be outside of time, as a painter is outside his/her picture. Therefore the concept of a being with ‘no beginning’ is meaningless. God just IS. As a painter can look at a painting, sometimes close to, sometimes from a distance, sometimes adding to it or sometimes deleting things that displease. So too with God and the creation.
As for limiting God to physical laws, I don't think I am. In the OT, it says "Jehovah your God is one Jehovah". And in any case, the creator of universal laws would hardly break them. He was very hot on keeping laws! Granted we do not understand the universe fully - but in order for it to be sustained, it has to be logical. The Trinity doctrine is not logical. Take your 2-dimensional image. A 2-dimensional entity would not be able to perceive the 3rd dimension, but s/he/it would be able, mathematically, to deduce the presence of a 3rd dimension, just as human beings have been able to mathematically deduce black holes. The only person I know who played with the idea of an extra dimension is Douglas Adams with the extra-dimensional mice, lol! And, yeah - its possible, I suppose. But not logical and CERTAINLY not biblical, which is, as you pointed out, the basis of this debate!

I would argue that it was preordained that at some point humanity would "fall" and require "salvation" as it is through forgiveness that Gods love and grace are shown more fully.

You are treading dangerous ground here, I think. To say that God preordained the ‘fall’ is to say that all human suffering is entirely to be laid at God’s door – which is FAR, FAR from the bible’ teachings, lol!

It is easy to love someone who has never hurt you or done you worng. It is much harder and involves more emotional investment to make yourself vulnerable, and to forgive and keep loving an individual after extreme hurt from them. If Adam caused all of this, then God is out of control and didn't know this would all happen, and "sending" Jesus is a reactionary move.

No, it does not mean that God was out of control of events. Do you have children, Yorick? Or young nephews, nieces? If so, you will realise that you often have to let a child do things for him/herself. By doing so, the child can put itself into a dangerous situation. But the parent is standing by, and has seen the dangers, and planned for them, however briefly, so that the parent is there to grab the child if needed, or put a plaster on a cut finger or salve on a stung leg. The child has a learning experience but the parent is not '‘out of control'’. Likewise, the bible account shows that God was aware of dangers and had a stand-by plan if things went wrong. It was not planned – pre-ordained – for things to go wrong. But they did. Jesus was the ‘stand-by plan’ –the salve or sticking plaster!

I didn't say Peter was the first Pope, merely that he is regarded by Roman Catholics as such. I agree with your sentiments as I am not R.C. however I'd have to disagree about Christ founding the Christian Church. Although he said to Peter "I name you Cephas, and on this rock I will build my Church" there is the argument that Jesus was referring to himself as the rock, using Cephas, or "rock" (Peter) as a clever pun.

Peter said “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. Grammatically, this statement is the ‘rock’ upon which the church is built. Peter’s given name appears to have been Simon. Jesus named him Peter, which means ‘stone’ (pebble), if I remember correctly (haven’t checked). Cephas is the Hebrew form of Peter.

I don't care which it is, but I would argue that the Church was formed after the ascension as a result of Jesus actions. The Church is the "body of Christ", the collective believership who follow Jesus and put their faith in him, and meet from time to time to gather strength, spiritual insight and fellowship (fun) with each other. In that regard, the Apostles founded the Church (Apostle means I believe "Church planter") with the guidance of the Holy Spirit...... so I suppose if the Spirit and Y'shua are one then I have come full circle and ended up agreeing with you in that in one sense Christ founded the church

ROFL!! One little point about the church of Christ – it was to be ‘united in one mind and one thought’ to be acceptable to Christ. (1 Cor 1:10) Which has not been the position of the churches since around the second century – as predicted by Jesus and his apostles, who said that ‘ravening wolves’ with ‘false doctrines’ would enter into the church.

The word Apostle means ‘sent forth’. They were the 12 of Jesus’ disciples (followers) whom he ‘sent forth’ ahead of him to preach and teach.


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




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 06-23-2001).]

[Yorick]

What a long post!

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......

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. 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.


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.

If I have one son he is the son, not that son or a son. If I have a brother he is the brother, not a brother or that brother.

Re the puppet, the analogies I was using were of things from places with very different laws - reality and a computer game, reality and a paiting. A puppet and puppeteer are both within reality and subject to the same laws. One is more gifted and able than the other that is all.

Re. the 144 000 mentioned in Revelation, are they not all Jewish male virgins?

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

-------

I certainly do not mean to make you "cross" as I did with the New World Translation comment. Know that I respect your beliefs and opinions, and have enjoyed these debates.

All the best Fljotsdale.

Hugh (Yorick)

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

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

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

[Zateel]

WOW!

I just woke up and was off for a read about pillow fights or fluffies or something, and then *this* popped up. What an amazing amount of thought and conviction each side presents! I am obviously no Biblical scholar, but for what it's worth, I'll toss in my two cents (pretending this is some kind of advanced poll, or something...)

I missed the first part of the exchange, but it would appear that the discussion revolves around Jesus and his relationship with God. The argument goes in and out of parameters between "The Bible" (a concrete parameter, or so is believed) and speculation. Origin, nature, and relevance of Jesus are discussed.


We mortals use the tools at hand to do the tasks before us. "The Bible" has been quoted here in many translations as well as the "original" Greek and Hebrew. There are several Greek versions and many examples of inclusions, exclusions, scribal errors, incorporated marginal notes, and other problematic situations that all affect the accuarcy of text. Many manuscripts (sometimes conflicting, or at least a little different) have been found, especially since the late 1940's that have major (like the entire last chapter of Mark) or minor differences which disagree with the Textus Receptus (from which the Authorized King James and nearly all others have been translated). I may be mistaken, but I believe *NO* text from the OT remains from before the Council of Yavin, and twenty-two Hebrew books more or less got a free ride into the Christian canon. The Documentary Hypothesis (to my understanding) states that the OT books are collages from earlier sources probably put together by Ezra, and written in different accounts, perhaps one from the kingdom of Judah and another by Israel after the exile by Solomon where Zadok replaced Abiathar as high priest. The NT is just as contraversial, and the inclusion of certain books, especially Revelations was very debated. Bibles around the world are different as well. The Ethoipic Bible includes the Book of Enoch, and maybe others and I think the Greek Bible lacks Jude and maybe 2nd Peter and a couple more.
What I'm saying is that if YHWH or Jesus wanted us to nit pick in a very phariseacal fashion the words of this text held sacrosanct by so many, he would have written it himself in all the languages ever to be read. Regardless of this, the theme shines through- we sinned, he didn't, he didn't have to die, he did, we don't have to die. This is the Gospel.
As for keeping the laws, Jesus said in Matthew 22:37, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments". He WOULD break laws (God's law) on occasion or give an example (like the Samaritan) to show that LOVE, and not the LAW was the reason. In two gospels he says the the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. He admonishes the legalists regarding clean and unclean while he dines with the Gentiles. This is all "old covenant" before his death. He's trying to show us that nit-picking and winning an argument over semantics is not as important as love.
On the nature of God/Jesus- It's never really spelled out in your "key to the great beyond, all the widom of GOD in 2000 pages" called the Bible. He *has* taken on physical avatars on the past- and I mean YHWH- check out Genesis 18 and 19. Many people think of different "species" rather than a magnitude when dealing with "God", Jesus, and angels. Several places in Job and also in Genesis 6 (and don't give me that Calvanistic jive arguing Matthew about angels in heaven- we're talking about fallen angels) call angels "sons of God". There are a few other examples I'm less familiar with, like the wrestling match with Jacob. I bet most out there would feel uncomfortable calling God "the most powerful angel". The Jehovah's Witnesses tell me that Michael the Archangel is the same as Jesus, which probably is part of the reason they're not all into him. On the same road, they told me that man's purpose on Earth is to populate it based on Genesis 2, that 1914 would be the end of God's work (then 1918, 1925, 1975, then 1989, and so on) along with the great multitude/144,000 argument "well, he was talking to the *church* in 1 Corinthians 15, not everybody, silly" and other things like the blood transfusions (where is the love shown by letting someone die by hypoxemia?) that make me wary.
Anyway, end of rant. Remember, life's too short for bitching.

[Fljotsdale]

Yorick, I'll get back to you later on your last post. I have been composing a reply to Zateel! In the meantime, here is the final bit of the Trinity topic - anything else will just be comments I think. I haven't written in the scriptures - save some space! :

Holy Spirit
The bible sometimes offers us visions of heaven, of the throne of God. Two of these are:
Acts 7:55,56 RS
Daniel 7: 9,13 RS

You will notice that the holy spirit/holy ghost is not to be seen with God and The Son of Man/Jesus in either of these scripts, which is a little odd if the HS is the 3rd person of a Trinity and the occasions were of such great importance. Imagine a birth with father & baby present, but mother missing. Or a marriage with priest and bridegroom present, but no bride. These are not perfect illustrations but the best I can think of at the moment.

Look again at John 1:1,2.
And at John 2:28,29.

Again, only Father & Son are mentioned.

Yes, the bible often mentions ‘father, son and Holy Spirit’ together. But nowhere, at any time, in either OT or NT, is there even the faintest indication that they are equal, co-eternal, or 3 parts of One God.

John 15:26 AV
Rom 8:26 AV
This does not alter the fact that in certain texts the words ‘Holy Spirit’ have a masculine pronoun. These are the texts that refer to Holy Spirit as ‘Comforter’ and ‘Helper’. The masculine pronoun in these texts, however, does not indicate that the HS is a person, or male. Other references to HS are the neuter IT.
So why is HS referred to by a masculine pronoun in the ‘Comforter’ and ‘Helper’ texts? Simply because the Common Greek words ‘comforter and helper’ are in the masculine gender, so the pronoun to the HS has to be masculine to agree grammatically. Interestingly, these words are not written with a capital letter at the start of the word in the Greek text I have, though Jesus and Father both have the capital letter. I am not sure if that is significant, I just mention it. The Greeks didn’t go in for punctuation.

Throughout the bible, OT & NT, the spirit is shown to be a ‘force’ or ‘power’ rather than a person. Check out the scriptures at Acts 1:8; 2:2-4,16,17; Eph 5:18; Acts 1:5; 1Cor 12:4-13; as a few examples.

I noticed when checking out the text of the Trinity doctrine that at one point it makes the statement:
“The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding…”
Which seems to indicate that even the creators of the doctrine recognised that it was something that ‘came from’ God and Jesus – which is exactly what the bible indicates.
An examination of the bible use of the term ‘holy spirit’ (Greek pneuma, Hebrew ruach) show it to be an impersonal ‘activating force’ – just as electricity is an impersonal activating force that powers radio, tv, washing machines, etc.
If you like, God can be seen as the Generator, Jesus as the Conduit and all the rest of creation as the Receivers of holy spirit. The power or Spirit is God’s. It operated through Christ in his pre-human form to create the universe and all life. It was the power that created the earth and life on the earth. It is the power that operates in human beings to direct them to good. It is FROM God, VIA Jesus. The BIBLE does not show it to be the third person of a trinity.

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.

Sorry its another marathon read!

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

[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.



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

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Fljotsdale]

ZATEEL!!

Hi, Zateel! I don’t remember meeting you before! Anyway, welcome to the thread. You started off well – but your comments DID rather develop into a rant, as you said! However, no worries on my part.

Anyway, briefly, the theme of the debate between Yorick and myself was regarding the Trinity – whether it was a biblical teaching or not. As you said, we have rather gone beyond that remit at times, lol! You can find the beginning of the debate, if you want to read it, in the 'Well, we usually have a very vocal board..' thread, which is on page 4 or 5 of this forum.

Regarding ancient MSS – you are broadly correct, as I am sure you know! You do not come across as being as ignorant as you would have me believe. The oldest OT texts are found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, the best preserved being a portion of Isaiah, which agreed word for word (bar a very few letter transpositions and spellings) with the previously oldest texts – showing how careful the ancient copyists were. (It is amazing all the checks they had to make and all the preparations!) We also have texts that quote from older MSS of the bible that are no longer available, so these quotes can also be compared with texts we DO have. Taken all in all, there is a truly remarkable degree of agreement. Did you know that the bible is the best authenticated of ALL ancient written records? Books that no one dreams of querying, like Homer, and Gilgamesh, for example, are nowhere near it as regards proven authenticity.

Nit-picking. I don’t think it is. The bible itself says that christians should ‘examine the scriptures daily’ to see whether these things are so, and to ‘prove to yourselves the good and acceptable word of god’. The christian is therefore under obligation to check the FACTS of Gods word AS WELL AS the spirit. They are not to accept any teaching without first proving it scripturally, for fear of being ‘carried off by the teachings of men’ and being misled into ‘putting faith in every empty teaching of men’.

Yes, Matthew 22:37-39 put everything into a nutshell. Did you notice verse 40? Jesus was speaking about the OT Law Code, that we commonly call The Ten Commandments.
Anyway, if every christian lived/had lived according to that law, then all the wars and distress caused by so-called christian nations would never have occurred. Jesus asked his followers if he ‘would really find the faith on earth’ upon his return. Judging by the record of christian nations, the answer has to be a resounding ‘NO!’
Conflict between christians is in itself a total negation of the ‘golden rule’ and is in itself quite sufficient evidence they neither believe nor practice the christianity Jesus taught.
I am not saying that individual christians do not follow the teachings of christ to the best of their ability, because many genuinely do.

Genesis ch 18, 19. If you check this a little more you will notice that it is angels speaking god’s words, not god himself. Also to be born in mind is that the bible says ‘no man has seen god at any time’ – not even Moses who was privileged with a view of god’s ‘hinder parts’, since anyone ‘seeing the face of god would die’. If you want the scriptures I'll look 'em up for you.

The rant!
I am not an apologist for JW’s. I do NOT agree with everything they teach!
But neither JW’s nor myself have any argument with calling angels ‘sons of god’. The bible calls both angels and human beings ‘sons of god’. Jesus, however, is ‘the firstborn of all creation’ and it says all other things were created through him, including angels and mankind. I have no quarrel with anyone about Jesus high and singular status! As for Michael the Archangel being Jesus in his pre-human form, the scriptures DO seem to indicate that that is the case. JW’s are not alone in that belief, either, but I do NOT want to go looking up references you can find yourself in your local library, lol!

Man populating the earth rather than going to heaven is based on a huge amount of scripture, but, to keep it basic – Adam was created to live forever on earth in perfection. (You need to check out the first few chapters of Genesis). After proving loyalty to god he and Eve were to be given access to the Tree of Life so that they could live forever. They blew it. So they were chucked out of the garden of Eden to prevent their getting their hot little hands on it. Plan ‘B’ then kicked in. Jesus was to die as a perfect man, thus balancing out the Adamic perfect life, and permitting mankind to get back what Adam lost – perfect human life on earth. I’m not asking you to believe this, just telling you that is what the bible says. Mankind is the ‘Great Multitude’ bound for life on earth. Revelation also says that 144,000 out of mankind are to reign as kings with Jesus in heaven. Again, you can believe what you like – I am a non-believer – but it IS what the bible says.

Blood. I understand your feelings on this. The JW stance on blood is purely biblical, and if you want to know about their reasons ask them for the brochure on blood. It is VERY interesting and enlightening about blood transfusions.
My own stance on this hardly matters, since I am an adult and so are my children and my grandchildren are not my responsibility.
However, I will NEVER have a blood transfusion. I used to be a nurse. I have seen blood both save and ruin lives, and even end them. The risks associated with blood transfusion are well-documented. But JW’s have done you a favour by refusing blood: they have made surgeons rethink their surgical methods, and as a result YOU can now have a much safer surgical procedure than you could formerly. They found out that operations performed without blood carried much lower morbidity rates, much lower risk of infection, and much faster recovery rates. You may object to their stand on blood – but it has benefited you, and it shows outstanding courage on their part. Do not think for one moment that JW’s love their children less than other people! They do not ‘let’ their children die for lack of blood! On the contrary, they move heaven and earth to get treatment for them that does not violate what they perceive as god’s commandment. And it IS biblical, too!
Would you risk everything for the sake of obeying god? Would you put your life on the line, or your child’s for ANYTHING?
The early Christians were condemned by the general public for allowing their children to die with them in the arena when they could have saved them by recanting. But they would not give in and deny god. WE call THEM Martyrs. Would you have been so strong and courageous?
End of MY rant. Lol!


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