The Pope goes full retard

[Hawkmoon]

A lot of American Christians have world views much more inspired by Ayn "I love rape, hate god, and think the seven deadly sins are prime virtues" Rand than by Jesus or the Bible. And they contort Scripture to justify their pre-existing political views. Sad!

QFT. Try reading some of the American Episcopal stuff where they try to justify same-sex marriage by essentially claiming that the Bible doesn't say what the Bible says, "but we live by the Bible and the liturgy." And then they wonder why people are leaving the American Episcopal Church and "converting" to Anglican ...

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

QFT. Try reading some of the American Episcopal stuff where they try to justify same-sex marriage by essentially claiming that the Bible doesn't say what the Bible says, "but we live by the Bible and the liturgy." And then they wonder why people are leaving the American Episcopal Church and "converting" to Anglican ...

I wish you coulda been there when they got called out on that very thing by a seminary student giving a sermon. They woulda shunned him but since he was one of the outstanding scholars of that class as well as a charismatic leader the hesitated. The fact he was openly gay and in one of the early classes where that was promoted left them with a dilemma.
He accused them of losing sight of the gospel and becoming a pac


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ron]

And don't forget all the times progressives and Marxists twist scripture to support their schemes as if they are building Gods Kingdom on earth!

The christian progressives are not above using scripture to "shame" others.

Many on the left, especially, believe forcing everyone to pay high taxes into a welfare state government discharges you of your duty to take care of the poor.

It's not charity or compassion if you are using government force to take other peoples money and give it to the poor. Yet some consider that a virtuous position to hold.

It's the same old ancient argument of top down management of problems or grass roots bottom up solutions. 

[KD5NRH]

I think of it as 3 different views (or shadows) of the same Being, taken from different perspectives.  Imagine 3 very different 2-dimensional shadows of a complex 3-D object.  Now move it up a dimension (and one of those dimensions is not time)

"Not my will but thine be done" makes very little sense if one is speaking to one's self.

[makattak]

"Not my will but thine be done" makes very little sense if one is speaking to one's self.

Really? Whilte exerting yourself, your body doesn't sometimes scream to stop but your brain pushes you onward? You don't have desires that conflict with your will?

Humans are also beings of more than one part- we are body, mind, and spirit. I know very well my body and mind often have conflicting ideas and I have to subjugate the desires of my body to the determinations of my mind or the will of my spirit. It's an idea of "Not my (the body's) will, but thine (the mind's) be done."

That's not to say this is how the Trinity works. I honestly have no idea how it actually works, I simply believe that it does. My finite mind uses what I know to try to describe how it might work, but I am well aware I may be wrong. (C.S. Lewis has another description and I think he's wrong, too, but it's another attempt using what we can understand.)

[KD5NRH]

Really? Whilte exerting yourself, your body doesn't sometimes scream to stop but your brain pushes you onward? You don't have desires that conflict with your will?

Maybe I'm unusual, but even when talking to myself, I use first person.  I certainly don't call myself Father.  Nor do I attempt to deflect praise for my actions off of myself and simultaneously onto myself.

[makattak]

Maybe I'm unusual, but even when talking to myself, I use first person.  I certainly don't call myself Father.  Nor do I attempt to deflect praise for my actions off of myself and simultaneously onto myself.

Nope, that's your mind talking to yourself in your mind. I'm talking about the desires of your body, separate from your mind. You can't tell a difference between your body's "will" and your mind's will?

[Balog]

I think the Trinity is one of those things where we just have to accept that the human mind isn't really capable of fully groking how it works.

[Perd Hapley]

That's funny. I though KD5 was making a trinitarian argument. Christ wasn't talking to Himself, as we understand it. He was talking to another Person. A Person with whom He shares the same essence. Oh, no, I've just gone cross-eyed.

Sorry Ron, but the Trinity and the nature of Christ have been hotly contested since the beginning of Christianity.  As far back as there are records of Christians there are records of competing claims about both.  

Sounds like a re-hash of what Ron just said. Misunderstandings about the nature of the Trinity. People disagreeing, and so on.

In another great irony related to Jehovah's Witness, the argument that their interpretation of the bible is wrong and their translations are crap is something you can only ascertain with a knowledge of the history and traditions of Christianity.  This is precisely why the Pope and his followers reject sola scriptura - it leads to interpretations of Christianity completely divorced from history and tradition.  Now if you say have an institution that collects and preserves history, and makes judgements that are authoritative, that helps keep an interpretation consistent over time.  Any Christian sects fit that bill?

As you have pointed out here in this thread, having some knowledge of how the Bible was written and what early Christians believed about it is essential to understanding why trinitarian Christians see their interpretation as superior.  Throw that away, and you've got the myriad of religions that arose from independent bible study groups.  

The text itself is by no means obvious in establishing the Nicene Creed or the trinity.  That's something early Christians associated with the State seemed to have debated and agreed they would outlaw.  Had they not done so it isn't at all clear that trinitarian Christianity would be the dominant interpretation today.

Actually - no. The scriptures teach tritarianism. No history or tradition is required to understand that. If this were not true, the JW's and LDS wouldn't have to amend it.

[KD5NRH]

Actually - no. The scriptures teach tritarianism.

Matthew 24:36

Or are you good at keeping secrets from yourself?

[Hawkmoon]

That's funny. I though KD5 was making a trinitarian argument. Christ wasn't talking to Himself, as we understand it. He was talking to another Person. A Person with whom He shares the same essence. Oh, no, I've just gone cross-eyed.

So the Holy Trinity is sort of like the three musketeers: One for all, and all for one?

Minor nit to pick: It wouldn't have been "Christ" who was (or wasn't) talking to Himself, it was Jesus. His name was Jesus or, more accurately, Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph). His last name wasn't "Christ" -- Jesus was THE Christ, the physical embodiment of Christ consciousness. When the Bible speaks of "Christ Jesus" it's not using that as a two-part name, it means the Christ in the person of Jesus.

[Perd Hapley]

Matthew 24:36

Or are you good at keeping secrets from yourself?

I get better at it with time.

You can cherry-pick the passages that make the Three seem like different persons (because they are). Or you can cherry-pick the unitarian passages (because there is only one true God).

[Hawkmoon]

Or are you good at keeping secrets from yourself?

It's more difficult when the meds are working. It's much easier if I skip the meds.

[Perd Hapley]

So the Holy Trinity is sort of like the three musketeers: One for all, and all for one?

Minor nit to pick: It wouldn't have been "Christ" who was (or wasn't) talking to Himself, it was Jesus. His name was Jesus or, more accurately, Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph). His last name wasn't "Christ" -- Jesus was THE Christ, the physical embodiment of Christ consciousness. When the Bible speaks of "Christ Jesus" it's not using that as a two-part name, it means the Christ in the person of Jesus.

Christ means "annointed." According to the Bible, He was is Christ from the beginning. (I Peter, 1.20, Revelation 13.8 ) I don't know what is meant by "Christ consciousness." Is that Biblical?

[KD5NRH]

It's more difficult when the meds are working. It's much easier if I skip the meds.

When I was working at the mental health clinic, the psychiatrist would often come through the office asking some odd question or another to establish a baseline of how "sane" people would answer it.  Not exactly the most sound method, but whatever.

One day, the question was "if you could perform one miracle, what would it be?"

I told her I'd send her to ~20AD so she could try to cure Jesus's messiah complex before it got Him into so much trouble.

"If you were my patient, I'm not sure which of us would be getting more meds."

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

It's more difficult when the meds are working. It's much easier if I skip the meds.

And typically your chess game improves sans meds.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ron]

God is eternal Spirit with no temporal material substance. He self exists independent of time and space and has free reign in time and space, as it is his creation.

Jesus is God who created all things and holds all things together; "things" being everything in time and space. God has revealed himself to us by clothing himself in the person of Jesus, an actual human of temporal material substance who existed in time and space yet eternal God in spirit.

When Jesus shook off his mortal coil he ushered in the era, in time and space, of the indwelling of God's Spirit in those who choose to believe in him.

This is my understanding of what would be considered a pretty orthodox understanding of scripture. I'm no theologian so I may be off in some respects but this is where I'm at in my understanding.

Jesus has told us, you believe in God? Believe also in me. He is one with God, the Father. He also told us that after he leaves (shakes off the mortal coil) he will always be with us through the indwelling of the Spirit of God.

John chapter 14

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain

[Hawkmoon]

Christ means "annointed." According to the Bible, He was is Christ from the beginning. (I Peter, 1.20, Revelation 13.8 ) I don't know what is meant by "Christ consciousness." Is that Biblical?

No, it's lay. The point is that we should not be referring to Jesus as "Christ." He is THE Christ -- it's a title, not a name.

[De Selby]

I get better at it with time.

You can cherry-pick the passages that make the Three seem like different persons (because they are). Or you can cherry-pick the unitarian passages (because there is only one true God).

Where do the scriptures say that God is a person?  Seems like the level of debate on this topic from the very origins of Christianity implies it's a little less obvious.  But I can see where you're getting your view - you've clearly inherited one of the traditions of interpretation that was mandated when the first Christian empires started making laws about what people had to believe.  Suffice to say it's not obvious to people who don't inherit that tradition or respect some authority on the question.

Ron,

Your first line is that God has no material substance.  Yet Jesus had a body.  How are those two propositions not blatantly contradicting?

[Perd Hapley]

Where do the scriptures say that God is a person? 

Pretty much every time it talks about Him. Even the fact that it employs words like "Him" or "He" to refer to God suggest that He is a person, rather than some sort of impersonal force.

Do you believe that the Allah of Islam can be correctly described as a person?

Suffice to say it's not obvious to people who don't inherit that tradition or respect some authority on the question.

It's obvious to those who think seriously about scripture, and read enough of it. Many people either don't think much, or tend to keep the blinders on.

[Perd Hapley]

No, it's lay. The point is that we should not be referring to Jesus as "Christ." He is THE Christ -- it's a title, not a name.

You could also say that about the word "God." Do you think it's an important distinction?

[De Selby]

You could also say that about the word "God." Do you think it's an important distinction?

Actually no - that is a good point.  JW dispute that other Christians even got that right.  How do you prove them wrong except by references to authority outside the scripture?

[Perd Hapley]

Actually no - that is a good point.  JW dispute that other Christians even got that right.  How do you prove them wrong except by references to authority outside the scripture?

Prove them wrong about what? Using "God" as a name?

[De Selby]

Prove them wrong about what? Using "God" as a name?

Yes, and other matters

[De Selby]

Pretty much every time it talks about Him. Even the fact that it employs words like "Him" or "He" to refer to God suggest that He is a person, rather than some sort of impersonal force.

Do you believe that the Allah of Islam can be correctly described as a person?


It's obvious to those who think seriously about scripture, and read enough of it. Many people either don't think much, or tend to keep the blinders on.

Islamic understandings of God are identical to Jewish ones.  If you believe in God how Moses describes God in the bible, you are in accord with both Jews and Muslims.  So no, not a person.

How do you know which scripture (for example, yours versus a JW) to read?