Yorick?

[onthepequod]

What happened to the rest of the posts on this thread?

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

[Fljotsdale]

They vanished just before the board went down. I have some of the stuff I posted myself, because I compose it in windows and just copy & paste, but stuff other people did has gone for good I think, unless they did the same.
I feel a bit disheartened about it, because I was really enjoying this debate.

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

[Fljotsdale]

OK. Here is a reply to Yorick I prepared earlier but have not previously posted:

Quote originally posted by Yorick:
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:

Yorick, you know I am not trying to undermine your faith, just want to point out some facts! So I am going to use the scriptures you are using below to highlight some points.

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

WITH is not the same as IS. In the Greek it says the Word was WITH ‘o theon (or ton theon) and the Word was theos: 'THE God' and 'god'. If you are WITH someone you are automatically SEPARATE from the one you are WITH.
There is also a clear distinction between 'THE god' and 'god'.

2 He was with God in the beginning.

Again, WITH, not IS. YOU, Yorick, can be WITH your father, but that does not make you your father. You can even be of 'one mind' and 'one spirit' with your father, but that does not make you and your father 2 parts of one person. You remain 2 separate individuals.

3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Yes, THROUGH. The whole garden can be watered THROUGH one hose, but the hose is only the conduit for the water, which originates elsewhere. Likewise, Christ was the conduit though which God created the universe - the power came from god, THROUGH christ: that no more makes christ the creator than the hose was the originator of the water.

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.

Yes? But what point are they making about God and Jesus being parts of a trinity? or about them both being THE God? (4)Clearly, the Son of God would have life in him.(10) Note my comment on THROUGH above)(11)I cannot see what point you are making here. (12)(13) So, it was not Jesus choice but his Father's. How is this proving the Trinity?

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

Who CAME FROM. Not WHO IS!! And on the point of being 'full of grace and truth', Jesus said plainly 'The Father is greater than I am'. To me, that means exactly what it says - that God is greater than Christ. Remember the scripture that says 'Do not go beyond the things that are written'
(1 Corinthians 4:6)

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.

I honestly cannot see how you can possibly reach the conclusion from those scriptures that the Trinity is biblical, when it is patently obvious that it is not and that it is quite difficult to construe those scriptures as meaning that. In my opinion, such a construction goes well beyond 'the things written' which is what I am concerned with, following, as it does, the Greek philosophies introduced introduced into the early post-Apostolic 'church'.

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

Note what I pointed out before
2
The same was in the beginning with God.

Yeah.WITH.
3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Correct. Note my Christopher Wren and St Paul’s example in earlier post.
4
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Yeah.
5
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not

Yeah.(dunno what happened to 6, 7, 8 and 9)

10
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

See the first (3) above
11
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Yeah.
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:

Yeah.
13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Yeah.
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

Yeah. Only begotten. Begotten, Yorick. Begotten. The only begotten of the father. The firstBORN of all creation. Something born contains the essence (genetic makeup) of the father, but is NOT the father. What is begotten is a separate, individual, person.

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"

So far as I can see, Yorick, the scriptures you use all show Jesus as a CONDUIT of the creative force of God rather than being the actual CREATOR himself. Christ was the ONLY DIRECT CREATION of the Father. All other creation was done THROUGH the Son rather than BY the Son according to the scriptures you quote.

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 :

The ‘great and glorious day of ‘the Lord’ should read ‘of YHWH’ in Joal, which makes it easier to comprehend, doesn't it?
Jesus was referred to as Lord throughout his ministry, as was his right as the son of God. Merely being called Lord does not make him God. In one place there is a scripture which reads 'The Lord saith to my Lord..' which can be difficult to understand until you realise that originally it read 'YHWH saith to my Lord..', showing which two individuals were being spoken of. Jesus himself said that he would make the name of his father known. Not his own name. The name of his Father.


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.

Agreed. And God’s spirit is God’s. Note that GOD MADE JESUS both Lord and Christ. Jesus did not MAKE HIMSELF Lord and Christ, his Father did. The Greater makes the Lesser. Which is not to denigrate Christ, but to acknowledge his rightful position as SECOND to the Father - a position of great power and authority.

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.

No, Yorick. I fail to see how you can be so convinced that the Trinity is a biblical concept. Every scripture you have used makes it so clear that it is NOT!

We agree on much, Yorick, but yet come to totally opposite conclusions based on the same evidence!
I think we must agree to disagree!

Warm good wishes, my friend.


It is a great pity that some of the posts in this thread have gone missing.


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

[Fljotsdale]

jus' bumping!

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

[Zateel]

Fljostsdale,

Hi! Okay, here goes my banter for today.
(from you)
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'm having trouble with the "God's word" or "Word" thing. Are we defining God's word as the Bible according to our current collection/translations/cannon as decided upon by mortal men, or are we talking about Jesus? The word "word" gets thrown around quite a bit. Who said, "I will send you a tool, and with it are the secrets of my wisdom and everything that is knowledge. This will be called the Bible."? If the Bible is/was necessary, what about the poor saps before the councils? Or during the religeous repression of the middle ages? Or anywhere before it was published and distributed in a language readable by the commoner? Were they denied crucial knowledge for lack of access to a printed copy or for illiteracy? Besides, who says we've identified all the problems within the texts? Certainly not any Biblical scholar I've heard or seen. What is perfect and incorruptable? Hmmm, let me think. That is where I place my faith.
/

(from you)WITH is not the same as IS. In the Greek it says the Word was WITH ‘o theon (or ton theon) and the Word was theos: 'THE God' and 'god'. If you are WITH someone you are automatically SEPARATE from the one you are WITH.
There is also a clear distinction between 'THE god' and 'god'.
/


Again, pardon my lack of Greek, and aside from your earlier point of the lower-case god thing, "with" is not is, but "was" is the same as is. Is, am, are, was, were. If the word "was" God/god, well... there you go. This is the part where I choose not to define my whole concept of the existence of God on a Greek letter. It's just like the "In the beginning" part of it. Was there anything before the beginning? If the logical answer "NO" springs to mind, and the word was indeed in the beginning, then how can the Father be "older" (as we understand it as mortals) than the Son? The beginning of what? God? The Earth? What? John or the pseudipegraphist claiming to be John was not specific.


/
As far as the blood thing goes, I can only reiterate my earlier point. It was shown to be good, and 'what Jesus would do' to heal, regardless of the laws. The laws were made for men, men weren't made for the law (remember they were made so they could care for the garden and populate the earth *LOL*) The Pharisees often took a very legalistic approach to the law, and were not well commended by Jesus. Besides, in every single instance, the blood referred to was the blood of a sacrifice. If Christians to ABSTAIN from blood, then they should hang themselves upside down from a tree and slit their throats, for they are surely partaking of blood right now! To hinge the life of another upon a word and blindly accept literalism in brief as truth- that is not love. And what is blood? It it anything within your intravascular space? When the saline solution from an intravenous drip mixes with your blood, is it not blood? Yet it is allowed. Are only erythrocytes and leukocytes blood? What about clotting factors, immunoglobulins and albumin? These are all found in blood and allowable according to the June 22, 1982 Awake! magazine published by Watchtower.


/
I've enjoyed our conversations and I thank your for your replies.

[Fljotsdale]

Hi, Zateel! This is going to be a bit long due to all the re-quotes, I'm afraid! Current comments are in plum. Your comments are in normal. My old comments that you are quoting are in yellow

Hi! Okay, here goes my banter for today.
(from you)
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'm having trouble with the "God's word" or "Word" thing. Are we defining God's word as the Bible according to our current collection/translations/cannon as decided upon by mortal men, or are we talking about Jesus? The word "word" gets thrown around quite a bit. Who said, "I will send you a tool, and with it are the secrets of my wisdom and everything that is knowledge. This will be called the Bible."? If the Bible is/was necessary, what about the poor saps before the councils? Or during the religeous repression of the middle ages? Or anywhere before it was published and distributed in a language readable by the commoner? Were they denied crucial knowledge for lack of access to a printed copy or for illiteracy? Besides, who says we've identified all the problems within the texts? Certainly not any Biblical scholar I've heard or seen. What is perfect and incorruptable? Hmmm, let me think. That is where I place my faith.
__________________________________________________ _________________
Well, as I said in the bit you quote above, in THAT instance we are talking about the bible. The Bible being ‘the word of God. Jesus is The Word. I don’t know where your quote comes from. If it is from the bible the wording is something that I am unfamiliar with.
As for your comments starting ‘the poor saps before the council’ – I have to agree with you! What, also, about the rest of humanity during the OT who were not familiar with the teachings of God? They were pretty well condemned outright!
Regarding the bible, it is to be considered correct because GOD is looking after it! Not my own personal opinion, I hasten to add!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(from you)WITH is not the same as IS. In the Greek it says the Word was WITH ‘o theon (or ton theon) and the Word was theos: 'THE God' and 'god'. If you are WITH someone you are automatically SEPARATE from the one you are WITH.
There is also a clear distinction between 'THE god' and 'god'.
/
Again, pardon my lack of Greek, and aside from your earlier point of the lower-case god thing, "with" is not is, but "was" is the same as is. Is, am, are, was, were. If the word "was" God/god, well... there you go. This is the part where I choose not to define my whole concept of the existence of God on a Greek letter. It's just like the "In the beginning" part of it. Was there anything before the beginning? If the logical answer "NO" springs to mind, and the word was indeed in the beginning, then how can the Father be "older" (as we understand it as mortals) than the Son? The beginning of what? God? The Earth? What? John or the pseudipegraphist claiming to be John was not specific.
__________________________________________________ _______________
Yes, GOD was before the beginning. Since Jesus was ‘the beginning of the creation by God’ then I think we are safe in assuming that ‘The beginning’ (Genesis 1:1) meant the ‘beginning of creation’. Conversely, God was ‘from everlasting to everlasting’ or ‘from time indefinite to time indefinite’ (Psalm 90:2), meaning WITHOUT beginning or end. The Word (Jesus) was in the beginning of creation, because God used him to create everything else. I think this has been discussed in previous posts in this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/
As far as the blood thing goes, I can only reiterate my earlier point. It was shown to be good, and 'what Jesus would do' to heal, regardless of the laws. The laws were made for men, men weren't made for the law (remember they were made so they could care for the garden and populate the earth *LOL*) The Pharisees often took a very legalistic approach to the law, and were not well commended by Jesus. Besides, in every single instance, the blood referred to was the blood of a sacrifice. If Christians to ABSTAIN from blood, then they should hang themselves upside down from a tree and slit their throats, for they are surely partaking of blood right now! To hinge the life of another upon a word and blindly accept literalism in brief as truth- that is not love. And what is blood? It it anything within your intravascular space? When the saline solution from an intravenous drip mixes with your blood, is it not blood? Yet it is allowed. Are only erythrocytes and leukocytes blood? What about clotting factors, immunoglobulins and albumin? These are all found in blood and allowable according to the June 22, 1982 Awake! magazine published by Watchtower.
__________________________________________________ ________________
LOL! Don’t make the mistake of thinking I agree with everything the JW’s say, ‘cos I sure don’t! I don’t agree with everything in the bible either! In fact I strongly object to some of it.
However, I do NOT believe that Jesus – who is a person I believe existed and in whose ethos I believe – that Jesus would have used blood as a healing agent. There are two reasons for this, as enumerated below. Neither would the Jews have accepted it. The prohibition among Jews was so strong that even the suggestion would have sickened them. Remember their reaction when Jesus told them ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him at the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me and I in union with him.’ (John 6:53-56)
Now read verse 66: ‘Because of this, many of Jesus followers turned back and would not go with him any more.’
Ok. I quoted that to make two points: 1) the consumption of blood was abhorrent to the Jews – and human flesh and blood even more so. 2) The only blood of any value, the only blood that could give life, was the blood of Jesus.
JW’s consider that God’s prohibition on blood was (a) a matter of health – like the prohibition on pig meat for instance (b) far more importantly, that God wanted blood treated as sacred because of the (then) future sacrifice of Christ. Blood was only to be used for sacrificial purposes, prefiguring his sacrifice. All other use of blood was utterly banned. This ban WAS CARRIED FORWARD INTO THE NEW TESTAMENT as is shown in Acts 15:19, 20, 28, 29; Acts 21:25
I think maybe IF JW’s allow the use of very small amounts of blood serum, or blood factors, (though they certainly did not when I was a JW) they would see it as no different than the residual blood in meat after draining.
My own opinion of that is that permitting the use of any blood factor compromises their position on blood. Blood was to be poured out on the ground or used in sacrifice. No other use was permitted. I cannot see JW’s compromising on that.
But really – you cannot call a saline or Ringers solution, or whatever they use now, to be blood! Come on! You might as well say injecting porridge into your veins makes the porridge blood! Let’s be sensible here, lol!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/
I've enjoyed our conversations and I thank your for your replies.
------------------------
Me too!


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






[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-04-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Bump for Zateel & Yorick if still interested.

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

[Leonidas]

It's amazing what one can run into when one is not looking...

I would like to step in here, if I may, Fljotsdale, as it appears to me that one statement you made is self-contradicting, with respect to your interpretation of John 1. For the sake of brevity, I will cite all passages from the NIV.

Specifically, I refer to v3 - "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." If, as per JW doctrine, Jesus was a separate being from God, that makes this statement false, with reference to Isaiah 42:5 "This is what God the LORD says - he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it."; and 43:1 "But now this is what the LORD says - he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine."; again, later in v7 "...everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made."; and in 44:24-25 "This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, who foils the signs of false prophets and makes fools of diviners, who overthrows the learning of the wise and turns it into nonsense,..."

These passages quite clearly state the LORD (YHWH) is the sole creator. Solitary, unitary, one... It says nothing about an agent or a tool. For a further glimpse, let's look at Matthew 15:16-18, and glean a lesson: 16 "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17 "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean'."...

What lesson is to be learned from this? Quite simply, the relationship between the Word and the Father. Man was created in God's image, and if the word of a man is from his heart, it is quite clearly abiding there as a part of the man. The proper analogy to draw is that Jesus Immanuel (God indwelling) - the Word - was not separate from God the Father, but an intimate part of God before, during, and after creation. There is no other interpretation that preserves the truth of both John 1:3 and these passages in Isaiah.

Another passage that I would like to direct your attention to is in Isaiah 43:10-13 "...Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior. 12 I have revealed and saved and proclaimed - I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "that I am God. 13 Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?"

When you add this to the other passages, it quite clearly states that the LORD (YHWH) is creator, savior, and redeemer, all at once.

Look now at Hebrews 1. In it, it states that the Son is the appointed heir (Not heir by primogeniture), that through that same Son he made the universe, and that Son is the EXACT representation of the being of YHWH. Later, in the same chapter, it shows the Son getting worship from angels, being enthroned, and having laid the foundations of the earth.

Taken as a whole, I believe this shows that Jesus and the Father are one in being, not just in spirit, and that this shows a weakness in the JW argument about Jesus being created, that this is a misinterpretation that presupposes an earthly primogeniture, and not simply a representation of authority. Jesus Immanuel is to be treated as an authority equal to God. I believe that this also shows a weakness in the JW interpretation of John (note the little g god in Isaiah 43:10).

Further indication of the Son's true nature can be found in Phillipians 2:5 and following, where it states that Christ Jesus was in very nature God, did not hold fast to his equality with God, made himself nothing, and took for himself the very nature of a servant. God the Father did not make it so, he made it true for himself, submitting himself to the will of the Father. This only makes sense if he was an intimate, equal part of the Father, and not a separate being, for all of creation is subject to God the Father.

I also view with great suspicion the argument that the true name of the Lord was removed by scribes who otherwise faithfully reproduced, letter by letter, everything else. Furthermore, I can find no direct equivalent for the Tetragrammaton (sp?) in any discussion or lesson about Greek translation.

As to your argument that there is no Spirit evident in any of the visions or glimpses of heaven, I would say that you are mistaken in the extreme. It is the Spirit that enabled the viewers to see the vision in the first place. One of the attributes of God is that He is invisible... But Moses might have seen the face of God the Father if he were not placed in the cleft, and Jesus stated you have seen the Father, because you have seen me... What does this mean, but that God can work unseen when He wishes. In fact, I think that the scripture teaches that this is how the Trinity works -

God the Father - the visible aspect of Law, Justice, Love, revealer of sin
God the Son - the heart of God, Savior, Redeemer, friend, living sacrifice
God the Holy Spirit - teacher, confidante, securer of the believer's soul

Why? Because no sinful man can look into the face of pure justice and law and survive, and scripture already cited clearly identifies YHWH as all of the above, and more.

Respectfully submitted,



------------------
Be careful! I think it's a tr...

[John D Harris]

I'll wiegh in on this. I believe in the trinity and agree with Yorick's quotes for the sake of brevity I'll not repeat them.
An observation there is little if any disagreement on man being three in one (spiritual, physical, and mental) are we not created in the image of God? Gen.1:26 (side note "let US make man in Our Image" new american standard translation) Why is it hard to believe that the Creator, who (or whom) is greater than us is not capable of the same three in one?
Are His ways are ways? Are not His ways higher then our ways? Who amuongst (sp?) us can understand eternity? we have a grasp of the concept but do not understand.

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

"the memories of a man in his old age,
are deeds of a man in his prime"

[Yorick]

Well there you go. Thanks Leonidas, and you too John D.
Fjlotsdale, Leonidas puts forth a good argument. The olnly thing I would add is that your supposition of "through" meaning "conduit" is that you are reading a word or two that is not there. "Through him all things were made" (by God). Whereas in interpreting "through" to mean "by" or "because of" we are using a precedent in the English lanuage as well as interpreting in a fashion consistent with the existing tone and intent of the Bible. Nowhere does it say Jesus is A god. Nowhere does it say there are THREE gods. However the Bible is quite clear that there is one God that made all, yet without Jesus nothing was made.

There is the argument that Jesus never said "I am God and part of the Trinity" (although he did say "I and the father are one" etc), but for me this is a stronger case. That those who lived with him for three years, saw him die, saw him rise again and were filled with his spirit afterwards, went on to spread the good news (gospel) throughout the Roman world and die for their beliefs that God had lived amongst them and given them eternal life.

Remember that Paul, was one who put Christians to death before encountering HIS GOD (YHWH) who asked him why he was persecuting HIM. Not his son, his creation or his brother God or even his people. HIM.

God resides in the Christian. Gods spirit resides in a Christian just as my spirit resides in my music. The difference between Gods creation and mine is as obvious as the differences between Gods spirit and mine, Still, the analogy makes sense to me. Though it is a "captured" spirit, a moment of time caught in repetition rather than constant everflowing interraction, I can communicate in the emotional language of music with one who is willing to hear.



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

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!