Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
c4ts said:
Compared to Jesus Herules is a girly man
Compared to Jesus Herules is a girly man
Dude, Kevin Sorbo could beat up Mel Gibson any day.
But, seriously, I am a bit confused on the position of Christianity regarding what Jesus is supposed to be. Sometimes they say he is God, sometime's he's not the same as God, and it seems like there are more than one schools of thought belonging to the same sect with no attempt at reconciliation. For example, there was I church I visited that prayed to Jesus. I asked why, and the preacher said it was becuase Jesus was God. But when I asked why they did not simply pray to God without calling him Jesus, the answer was that Jesus was a separate entity, a go-between, as if God himself wouldn't listen directly. Jesus can't be God and God's middle man at the same time, that makes no sense.
But, seriously, I am a bit confused on the position of Christianity regarding what Jesus is supposed to be. Sometimes they say he is God, sometime's he's not the same as God, and it seems like there are more than one schools of thought belonging to the same sect with no attempt at reconciliation. For example, there was I church I visited that prayed to Jesus. I asked why, and the preacher said it was becuase Jesus was God. But when I asked why they did not simply pray to God without calling him Jesus, the answer was that Jesus was a separate entity, a go-between, as if God himself wouldn't listen directly. Jesus can't be God and God's middle man at the same time, that makes no sense.
Mr Clingford
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2003
- Messages
- 2,104
Excellent. I'm not a fan of Mel's films as an Englishman (Let's distort some more history while we're at it!).c4ts said:
If there were some basic teaching in churches (I'm not a Catholic so maybe they do teach some basic theology there) it would sure help a lot. Jesus isn't God (although he had a divine nature) although Christ is. It is paradoxical; yes it doesn't appear to make much sense (like quantum physics!). There is no reason why one shouldn't address the divine as God so I don't know what the preacher was on about.c4ts said:
Kitty Chan
Warning system – developed by humans.
You forgot to mention all the time and effort spend trying to placate god.
You forgot all the people performing violence, gaining power and consumed with lying, cheating, etc all in the name of god.
If Jesus and god are separate and Jesus has god’s authority then Christianity is not monotheistic.
If Jesus and god are separate physically but not spiritually – then, again, how could they be separated?
If Jesus and god are separate and god was supposedly sacrificing his son but Jesus came back from the dead and ascended to heaven, there was no sacrifice involved at all.
Ossai
So where is the warning and instruction manual from god about life and everything that can happen?
Let’s see.
Warning system – developed by humans.
You forgot to mention all the time and effort spend trying to placate god.
You forgot all the people performing violence, gaining power and consumed with lying, cheating, etc all in the name of god.
Actually you’ve just confused the situation even more.
If Jesus and god are separate and Jesus has god’s authority then Christianity is not monotheistic.
If Jesus and god are separate physically but not spiritually – then, again, how could they be separated?
If Jesus and god are separate and god was supposedly sacrificing his son but Jesus came back from the dead and ascended to heaven, there was no sacrifice involved at all.
Ossai
Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
c4ts said:
I was thinking of the cartoon version of Herc or the guy with lucy lawless is that kevin?
Any way what I said earlier
There is God (Father) and Jesus (son) physically two. Now, we go back to you saying Jesus being God.
Jesus said I and my Father are one. Remember there is TWO.
Jesus has the authority given to Him by His Father, therefore they are one.
Just as a earthly father can give his son the family business and the son operates the business with the authority that the father had. The son is recognized as the same authority as his father.
Jesus said I and the Father are one. Not one physically, one as in joined in agreement and unity.
Jesus has proven His right and authority by doing His Fathers will completely. His Father God honours His Son by giving Him the same status as Himself. Jesus can call Himself God and has the right too.
The church was right to pray to Jesus as I have said He is the Way no one else.
Through Jesus the Christ (one and the same) one can be reunited with God.
Does this answer your question.
Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
Mr Clingford said:
Mr Clingford now you are confusing me. What do you mean that Jesus and Christ are not the same?
Jesus is the Christ, actually there is quite a lot of names of Jesus Christ. The Way, The Truth, The Life.
Or have you misunderstood C4ts?
It has nothing to do with catholic either.
Mr Clingford
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2003
- Messages
- 2,104
I don't think that the word 'physical' is appropriate here to spiritual being, unless I am misunderstanding you. In trinitarian terms the single being God consists of 3 'hypostases' traditionally termed Father, Son and Holy Spirit which are not persons as that term is normally used but some sort of state.Kitty Chan said:
Mr Clingford said:
Actually, quantum physics makes a lot of sense, it's the observed quantum phenomena that don't.
Back to the discussion, I think the church was Fundamentalist, not Catholic. It was a local, southern thing. It was also years ago, back when I had to go because I was a kid and I had no choice because my parents left me in the care of a very nice family who attended regularly, and they couldn't keep me at home while they went.
If the preacher is still around, I'll ask him again. From what I remember of him, he probably won't give me a different response. In practice, I don't go from church to church questioning everything, that just looks disrespectful, even if it's not quite intentional.
Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
Mr Clingford said:
The word physical is due to lack of a frame of reference. A example to explain separate, 3 aspects but 1.
Whereas Jesus being the Son could bridge the way between God and man.
Take prayer for instance we pray to Jesus whom takes the prayer to God. Then there is the Holy Spirit who in a simple term is a messenger between everyone. Does that work?
Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
c4ts said:
Well, I had a pastor of a Baptist church who kept saying "dont believe me look it up yourselves" questioning is good, I dont see where people think its not.
If your questioning as a jerk then maybe but if your just asking the question honestly then theres no problem. Understanding and knowledge are big in the Bible. I think there seems to be a cultural hang up or a percieved one, that one cant question a pastor or a believer.
Maybe in other religions but not Christianity. Like I said think of it this way if Jesus is supposed to be a friend then treat Him like you would a friend. Friends talk, fight, disagree, agree, etc so I dont see a problem with conversation.
This would describe Jesus as a successor. A successor can be a seperate entity, so that would still leave two. Why do you say this is not the case, since you say they are one? One and two are discretely different quantites no matter how abstract you can get. There is a big difference between saying they have the same power, and that they are the same entity.Kitty Chan said:
This is a bad analogy. When the son operates the business, he remains the son. Only his position has changed, not him. The father has done something else, we call it "retirement," and he no longer has the authority he used to. Or, the authority is shared, in which case two separate individuals are recognised as two leaders, not one. There is no change in identity, as identity does not depend on the power held by the individual. In either case, the son does not become his own father, and if you were to address him as such, he would correct you.
Sometimes Jesus says he is God, other times he says he is God's son, but when does he say he is both at once? Does he say he can merge with God and come back out?
No. And it raises further questions about identity and authority.
Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
C4ts
The analogy of the business is tough because there is no frame of reference for something similar. Its as close as I could think of. Both would be in charge partners if you will. The son have equal power to the father but running as the father wished in the first place. But if this is not working then maybe scrap the idea.
you saidSometimes Jesus says he is God, other times he says he is God's son, but when does he say he is both at once? Does he say he can merge with God and come back out?
And it raises further questions about identity and authority.
To start Jesus does not merge with God and come back out.
So what about how sometimes He says Hes God and other times Hes the Son. Maybe its better to start from the beggining and say the trinity. (I know that word isnt in the bible but the concept is) Here is a defination;
The trinity refers to "the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons."[1] The word "trinity," of course, is formed from the words "tri-" and "unity," and describes "the state of being threefold." In other words, to believe in the trinity means to believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are essentially one God, even while they retain their own set of differences. (Feel the fog beginning to blow around your legs....?)
John Calvin put it this way: "That Father and Son and Spirit are one God, yet the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that they are differentiated by a particular quality."
Notice its mentioned that its admited the subject is difficult.
Here is some mentions of the trinity in the Bible;
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...." (Matthew 28:19)
"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (2 Corinthians 13:14)
"... Chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood...." (1 Peter 1:2)
So there will be times that one, two or all three will be mentioned in scripture. This I think is what you are referring to.
Now specifically Jesus who is the Word
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:1-3)
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him...." (Colossians 1:15-19)
There is a relationship here between Father and Son. Jesus says He and the father are one, it is because of what is said above.
Another one that may help is
"I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does.... He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him." (John 5:19, 23)
We do not know anyone who has this same relationship to compare to there is no frame of reference. I had the father son business above. What about a husband and wife. The 2 are to become one, one in mind and purpose, but separate. That could be another example.
Im trying to show the concept here. That while Jesus is the Son He is or shares being God. And God has no problem with the Son sharing the Godship as they are so united in mind and spirit. There is a trust beyond our understanding.
That trust is where Jesus earned the right and the authority to act as God and that right is given to Him by God as Jesus is the firstborn over all creation as its said.
As per forum rules I quote site for quote and some ideas in order to state this in a different way for better understanding.
Four Reasons Why I Believe in the Trinity
by Dr. Ralph F. Wilson
http://www.joyfulheart.com/scholar/trinity.htm
The analogy of the business is tough because there is no frame of reference for something similar. Its as close as I could think of. Both would be in charge partners if you will. The son have equal power to the father but running as the father wished in the first place. But if this is not working then maybe scrap the idea.
you saidSometimes Jesus says he is God, other times he says he is God's son, but when does he say he is both at once? Does he say he can merge with God and come back out?
And it raises further questions about identity and authority.
To start Jesus does not merge with God and come back out.
So what about how sometimes He says Hes God and other times Hes the Son. Maybe its better to start from the beggining and say the trinity. (I know that word isnt in the bible but the concept is) Here is a defination;
The trinity refers to "the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons."[1] The word "trinity," of course, is formed from the words "tri-" and "unity," and describes "the state of being threefold." In other words, to believe in the trinity means to believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are essentially one God, even while they retain their own set of differences. (Feel the fog beginning to blow around your legs....?)
John Calvin put it this way: "That Father and Son and Spirit are one God, yet the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that they are differentiated by a particular quality."
Notice its mentioned that its admited the subject is difficult.
Here is some mentions of the trinity in the Bible;
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...." (Matthew 28:19)
"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (2 Corinthians 13:14)
"... Chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood...." (1 Peter 1:2)
So there will be times that one, two or all three will be mentioned in scripture. This I think is what you are referring to.
Now specifically Jesus who is the Word
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:1-3)
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him...." (Colossians 1:15-19)
There is a relationship here between Father and Son. Jesus says He and the father are one, it is because of what is said above.
Another one that may help is
"I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does.... He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him." (John 5:19, 23)
We do not know anyone who has this same relationship to compare to there is no frame of reference. I had the father son business above. What about a husband and wife. The 2 are to become one, one in mind and purpose, but separate. That could be another example.
Im trying to show the concept here. That while Jesus is the Son He is or shares being God. And God has no problem with the Son sharing the Godship as they are so united in mind and spirit. There is a trust beyond our understanding.
That trust is where Jesus earned the right and the authority to act as God and that right is given to Him by God as Jesus is the firstborn over all creation as its said.
As per forum rules I quote site for quote and some ideas in order to state this in a different way for better understanding.
Four Reasons Why I Believe in the Trinity
by Dr. Ralph F. Wilson
http://www.joyfulheart.com/scholar/trinity.htm
I'm not asking about the trinity so much as I am asking about identity. Suppose you have two entities, we will call them "A" and "B."
Given:
A is a creation of B.
If A=B
A is a creation of A
B is a creaiton of B
B is a creation of A
The first statement is irrelevant, since the creation of A is not part of the given.
The second two are impossible, given A is a creation of B.
For if A created B, then we know B did not create itself.
These two statements are circular when taken together:
A is a creation of B (given)
B is a creation of A
And the property of creation does not work both ways. For if it were true, then B would have to exist before its creation in order to create A, and A would have to exist before its creation, in order to create B.
In conclusion, identity, when switched, makes no sense in this context. Sons do not engender their own fathers. Daughters do not give birth to their mothers. Therefore identity cannot be transferred in this way.
You must explain how the transfer of authority resolves this conflict before you can apply it to God.
Given:
A is a creation of B.
If A=B
A is a creation of A
B is a creaiton of B
B is a creation of A
The first statement is irrelevant, since the creation of A is not part of the given.
The second two are impossible, given A is a creation of B.
For if A created B, then we know B did not create itself.
These two statements are circular when taken together:
A is a creation of B (given)
B is a creation of A
And the property of creation does not work both ways. For if it were true, then B would have to exist before its creation in order to create A, and A would have to exist before its creation, in order to create B.
In conclusion, identity, when switched, makes no sense in this context. Sons do not engender their own fathers. Daughters do not give birth to their mothers. Therefore identity cannot be transferred in this way.
You must explain how the transfer of authority resolves this conflict before you can apply it to God.
Kitty Chan
From the site you linked to:
1. Because of the trinitarian statements in the NT
2. Because the NT teaches monotheism AND that Jesus is divine
3. Because Jesus and the Father are different persons
4. Because the Holy Spirit is both divine and has personal attributes
Which all come back to one reason, my interpretation of the bible says so. No actual reasons were given.
Ossai
No. If Jesus is a messenger service then he ‘employees’ the spirit to take messages to himself or god, but he’s the only one that can take messages to god.
From the site you linked to:
1. Because of the trinitarian statements in the NT
2. Because the NT teaches monotheism AND that Jesus is divine
3. Because Jesus and the Father are different persons
4. Because the Holy Spirit is both divine and has personal attributes
Which all come back to one reason, my interpretation of the bible says so. No actual reasons were given.
Ossai
kimiko said:
It can't be, not for the Christian. Jesus said to refer to God as Our Father. The theology of the Bible is full of analogies to fathers (mothers too) when referring to God. It's a false analogy to you...because...it breaks down at some point? It can't be a false analogy to the Christian, because the theological foundation of the analogy is beyond secure, or solid.
That is your opinion, an opinion I reject. You can't prove your opinion (to my satisfaction) and I can't prove my opinion (to your satisfaction) so we're left with a subjective judgment call.
-Elliot
kimiko said:
I'm not sure if there is an objective standard in history. If there is, it is objective by decree.
Yes, some things can be established with evidence, but the threshhold for evidence is variant.
Yes, we know that Egyptians existed, but surely history doesn't end with that mere point.
You don't know that the Israelites plagiarized other people's history. You have a theory which you elevate to, I suppose, an objective standard, which is your own subjective objectivity. In addition, plagiarism, applied to people thousands of years before, is a profound anachronistic value judgment.
-Elliot