|
Post by What Hat on Dec 11, 2014 9:49:58 GMT -5
If Nathaniel could worship Jesus and if Thomas could worship Jesus, why is it such a jump in connection for some folks to understand the Deity of our Lord and SAviour? I've wondered what and how Jesus is going to handle those who "believe in Jesus" but not to the point of "Jesus Christ" when he begins to judge folks in regards to their salvation. Those who are still holding out that Jesus is a man and only a man and though he did finally attain "divine" rating after he died on the cross as some 2x2s seem to believe.....are these folks considered those who are only exercised in the milk of the word? I am not being ugly here, I'd really like to know, but then of course as Jesus is the final Judge and a very compassionate and upright Judge, it really isn't my business, I suppose....but it's something I wonder about simply because Paul was certainly put out with those who were still only on the "milk of the word:"! I doubt that "milk" had anything to do with trinity dogma. Nothing to do with Trinity dogma of course. Paul was usually explicit when he used a metaphor like milk/meat. Problem is people run with a verse like a banshee with a scimitar. What Paul is referring to is the ability and wisdom to resolve moral issues, to have a firm grasp on right and wrong. Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Dec 11, 2014 14:41:52 GMT -5
Nothing to do with Trinity dogma of course. Paul was usually explicit when he used a metaphor like milk/meat. Problem is people run with a verse like a banshee with a scimitar. What Paul is referring to is the ability and wisdom to resolve moral issues, to have a firm grasp on right and wrong. Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. I like how this version says it: Heb. 5:11-14 I have a lot more to say about this, but it is hard to get it across to you since you’ve picked up this bad habit of not listening. By this time you ought to be teachers yourselves, yet here I find you need someone to sit down with you and go over the basics on God again, starting from square one—baby’s milk, when you should have been on solid food long ago! Milk is for beginners, inexperienced in God’s ways; solid food is for the mature, who have some practice in telling right from wrong.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Dec 11, 2014 16:20:47 GMT -5
If Nathaniel could worship Jesus and if Thomas could worship Jesus, why is it such a jump in connection for some folks to understand the Deity of our Lord and SAviour? I've wondered what and how Jesus is going to handle those who "believe in Jesus" but not to the point of "Jesus Christ" when he begins to judge folks in regards to their salvation. Those who are still holding out that Jesus is a man and only a man and though he did finally attain "divine" rating after he died on the cross as some 2x2s seem to believe.....are these folks considered those who are only exercised in the milk of the word? I am not being ugly here, I'd really like to know, but then of course as Jesus is the final Judge and a very compassionate and upright Judge, it really isn't my business, I suppose....but it's something I wonder about simply because Paul was certainly put out with those who were still only on the "milk of the word:"! I doubt that "milk" had anything to do with trinity dogma. Nothing to do with Trinity dogma of course. Paul was usually explicit when he used a metaphor like milk/meat. Problem is people run with a verse like a banshee with a scimitar. What Paul is referring to is the ability and wisdom to resolve moral issues, to have a firm grasp on right and wrong. Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Perhaps as many other passages it should be understood in layered meaning, as both/and rather than either/or.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Dec 11, 2014 18:03:19 GMT -5
If Nathaniel could worship Jesus and if Thomas could worship Jesus, why is it such a jump in connection for some folks to understand the Deity of our Lord and SAviour? I've wondered what and how Jesus is going to handle those who "believe in Jesus" but not to the point of "Jesus Christ" when he begins to judge folks in regards to their salvation. Those who are still holding out that Jesus is a man and only a man and though he did finally attain "divine" rating after he died on the cross as some 2x2s seem to believe.....are these folks considered those who are only exercised in the milk of the word? I am not being ugly here, I'd really like to know, but then of course as Jesus is the final Judge and a very compassionate and upright Judge, it really isn't my business, I suppose....but it's something I wonder about simply because Paul was certainly put out with those who were still only on the "milk of the word:"! I doubt that "milk" had anything to do with trinity dogma. Right! It is the exercise in the using of scripture. And I think Paul mentioned that was those who were feeding on the "meat" of the word!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 11, 2014 19:36:54 GMT -5
Nothing to do with Trinity dogma of course. Paul was usually explicit when he used a metaphor like milk/meat. Problem is people run with a verse like a banshee with a scimitar. What Paul is referring to is the ability and wisdom to resolve moral issues, to have a firm grasp on right and wrong. Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. I like how this version says it: Heb. 5:11-14 I have a lot more to say about this, but it is hard to get it across to you since you’ve picked up this bad habit of not listening. By this time you ought to be teachers yourselves, yet here I find you need someone to sit down with you and go over the basics on God again, starting from square one—baby’s milk, when you should have been on solid food long ago! Milk is for beginners, inexperienced in God’s ways; solid food is for the mature, who have some practice in telling right from wrong.That's good Emy. It doesn't seem to refer to the interpretation of the Bible, but rather an understanding of "God's ways" and telling right from wrong.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 11, 2014 20:47:56 GMT -5
Nothing to do with Trinity dogma of course. Paul was usually explicit when he used a metaphor like milk/meat. Problem is people run with a verse like a banshee with a scimitar. What Paul is referring to is the ability and wisdom to resolve moral issues, to have a firm grasp on right and wrong. Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Perhaps as many other passages it should be understood in layered meaning, as both/and rather than either/or. The danger is that people use it this way. "Meat" = what I believe. "Milk" = what you believe. That's one too many layers if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Dec 11, 2014 21:46:14 GMT -5
Perhaps as many other passages it should be understood in layered meaning, as both/and rather than either/or. The danger is that people use it this way. "Meat" = what I believe. "Milk" = what you believe. That's one too many layers if you ask me. sharingtheriches indicated a doctrinal message of Heb 5:14; you indicated that it speaks to moral issues. I say it isn't cut in stone either way; that it is both/and.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 11, 2014 23:23:06 GMT -5
The danger is that people use it this way. "Meat" = what I believe. "Milk" = what you believe. That's one too many layers if you ask me. sharingtheriches indicated a doctrinal message of Heb 5:14; you indicated that it speaks to moral issues. I say it isn't cut in stone either way; that it is both/and. What I think it speaks to is the wisdom that comes through experience, especially as regards moral issues. If you never have a victory in this area, then your experience counts for nought. You'll be exercised repeatedly in the "milk" of the Word, never getting far off first base. Whereas, experience is the best teacher when it represents progress along life's pathway. We see young people making mistakes in discernment; they let their desires get ahead of their better judgement; whereas the meat of the (living) Word means that you are more certain in your judgements and have built the self-discipline to follow them. From reading Paul's letters lately I don't think he understood the pathway as a deepening understanding of doctrinal mysteries. I think his views and his writings were highly practical - admonitions on how to live a moral life in that day and age. Then again, there could be another level to it as you indicate. It is believed by many that Paul did not write Hebrews, and Hebrews deals with a number of doctrinal issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 0:05:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 12, 2014 1:20:26 GMT -5
Wally ~ I agree. Since the letter of Hebrews makes reference to being taught by an apostle, any one of the mentioned companions of Paul, including Timothy, who was tutored by Paul, could also fit the bill here, IMHO?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 12, 2014 11:05:37 GMT -5
Origen (185 to 253 AD) wrote that only God knows who wrote it. The wikipedia article on the subject surveys all the various ideas as to who wrote the book. But does say, "the evidence against Pauline authorship is considered too solid for scholarly dispute". I've read different thoughts on who did or did not write various epistles, and usually these are sketchy on giving you any actual evidence. Not that there isn't evidence, but mostly people parrot their view without much backup. One intriguing idea is that Priscilla might have written it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Epistle_to_the_HebrewsThe Got Questions site you linked states this, "In other letters, Paul either quotes the Masoretic Text (the original Hebrew) or paraphrases it. However, all of the quotes in this epistle are taken out of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), which is inconsistent with Paul's usage. Finally, Paul was an apostle who claimed to receive his revelations directly from the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:23; Galatians 1:12). The writer of Hebrews specifically says that he was taught by an apostle (Hebrews 2:3)." That would seem to seal the case, but then the writer of 'gotquestions' back tracks on very flimsy evidence; e.g. that Peter had mentioned that Paul had written to the Hebrews. That doesn't mean he wrote the epistle we call "Hebrews". It's also interesting that modern scholarship has questioned things taken for granted for many hundreds of years. Anyone wonder why that is?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Dec 12, 2014 11:34:18 GMT -5
sharingtheriches indicated a doctrinal message of Heb 5:14; you indicated that it speaks to moral issues. I say it isn't cut in stone either way; that it is both/and. What I think it speaks to is the wisdom that comes through experience, especially as regards moral issues. If you never have a victory in this area, then your experience counts for nought. You'll be exercised repeatedly in the "milk" of the Word, never getting far off first base. Whereas, experience is the best teacher when it represents progress along life's pathway. We see young people making mistakes in discernment; they let their desires get ahead of their better judgement; whereas the meat of the (living) Word means that you are more certain in your judgements and have built the self-discipline to follow them. From reading Paul's letters lately I don't think he understood the pathway as a deepening understanding of doctrinal mysteries. I think his views and his writings were highly practical - admonitions on how to live a moral life in that day and age. Then again, there could be another level to it as you indicate. It is believed by many that Paul did not write Hebrews, and Hebrews deals with a number of doctrinal issues. Paul did write doctrinal mysteries - the doctrine of the Apostles in which we are to remain - that of the Body and Blood of the Lord, 1 Cor 11:27; of the necessity for passing on the faith as it had been handed down (to men who would also faithfully teach it); But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it... 2 Tim. 3:14; So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ... newadvent.com sums up the discussion of the author of book of Hebrews - and yes there was even early discussion as to the author ... The chief importance of the Epistle is in its content of theological teaching. It is, in complete agreement with the other letters of St. Paul, a glorious testimony to the faith of the Apostolic time; above all it testifies to the true Divinity of Jesus Christ, to His heavenly priesthood, and the atoning power of His death. www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Dec 12, 2014 13:36:04 GMT -5
My Cambridge KJV states in the very heading that it is Paul who wrote Hebrews. I haven't had any other interpretations or ideas of Cambridge to come back in such a manner as to make me believe they are not careful with their interpretations as far as printing bibles are concerned. Has anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 12, 2014 14:24:39 GMT -5
My Cambridge KJV states in the very heading that it is Paul who wrote Hebrews. I haven't had any other interpretations or ideas of Cambridge to come back in such a manner as to make me believe they are not careful with their interpretations as far as printing bibles are concerned. Has anyone else? Google is your friend. The "traditional" author, meaning what everyone says and no one actually knows, was Paul. But modern Bible scholarship has put that into question, for good reason. See my previous post Martin Luther was one of the first scholars to dispute that Paul was the author of Hebrews.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Dec 13, 2014 11:24:08 GMT -5
Modern scholarship, conservative and others, generally accept that Paul was not the writer to the Hebrews. In fairness there is little evidence as to who did write it. Whoever wrote it certainly deserves full marks for the captivating prologue in the first four verses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 13:48:39 GMT -5
I think much of the writing in Hebrews is more akin to John than Paul, but that is just an impression. In any case it is an excellent book.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 13, 2014 15:17:36 GMT -5
Everyone is our neighbor. Love is the only doctrine. God is my only doctrine by whom all doctrine proceeds. God has a nature and remarkably, even marvelously, love is involved.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 13, 2014 15:26:35 GMT -5
I quoted what the bible refers to as sound doctrine. If that's what Irvine Grey considers to be sound doctrine then we're on the same page. His doctrine appears to be that, plus. I personally don't see all that much difference from one denomination to another. 80% of Christendom has decided on a certain "model" which has incorporated the teachings of Jesus and then adds the worship of Jesus instead of God. (They get around this through the sophistry of saying Jesus is God and God is Jesus.) The reason they've added this component is to create an impassible gap with themselves and their Jewish forbears, and by consequence, every other religion as well. We'll be stuck with the "clash of civilizations" as long as Christians embrace the false teaching that Jesus is God. It seems clear to me that Jesus came to tell us about God, not to be worshiped in place of Him. I don't agree with this. The celebration of Jesus as God and the worship of Jesus as God is a constructive theology as it cements the idea of a nature that humans can aspire to and commune with the divine nature. The problem with Christendom has come to be that if you don't worship Jesus instead of God, you're "dangerous". It's a perverse and divisive way of looking at humanity. I don't know why this would be a problem unless Jesus failed to emulate and reveal the divine nature. While people may be prone to worshipping a false Jesus of their imagination, something less that God, that's a separate issue. It may be a concomitant issue but it's a separate issue.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 13, 2014 15:29:32 GMT -5
Everyone says now the idea of propitiation for sins was a Pauline idea but leave out Jesus' own assertions of himself. The theology and narrative loses it's punch the moment we reduce Jesus to the realm of created rather than creator.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 16:06:40 GMT -5
I'm so grateful to my pal Virgs!
"Mein Herr und mein Gott." The Apostle Thomas c. AD 33
The above scriptural passage (John 20) is one of the most commonly used by adherents of Trinitarian doctrine to show that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is indeed God himself. Most often this passage, along with other such references, is extracted from the surrounding text and circumstances to prove their argument, yet the following will show just how much this passage is taken out of context. Instead of showing that Jesus is in fact God himself, it reveals the intention of the writer (Apostle John) is to cause us to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, not God himself.
The regular out of context use of this piece of scripture is typical of what happens with every other reference used to try and support the erroneous argument that Jesus IS God, rather than, or over and above, the fact that he is the only begotten Son of God, which is the fullness of his true identity.
There are a number of passages in John’s Gospel, his Epistles and the Book of Revelation, which are erroneously extracted to try and show that Jesus is actually God himself, but an overall study of these works clearly shows that that is not John’s intention at all, rather it is to show that Jesus is the Son of God. It would take a book to go into all this and explain it, so instead I have selected the above passage as an example, to examine it in its proper context and to show the intended message of the writer, i.e. the Apostle John, which he clearly states in his text.
The key to understanding the selected passage is that it is about “seeing and believing” for the purpose of establishing clearly that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, based on the fact that whosover sees the Son, also sees the Father. They see "two" persons, NOT one!
Shortly before the incident in which Thomas spoke the words in the title of this script, we read of a “related” incident in the 14th Chapter of John’s Gospel. Notice how this event begins with Thomas asking Jesus the way. Jesus tells him/them that he is the way, the truth and the life, and that no man cometh unto the Father but through Jesus.
Jesus goes on to explain how that anyone who sees him also sees the Father. Jesus is not saying that he is the same being as the Father, but rather, those who see Jesus actually see two persons, i.e. Jesus AND the Father. This is because Jesus is the express image of the Father (God) and does the Father’s work in all things, by deed and word. Therefore, truly seeing Jesus for who he is, you see both Jesus and the Father, not because they are one identity, but they are two separate identities, with one fully representing the other. Study carefully and honestly the passages below and understand the difficulty the disciples had in grasping the fact that when they saw Jesus they also saw the Father. The Father is fully represented in Jesus, his only begotten Son. It is through Jesus that the Father expresses himself. The following verses highlight for the disciples, seeing and believing that the Father (God) is in the Son.
[i]4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. 5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 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? 10 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. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. 12 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. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Notice from verse 7, that by knowing Jesus, the disciples should have also known the Father and from that time on, they would know the Father and had seen him in Jesus. They were at last beginning to understand the full relationship of The Father and the Son, the Father abides in Jesus who is his express image. Shortly after that event, Jesus was crucified and resurrected. We consider now John 20, where again Thomas is a key figure.
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. 26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God. (Mein Herr und mein Gott). 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. [/i][/font]
In verse 28 Thomas is not identifying Jesus as God, but rather is identifying Jesus as his Lord and also identifying the Father in Jesus. He is seeing both the Father (God) and Jesus at the same time. He is seeing both the Son of God and God the Father in Jesus. If you have any difficulty with “seeing and believing” this then consider the verses which immediately follow, which clearly show the intention of the writer (Apostle John). Here is verse 31 repeated:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. The above is the intended message of the Apostle John for the passages he wrote beforehand. It is safe to say that this is the intended message of his whole Gospel, his Epistles and also the Book of Revelation. His message is consistent also with the message of his fellow Gospel and Epistle writers.
If John had wanted us to understand that Jesus was indeed God himself, or God the Son, then he wasted an ideal opportunity to convey this message. Instead he wanted to convey the most important message about the fullness of the identity of Jesus Christ, i.e. the Son of God.
John ignored recording "MANY" other things that Jesus did in the presence of his disciples but saw it very important to include the verses quoted and gave his reason for writing them!
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 13, 2014 16:29:16 GMT -5
Irvine grey, just of interest post. My brother, asked me today if I had read the book called 2x2's. I said, no, but we soon identified it as the book you have written. He has a friend whose wife hails from Ireland. She was not raised " religious" at all, but knew that a lot of her relatives were religious but they never really talked about their religion. She had seen your book , while visiting over there recently, and recognized that it was written about the religion her relatives belonged to. She had found it very interesting and enlightened her on lots of "stuff". Just thot I'd let you know. Thanks. Alvin. Edit. Need to correct that she is a Canadian, and her family and ancestors are from Ireland. I incorrectly stated she hailed from Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Dec 13, 2014 18:34:28 GMT -5
His doctrine appears to be that, plus. I personally don't see all that much difference from one denomination to another. 80% of Christendom has decided on a certain "model" which has incorporated the teachings of Jesus and then adds the worship of Jesus instead of God. (They get around this through the sophistry of saying Jesus is God and God is Jesus.) The reason they've added this component is to create an impassible gap with themselves and their Jewish forbears, and by consequence, every other religion as well. We'll be stuck with the "clash of civilizations" as long as Christians embrace the false teaching that Jesus is God. It seems clear to me that Jesus came to tell us about God, not to be worshiped in place of Him. I don't agree with this. The celebration of Jesus as God and the worship of Jesus as God is a constructive theology as it cements the idea of a nature that humans can aspire to and commune with the divine nature. The problem with Christendom has come to be that if you don't worship Jesus instead of God, you're "dangerous". It's a perverse and divisive way of looking at humanity. I don't know why this would be a problem unless Jesus failed to emulate and reveal the divine nature. While people may be prone to worshipping a false Jesus of their imagination, something less that God, that's a separate issue. It may be a concomitant issue but it's a separate issue. Reminded me of what happened some years ago before I even knew about the Trinity doctrine...I was being a nice little 2x2 lady with no rancor or individuality! However, it troubled me a bit that I got to where I could not separate the Father and Jesus in my mind and esp. during my private prayer times....I told my aunt about it and one elder sister worker and both said they didn't think there was anything wrong with it for it would kind of be like a good human family where the father and his eldest son were often mistaken one for the other sometimes because of the name being the same, other times they looked much alike and mostly because they reminded people of one another! That may be putting ahuman explanation to something that turned out to be my feelings developing about God the FAther, God the Son and the Holy Ghost.........It actually came down to the fact that Jesus Christ is the Father's heir to all things. Jesus was God's Word before the world began....and it was God's Word that formed the world and all that is in it....so yes, Jesus as God's Word created the world and all that is in it! Simple, eh!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 13, 2014 20:18:15 GMT -5
....and it was God's Word that formed the world and all that is in it....so yes, Jesus as God's Word created the world and all that is in it! Simple, eh! God spoke the world into existence. God's word is his voice.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Dec 13, 2014 22:32:03 GMT -5
....and it was God's Word that formed the world and all that is in it....so yes, Jesus as God's Word created the world and all that is in it! Simple, eh! God spoke the world into existence. God's word is his voice. So. God's voice took on human flesh and dwelt among us? Jn 1:14 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15(John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ ”) 16Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ...
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 13, 2014 22:47:02 GMT -5
God spoke the world into existence. God's word is his voice. So. God's voice took on human flesh and dwelt among us? Jn 1:14 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15(John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ ”) 16Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ...Yes it did actually.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 13, 2014 23:51:51 GMT -5
His doctrine appears to be that, plus. I personally don't see all that much difference from one denomination to another. 80% of Christendom has decided on a certain "model" which has incorporated the teachings of Jesus and then adds the worship of Jesus instead of God. (They get around this through the sophistry of saying Jesus is God and God is Jesus.) The reason they've added this component is to create an impassible gap with themselves and their Jewish forbears, and by consequence, every other religion as well. We'll be stuck with the "clash of civilizations" as long as Christians embrace the false teaching that Jesus is God. It seems clear to me that Jesus came to tell us about God, not to be worshiped in place of Him. I don't agree with this. The celebration of Jesus as God and the worship of Jesus as God is a constructive theology as it cements the idea of a nature that humans can aspire to and commune with the divine nature. The problem with Christendom has come to be that if you don't worship Jesus instead of God, you're "dangerous". It's a perverse and divisive way of looking at humanity. I don't know why this would be a problem unless Jesus failed to emulate and reveal the divine nature. While people may be prone to worshipping a false Jesus of their imagination, something less that God, that's a separate issue. It may be a concomitant issue but it's a separate issue. So much for the idea of a personal relationship. IMO, it's not a personal relationship if someone else puts brackets around it or qualifies how it must or should be.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 13, 2014 23:59:53 GMT -5
Irvine grey, just of interest post. My brother, asked me today if I had read the book called 2x2's. I said, no, but we soon identified it as the book you have written. He has a friend whose wife hails from Ireland. She was not raised " religious" at all, but knew that a lot of her relatives were religious but they never really talked about their religion. She had seen your book , while visiting over there recently, and recognized that it was written about the religion her relatives belonged to. She had found it very interesting and enlightened her on lots of "stuff". Just thot I'd let you know. Thanks. Alvin. Edit. Need to correct that she is a Canadian, and her family and ancestors are from Ireland. I incorrectly stated she hailed from Ireland. So, what does she think about her relatives being in a "dangerous cult"? Not trying to be smart, but I'm interested to know how reading this book has influenced her perception of her relatives before she read it and since.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Dec 14, 2014 0:17:38 GMT -5
So. God's voice took on human flesh and dwelt among us? Jn 1:14 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15(John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ ”) 16Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ...Yes it did actually. The Father speaks. The Holy Spirit speaks. Jesus speaks.
|
|