|
Post by ariandgabe on May 19, 2009 15:53:14 GMT -5
Thanks DC, and now I will read John and see what you mean my friend.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on May 19, 2009 15:59:12 GMT -5
Show me one scripture where Jesus is said to be GOD. Not 'one' with Him, but God, the (let's say) source of the Father? God IS the source of the Father isn't He?
No. The Father has no "source". He has no beginning or end.
If 'The Father' is just a reference, and is NOT God (as Zorro pointed out)
I have no idea how you could read that into any of my statements. I absolutely believe the Father is God.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 19, 2009 16:00:36 GMT -5
Show me one scripture where Jesus is said to be GOD. In John, Thomas addresses Jesus as "my Lord and God." This is the most obvious one. It's a bit controversial, though, since this is the only place in the Gospels where Jesus is directly called God. Some analysts see the whole "doubting Thomas" scene as a later rewrite of the prior appearance of Jesus (the doors are locked, he comes like before, greets them the same way). Caesar Domitian demanded to be called "Lord and God" and this may be a counteraction to that title.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on May 19, 2009 16:13:04 GMT -5
At this point, I think most Trinity-believers point to those scriptures that hint at the Trinity, but accept it as an unexplainable mystery.
Actually, I can live with this characterization. I would only add that the Trinity is the only explanation that meets Scriptures demands. I know you feel the quasi-gnostic explanation of the Spirit descending on Jesus as a "dove" is satisfactory, but really it has many problems. How Jesus could arrive at that point in his life (30 years old) in a sinless condition would be difficult to explain. That explanation also requires him to leave heaven and "give up" his deity for 30 years, which also is Scripturally unsatisfactory. Personally, I don't know how any serious Bible student (that believes the Bible) can conclude that Jesus isn't/wasn't God. He obviously was God. But he was just obviously not the Father. So, to those who don't accept the Trinity explanation....explain that us.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 19, 2009 16:23:18 GMT -5
I know you feel the quasi-gnostic explanation of the Spirit descending on Jesus as a "dove" is satisfactory, but really it has many problems. How Jesus could arrive at that point in his life (30 years old) in a sinless condition would be difficult to explain. ok, I need to study John to see where he claims Jesus-the-person lived sinlessly all his life. Note that the passover lamb was to be "of the first year", which, according to the Synoptics, is perhaps about the length of time since the Spirit descended. First, "Scripturally unsatisfactory" is something I can live with, since I do not pretend that all scriptures present the same opinion. Do you think the Gospel of John is contradictory in my quasi-gnostic interpretation? Perhaps you are confusing the eternal Spirit with the man that it (God) chose as a "tabernacle." Perhaps you are also forgetting the teaching of John that God has come back to earth, as promised in the prophecies once the Messiah is chosen, and now dwells within the heart.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 19, 2009 16:37:10 GMT -5
ok, I need to study John to see where he claims Jesus-the-person lived sinlessly all his life. As I think about it, I may not need to bother. John's understanding of "sin" is quite radical; A sinless person is one who believes in Jesus. Now THAT presents a mind-bender for a sinless Jesus, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Child of God on May 21, 2009 4:27:32 GMT -5
This thread is a perfect example of the fact that no one is really here to learn... but are here to push or maybe I should say promote their passionate position.
I came here to learn, but have not really learned a thing, except, what I believe is what I believe, and I have found no reason to change my belief.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 21, 2009 4:59:18 GMT -5
I have a differing view CoG, in that listening to other posters views (which I guess is what they believe), I am able to come to an understanding about those beliefs.
This is the only way I can honestly test my own beliefs, and sometimes this sends me off to do some more study. I find I am constantly refining my beliefs - often I need to adjust my own thinking in light of what I have found, other times I reject what I have read.
In this thread one can see a perfect example of a belief being rejected when the belief is not even understood.
|
|
|
Post by Child of God on May 21, 2009 6:39:46 GMT -5
You are right Fred... I would have to say I have adjusted my understanding by increasing my commitment and faith in what I do believe.
The one thing I have changed is how I read and study... when I first came reading here... I started reading and studying to prove things I didn't believe or understand wrong... but I found that didn't help.
Now I have gone back to just reading to learn and understand better what God had in it for me.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 21, 2009 6:57:37 GMT -5
Exactly CoG, and sometimes God's lessons for me cause me to become quite uncomfortable, having to move out of my comfort zone, having to leave behind notions that I have nurtured for most of my life.
I do what I do to get to know his purpose for me, to understand him more fully, and he has never disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 21, 2009 9:16:59 GMT -5
This thread is a perfect example of the fact that no one is really here to learn... but are here to push or maybe I should say promote their passionate position. Agreed. That is pretty much how religion works; nothing is PROVABLE, so we just go round and round. But this makes no sense. I have learned so much about what others believe here. Of course it cannot change my beliefs, but I do learn.
|
|
|
Post by Child of God on May 21, 2009 17:03:02 GMT -5
I came here to learn, but have not really learned a thing, except, what I believe is what I believe, and I have found no reason to change my belief. But this makes no sense. I have learned so much about what others believe here. Of course it cannot change my beliefs, but I do learn. I agree that I have learned a lot about what others think... but that hasn't helped me any.... except to make more thankful for what I know and understand.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 21, 2009 20:14:24 GMT -5
I agree that I have learned a lot about what others think... but that hasn't helped me any.... except to make more thankful for what I know and understand. Well, hopefully it helps us become more accepting and understanding of alternative beliefs, and more aware that nobody has all the answers.
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on May 22, 2009 8:20:21 GMT -5
Show me one scripture where Jesus is said to be GOD. Not 'one' with Him, but God, the (let's say) source of the Father? God IS the source of the Father isn't He?No. The Father has no "source". He has no beginning or end. If 'The Father' is just a reference, and is NOT God (as Zorro pointed out)I have no idea how you could read that into any of my statements. I absolutely believe the Father is God. Sorry Zorro but I believe you mentioned that I don't understand the Concept because I keep on making the mistake that the 'Father = God' and that the Doctrine does NOT teach that. Mr. Jacobson said the same thing, as do others here. So again if I may, in this Trinity view, is God=Father or not?
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on May 22, 2009 8:31:34 GMT -5
In this thread one can see a perfect example of a belief being rejected when the belief is not even understood
Sure would be nice to have someone point out those parts of this Complex Concept that is obviously 'not understood' by those posters.
The thing is, I would love to see someone clearly define the concept and not use scientific circles to explain better.
I know this, that Jesus would never (because He said so) make something that complicated that one would have to wait thousands of years for someone like Einstein to be born to make scripture clearer. Einstein and those other scientists were not even Christian, so what could I learn from 'darkness' as Jesus put it?
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on May 22, 2009 8:44:21 GMT -5
This thread is a perfect example of the fact that no one is really here to learn... but are here to push or maybe I should say promote their passionate position.
Agreed. That is pretty much how religion works; nothing is PROVABLE, so we just go round and round.
One states what he believes and the other what he does, and those that read it learn from all this.
I have learned a lot by Rationals, DC's and other non-believers questionings, many things I have taken for granted and until they pointed to it, and me studying it, I learned. Otherwise I would have remained in my ignorance, which many here are happy to remain in.
So for me, this is all an exciting growing experience that I NEVER had attending the 'meetings'.
There, it was; 'take it or leave it, but NEVER question it' and many here are still stuck in that mindset.
It is actually those who are questioning Gods very existance that have the most open mind. I love their questioning, for it is from those questionings I learned the most.
So, I thank you guys/gals, for you have awakened me, that is the spirit within me.
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on May 22, 2009 9:02:23 GMT -5
As I think about it, I may not need to bother. John's understanding of "sin" is quite radical; A sinless person is one who believes in Jesus. Now THAT presents a mind-bender for a sinless Jesus, lol.
Anyone born of flesh is sin, or born in sin. God will not nor cannot be associated with sin. The doctrine fails again.
but not only was 'The Son' born into sin (this physical flesh) but was made a curse before GOD also;
Gal 3:13-14 13 But by becoming a curse for us Christ has redeemed us from the curse that the Law brings; for the scripture says, "Anyone who is hanged on a tree is under God's curse." TEV
I know, I know, many good people here will say: "Boy, I sure am glad I don't think like this guy here! I mean he compares God to man, or says man is in the 'image' of God, then now he says that Jesus, who is God in the flesh was 'born in sin' and 'cursed' by His God-self!"
"What next, he'll have God wrestle with a man and the man beating, or winning over God! Stay away from this guy!"
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on May 22, 2009 9:05:13 GMT -5
I agree that I have learned a lot about what others think... but that hasn't helped me any.... except to make more thankful for what I know and understand. Well, hopefully it helps us become more accepting and understanding of alternative beliefs, and more aware that nobody has all the answers. God has all the answers, and He will open your eyes and see it all written out nice and neatly in 'The Bible', the inerrant perfect Word of the Living One and Only God.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on May 22, 2009 9:39:50 GMT -5
Sorry Zorro but I believe you mentioned that I don't understand the Concept because I keep on making the mistake that the 'Father = God' and that the Doctrine does NOT teach that.
Mr. Jacobson said the same thing, as do others here.
So again if I may, in this Trinity view, is God=Father or not?
No, what you said is that the doctrine teaches that Jesus was the Father....which it does not.
Here's the doctrine in a nutshell:
1.The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all 3 separate persons. 2. All 3 are one God 3. All 3 are equal (in essence or attributes)
A couple of things that help me:
Some people say (and others debate) that Jesus is God, but not all of God. I understand the argument is made that this view doesn't satisfy Scripture's teaching regarding "oneness" and "equality", and I know what the argument is...but IMO this is a good entry point to understanding how the Father can be the Father, the Son can be the Son, the Spirit can be the Spirit and each fill different roles within the Godhead (like the Son submitting to the Father).
Another thing that has been explained that I like is that you and I are separate people, but we are both "man". So is the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit each separate persons but they are all "God".
Those things, IMO, are actually fairly simple and fully supported by Scripture. The hard part that ultimately must be left in mystery is how they can be "one".
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on May 22, 2009 12:34:20 GMT -5
A good way for me to think of it is as H2O Water can be a liquid, a vapor, and solid....but it is still water... water-steam-ice. It's still H2O Scott
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 22, 2009 20:13:48 GMT -5
Mmmmm...... but can H2O continue to exist in all three forms at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on May 22, 2009 22:47:15 GMT -5
Mmmmm...... but can H2O continue to exist in all three forms at the same time? Jesus is not the Father. What's the point of your question?
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 22, 2009 23:45:38 GMT -5
The point is .......how far can you take analogies?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on May 23, 2009 2:45:58 GMT -5
Mmmmm...... but can H2O continue to exist in all three forms at the same time? Sure. Try this: run some water -- leave it running boil some water -- leave it boiling empty the ice cube tray into a bowl and set it on the kitchen counter. Stand back and observe.... Oh, but that does leave the 'oneness' mystery, doesn't it? Hmmmm.....
|
|