Yorick?

[Fljotsdale]

bump

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

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Hey, Cloudbringer! Since you are currently an Egyptian god, maybe you have an authoritative opinion on this?!

LOL, yes, as Anubis, I say: uh, you gotta be dead before Anubis has any jurisdiction! LOL



Cloudy

------------------
Raindancer of the Laughing Hyenas Clan
Storm-Queen
StormCloud of the Black Knight: Heart Mind Soul Forever
"To sleep, perchance to dream..."

[Yorick]

Fjlotsdale, I've been working long hours and am waiting in Singapore centre for a party (in a cybercafe) so I don't have those exact verses for you, but I do have an argument.

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 (now 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.)

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 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.

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.

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 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 actual event, the result in the lives of those who claimed it's presence 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.

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

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 new speaker never venturing to the dialects region of origin.

The bible also mentions the fruits of the spirit as being patience, hope, joy, peace, kindness, gentleness and love.

The fact that the bible mentions the Spirit rather than Jesus or God indicates that the concept of another independent facet of the creator is indeed 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".

The concept figures God to be omnipresent. 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. 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 coherant 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.

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.

Bugger, I really have to go Fjlotsdale. I'm not finished, and haven't proofread this, but feel free to respond in the meantime.

Cloudy, thanks for your encouragement, but I like the way you repsond to things like this. You bring a totally different flavour than I to such a discussion, and I would never want you to feel you couldn't contribute. This is a message board, and not an email discussion after all

Oh finally, I typed this without my glasses, so I hope there aren't many errors. Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 06-21-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Hi, Yorick! The following is not in response to the above, but what I did in preparation for the debate. Will discuss your post later, ok?

Preliminary note: I was brought up as a Roman Catholic and learned the Trinity Dogma at a very tender age. I only quote bits from it below. I also thought, from the same tender age, that it made no sense. I didn’t know anything about the bible, and I had no arguments to defend my opinion, and I was very young. But I kept trying to understand it. The priests and nuns just said it was a mystery and I shouldn’t worry my head ‘cos we were not meant to understand these things, just to ‘Believe’.
Most people who knew me as a child thought of me as a ‘dreamer’, and as ‘impractical’. I was. But I was also a very logical child. (And if the two don’t go together, that’s tough, ‘cos it is how I was and am). And the Trinity Dogma made no sense to me. Even as quite a little girl (I was very good with words), I thought the words of the Dogma were designed to confuse, rather than to explain. Not that I used those words. ‘It don’t make SENSE!’ is what I once yelled at a nun.
So when JW’s told me the Trinity Doctrine was not Biblical, you may imagine how keen I was to learn more!
The following then, is what I learned from the JW’s, plus my own thoughts and conclusions, which may or may not tally with the JW stance. It’s been a long time since I quit.
Basic Trinity Doctrine
The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God’ ‘so likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty’ – from the Doctrine of the Trinity

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

Modern translations:
‘In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine’. AT
‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was a god.’ The New Testament trans. by Johannes Greber (a German bible)
‘Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God and he was the same as God.’ Good News Bible

There is something to be noted about these Modern Translations, namely, the difference between:
God/divine in the first;
God/god in the second; and
God/same as God in the third.

The AV has God/God in the same location; so the question arises – WHY do the modern translations make a difference?

It is because the modern translators are making a distinction that was present in the original text, but is not acknowledged in the AV translation. Two separate terms were used in the original text: theos, and ho theos – god/the god.
Ho theos is the term in Greek that is applied to the ‘one true god’. It is also applied at times to the gods of ‘pagans’, and even, in the NT to the Devil! It means ‘THE God’
Theos, on the other hand, is a word used to denote any lesser god, or godlike person, or one in a godlike position of authority. (Moses was called a ‘god’ for example in the OT).
So then, John 1:1 makes a distinction between a greater and a lesser god. The Word is divine, he is a god, but he is not THE GOD.

Revelation 3:14 bears this out. Rev 1:1 says of itself that it is ‘The revelation of Jesus Christ…’ and in Ch. 3:14 Jesus, in heaven, years after his resurrection, says this:
‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God…’ Duay, AV, AS.

So, the Word, theos, Jesus, was a creation – the FIRST creation of God.

As such, he cannot be – in the words of the trinity dogma – ‘co-eternal and co-equal’. A child is not the same age as its father. A painting is not the same age as its painter. So how can Christ be co-eternal?
Granted, Jesus, in his heavenly position, was of the same ‘substance’ as his father, just as your son would be the same ‘substance’ genetically as yourself. And your genes go right back to Adam – but neither you nor your son would BE Adam just because you carry his genes, nor could you be said to be the same age as Adam just because you have his genes!
In the same way, Jesus is of the same substance as HIS father, but was a new creation

Jesus also spoke of the Father as being ‘My God’ (John 20:17 AV, Mark 15:34, AV, Rev 3:12, AV), and said ‘My father is greater than I’ (John14:8 AV) which also indicates that he is not in the position of being – in the words of the Dogma – neither ‘greater or less than another’. He clearly considered himself to be LESS than his father. Therefore, Jesus cannot be said to be ‘almighty’ as his father is ‘almighty’
[BTW, having three people being almighty is a contradiction. Being ALL mighty means having power over EVERYTHING. So, if Jesus was almighty, his father COULD NOT be almighty, ‘cos Jesus would have the power to control and order him! But Jesus was the one ‘sent’ (John 17:1, 3)] Only the Father can be All Mighty

Enough for now! I shall be very interested to see your response!
And will respond to post above as soon as I have absorbed it.


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






[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 06-21-2001).]

[Yorick]

***As such, he cannot be – in the words of the trinity dogma – ‘co-eternal and co-equal’. A child is not the same age as its father. A painting is not the same age as its painter. So how can Christ be co-eternal?
Granted, Jesus, in his heavenly position, was of the same ‘substance’ as his father, just as your son would be the same ‘substance’ genetically as yourself. And your genes go right back to Adam – but neither you nor your son would BE Adam just because you carry his genes, nor could you be said to be the same age as Adam just because you have his genes!
In the same way, Jesus is of the same substance as HIS father, but was a new creation***

I would think Fljotsdale, that as one who plays Baldurs Gate and other CRPGs you would understand the concept moreso. When you enter the game realm and create a PC, you enter its world under its laws with whatever appearance and shape the game allows. It is you in that you are controling the characters actions and motivations. (Very different from me controlling the same character for example) It's is seperate from you however because you are actually sitting at a computer.

I view Jesus as the "character" God took to experience his creation and enable eternal existance for his creation yet keep his word. HE took any consequence of sin himself so we do not.

The analogy of father/son is flawed in that both people are under the same physical laws. The painting is a better one as it involves a creation and a creator. However, if we take the painting as the earth (rather than Jesus), then the painter - God - would have painted himself (Jesus) in the picture, become part of the creation. Obviously he cannot become part of the painting, so he paints an image of himself that fits into the laws of the painting - that is: two dimensional and held in stasis.

The issue of translation is interesting, but I read "the same as" as being part of/one with/the same person. Translations are always icky because one language will have two words that can only be conveyed with one in another - or vice versa. Eros/Agape = Love for example. Of the three translations the latter is the only one open to an alternate interpretation. Aside from the issue that I read it as I described, the idea may well be limited in totally flawless translation.

Where is Moses referred to as a God BTW?

Good chatting once again Fljotsdale

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

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 06-21-2001).]

[tracey]

hello

moses, i thought, kinda referred to himself as one didn't he? then he got into trouble for not giving the proper credence to god and taking it for himself.

interesting debate so far - will follow the rest with interest and chip in occasionally. mind you, i have no belief in any religion of any kind so that makes my viewpoint a bit off. i was, however brought up as a jw - sadly. I'll never forgive my mother i met up with a guy at uni a few years ago and he was also brought up as a jw - amazingly. we're good friends and debate about religion constantly. but both of us can see the huge amount of damage religion does to people, most markedly not allowing them to broaden their world and think clearly about 'issues' that have already been dictated to them by some supreme priest or god figure.

Hmmm, I'm really digging this one... nothing like watching two coherent, intelligent people work through theological stuff.
I have a question that's been in me little noggin a while:

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?

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Yorick: ***As such, he cannot be – in the words of the trinity dogma – ‘co-eternal and co-equal’. A child is not the same age as its father. A painting is not the same age as its painter. So how can Christ be co-eternal? Granted, Jesus, in his heavenly position, was of the same ‘substance’ as his father, just as your son would be the same ‘substance’ genetically as yourself. And your genes go right back to Adam – but neither you nor your son would BE Adam just because you carry his genes, nor could you be said to be the same age as Adam just because you have his genes! In the same way, Jesus is of the same substance as HIS father, but was a new creation*** I would think Fljotsdale, that as one who plays Baldurs Gate and other CRPGs you would understand the concept moreso. When you enter the game realm and create a PC, you enter its world under its laws with whatever appearance and shape the game allows. It is you in that you are controling the characters actions and motivations. (Very different from me controlling the same character for example) It's is seperate from you however because you are actually sitting at a computer. I view Jesus as the "character" God took to experience his creation and enable eternal existance for his creation yet keep his word. HE took any consequence of sin himself so we do not. The analogy of father/son is flawed in that both people are under the same physical laws. The painting is a better one as it involves a creation and a creator. However, if we take the painting as the earth (rather than Jesus), then the painter - God - would have painted himself (Jesus) in the picture, become part of the creation. Obviously he cannot become part of the painting, so he paints an image of himself that fits into the laws of the painting - that is: two dimensional and held in stasis. The issue of translation is interesting, but I read "the same as" as being part of/one with/the same person. Translations are always icky because one language will have two words that can only be conveyed with one in another - or vice versa. Eros/Agape = Love for example. Of the three translations the latter is the only one open to an alternate interpretation. Aside from the issue that I read it as I described, the idea may well be limited in totally flawless translation. Where is Moses referred to as a God BTW? Good chatting once again Fljotsdale

ROFL!! I like the analogy! However, it falls down!
It makes Jesus no more than a puppet, and if it is carried through it actually supports MY point, lol!
Yes, according to the bible, GOD directed Jesus. Jesus said he 'did nothing of (his) own initiative', but 'only as the Father commanded' him. Just as the characters do in BG.
You and I, Yorick, like God, are OUTSIDE the characters. Your team leader is not you, nor me. They do not behave in ways WE would behave. (NO WAY would I go around bashing Sirenes and golems and evil wizards! No siree!). Also, I am not in my team leader. Nor is my team leader in me.
Jaheira says "Yes, O omnipresent authority figure?" - 'recognising' that the authority is OUTSIDE.

Yes, translations are tricky things, and you can often read something where a word is translated one way in one place and another way somewhere else. You have to be very careful. Context makes a HUGE difference sometimes. The difference between 'The God' and 'god' is quite distinct, however. Other scriptures also support the differences between the relative positions of God and Jesus. More on that in other posts!

Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 are the Moses/god quotes. Moses only called God for specific purpose, however! Other references to humans being called 'gods' are found in Psalm 82:1-7 and 1 Corinthians 8:5,6. There may be more, but I can't find any off-hand.

Words for LOVE. There is Eros - sexual love; Storge - family love; Philea - brotherly affection; and Agape - principled, self-sacrificing love. The only one not mentioned in the bible is Eros. The Greeks ALWAYS had a word for everything, lol!

I'll post reply to your other post tomorrow!

Isn't this fun?! I LOVE debate!


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




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 06-21-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Absynthe: Hmmm, I'm really digging this one... nothing like watching two coherent, intelligent people work through theological stuff. I have a question that's been in me little noggin a while: 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?

You have raised a point that has always exercised MY mind as well! It is something I thought about a LOT! But the bible answers the question well.
Yes, at least from the time of his Baptism by John, (and possibly from age 12 when he told his mother 'did you not know I must be about my Father's work?'), Jesus knew what was in front of him. However, he knew he could also fail. If you think about his 'passion' in the Garden of Gethsemene, you will realise that he was plain AFRAID of what was before him. He was human, with human feelings and he knew was going to suffer. He could have turned away from his path and saved his life - but he would have failed his purpose, failed the trust of God in him, failed himself, failed mankind. Yes, he knew he was to be raised back to life by God and returned to heaven again, to a position higher that he had before (I'll find the scriptures if you want 'em, but not tonight!), but that does not invalidate his suffering and the sacrifice of his perfect human life.

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




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 06-21-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by tracey: hello moses, i thought, kinda referred to himself as one didn't he? then he got into trouble for not giving the proper credence to god and taking it for himself. interesting debate so far - will follow the rest with interest and chip in occasionally. mind you, i have no belief in any religion of any kind so that makes my viewpoint a bit off. i was, however brought up as a jw - sadly. I'll never forgive my mother i met up with a guy at uni a few years ago and he was also brought up as a jw - amazingly. we're good friends and debate about religion constantly. but both of us can see the huge amount of damage religion does to people, most markedly not allowing them to broaden their world and think clearly about 'issues' that have already been dictated to them by some supreme priest or god figure.

Well, inasmuch as it was supposed to be Moses who wrote the first five books of the bible, yes! But 'officially, it was God who told Moses he was to be 'God' to Aaron his brother and to Pharoah of Egypt. He got into trouble with god over a different issue!

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