|
|
|
|
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/27/2008 12:00:25 PM | ***In this quote I am even more confused. What I get from this passage is "You have to go through me to be with God." Does this mean I have to worship Jesus to be with God?***
This means God made us in his image and without sin, yet we sinned. Punishment for sin is death (hell) so God sacrificed his only son to die for our sin so that we may be forgiven and live. Without Jesus we cannot get to God because of our sin. So thats why we pray everything in Jesus name. Jesus is our savior and God is his father. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/27/2008 2:06:32 PM | [The 10 commandments states "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; Do not have any other gods before me." If this is so, then why preach the name Jesus instead of God?]
If you go with the 'one God with split personalities....you'll get to many explanations that will end up really explaining nothing yet alone an answer to the question.
Now if you take a moment to explore the belief of polytheism that there is One God above all other gods, then you can find an answer to your question.
Imagin the theory of polytheism as a king being in his central grand throne. To his right and left are two other thrones but not as grand as his. Christ in polytheism is a spirit created by God the Father as he also created us. Christ called us brothers and sisters. That insinuates Christ and us all have the same spiritual birth parent...God the Father. To reinforce this are scriptures where God the Father refers to us as sons and daughters while Christ refers to us as brothers and sisters which denotes a difference in who is what and for what purpose. God the Father's plan of salvation was not for him to bring us salvation from ourselves through himself but, that salvation could be gained through faith in his Son and first born Jesus Christ.
["I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me. If ye had known me, ye should also have known my Father, and from henceforth, ye know Him, and have seen Him." John 5:46-47
In this quote I am even more confused. What I get from this passage is "You have to go through me to be with God." Does this mean I have to worship Jesus to be with God? If so then that kinda contradicts the 10 commandments which, what I understand, is the only thing God himself wrote for man.]
Mankind is to become as God. This is taught many times in the Bible. Mankind is not to become God because there is only one God the Father of us all but we are commanded to do as Christ and follow his examples of how to live and believe so that we can become LIKE God in regards to his character and purpose. Reason it like this. Most mothers and fathers want their children to become as they are. The child cannot ever become that parent because each of us is an individual spirit. But if a child see's a greatness in a parent and wants to be like that parent in all ways possible, then if you see the child so you are seeing the parent. Understand? That is what Christ was explaing.
Mind you this is all personal opinion as any reply to your questions shall be. There are no facts....just possible understandings and some make better sense then others.
 | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/27/2008 4:19:02 PM | Now if you take a moment to explore the belief of polytheism that there is One God above all other gods, then you can find an answer to your question.
Imagin the theory of polytheism as a king being in his central grand throne. To his right and left are two other thrones but not as grand as his. Christ in polytheism is a spirit created by God the Father as he also created us.
Not exactly an explanation of the Trinity Godhead. Unless of course the question, 'how many angels can sit on the head of a pin?'.....holds some validity in polythheism theology.
I believe the point Christ was making is that there is no where else to look that we can possibly see the Father, without first seeing Christ. When we see Christ we will see the Father. And in this dispensation, the Spirit is our witness of both Christ and the Father, and all 3 cannot be separated. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/27/2008 6:14:22 PM | [Not exactly an explanation of the Trinity Godhead]
Polytheism is a theory of the Godhood Just as the theory of Trinitarism explains a God of multiple personalities.
[...and all 3 cannot be separated.] That is a matter of opinion. Not substantiated fact. For the OP if I were to discuss an answer from the theory of the trinity in response to his questions he would be left with many more questions that the trinity theory has no answers for. So for him being Jewish with a belief in one God with one personality, the theory of polytheism is closer to his belief then the theory of the trinity. If he rejects it, he can read of trinitarism for a popular man made belief. Polytheism is substantiated from the scriptures of the NT mostly, not from a council. Trinitarism was substantiated at a council to decide the (at that time) real definition of God based upon the material they had. This definition of the trinity was established AFTER the death of Christ and apostles. That would invalidate it as being anything scriptural that was a definition taught by Christ and or the apostles. No where in the NT did Christ ever say...."I am God the Father." Christ always made sure to show a differance between who he was and who God the Father was. If the OP comes to an understanding of the difference that Christ taught of himself and God the Father, he can arrive at an unbiased conclusion. But if he is taught from the definition of the trinity belief which was established long after the scriptures were written by the different authors, that would be biased. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/27/2008 7:03:48 PM | The below is for the OP to help him understand the Christian concept of the Trinity in relation to his questions....good luck understanding it..... 
From the Wikipedia......
The Trinity is a Christian doctrine, stating that God is one Being Who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons [1]: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The word 'trinity' itself is not found in the Christian Bible. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "three persons[2] in one God," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. The doctrine also teaches that the Son himself has two distinct natures, one fully divine and the other fully human, united in a hypostatic union.
Now tell the truth....after reading doesn't your mind feel like it does after you have had a few to many??
That is why I gave him the theory of polytheism/the Godhead. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/27/2008 9:21:29 PM |
No where in the NT did Christ ever say...."I am God the Father."
I suppose that depends on how a person understands the verse in the OP.
7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/27/2008 10:04:20 PM | No where in the NT did Christ ever say...."I am God the Father."
[I suppose that depends on how a person understands the verse in the OP.
7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."]
I could list some verses to back up the one you quoted for substantiating the Trinity concept. The fact remains that Christ never said a single time that he was God the Father and God the Father never a single time stated that he was Christ. It is a belief of mankind and that is all.
The Op can come to unbiased conclusions if he does not follow the 4th century established definitions of who God was or wasn't as set forth by a group of men who did not like the concepts that were believed in at that time like polytheism, Arianism, etc. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/27/2008 10:17:10 PM |
I could list some verses to back up the one you quoted for substantiating the Trinity concept. The fact remains that Christ never said a single time that he was God the Father and God the Father never a single time stated that he was Christ. It is a belief of mankind and that is all.
You can say that this teaching came only into existance in the 3rd century, but we weren't around beforehand to know exactly what they believed, unless we search for ourselves into the texts of scripture. I don't base my belief on the Trinity because a council came up with this doctrine..I base my belief on what I understand and read in the scriptures for myself. In the same way I believe that the scriptures also proclaim the Father to be Christ.
Psalm 89:26
He will call out to me, 'You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.'
Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.
Isaiah 45:21
Declare what is to be, present it— let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD ? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me
Hosea 13:4
"But I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.
Titus 2:13
while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 12:30:06 AM | | It tells us that we all are in different places of understanding, that's all. Sometimes the questions arise when we look at PEOPLE, and especially at those who say they are Christians, expecting them to be whatever our perception of God is, rather than at God Himself. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 9:13:19 AM | Trinitarism was substantiated at a council to decide the (at that time) real definition of God based upon the material they had. This definition of the trinity was established AFTER the death of Christ and apostles. That would invalidate it as being anything scriptural that was a definition taught by Christ and or the apostles.
Again I would have to disagree. In John 14, Jesus taught of His promised to return to the disciples. He told them that He would come and comfort them by the manifestation and the authority of the Holy Spirit, and on that day that the disciples were filled with the Spirit, then they would realize that the Father and Him were inseparable, and were One. And if the Father and Son both embody the Spirit, then by my calculations we have 3 characteristics of the Godhead manifesting as One. The Spirit does not come alone, nor can He, if fthe Spirit is present then so is the Father and Son. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 9:33:49 AM | Psalm 89:26
He will call out to me, 'You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.'
Your version of this verse has very much changed/**stardized the original context of the verse as it is in the KJV and that is very decietful. The true verse (as by the KJV) was written as follows which gives it a much different view/definition...."He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation."
In the light of how that verse is written in the KJV we have a verse telling of David speaking to the Savior, not God the Father.
Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.
Anyone reading this who has read the NT would assume Christ is speaking here, not
God the Father.
Isaiah 45:21
Declare what is to be, present it— let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD ? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me
The same to be said of this verse.
Hosea 13:4
"But I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.
Again this would be Christ speaking because in all of the KJV Christ was refered to and he himself refered to himself as the savior.
No where in the KJV will you ever find a verse where God the Father declares that he is the Savior of mankind because that was not what he was. His son Christ was the savior of Mankind from Adam to us. Though his physical appearence came to be was when the prophecies foretold of his birth, Christ as the Lord and God of this earth spoke to the prophets through out the OT along with God the Father. Christ in Matthew 22:43,44 states this very thing....43 "He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying," 44 "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool."
Do note the spelling between LORD and Lord though many do not understand the spelling differences as they are found this way in the KJV OT. It denotes the difference in who is speaking in the OT
The OT of this thread comes from a lineage of people who have a very monotesistic belief system. One God, One being. It is more relative to polytheism then it is to trinitarism. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 10:57:36 AM |
Psalm 89:26
He will call out to me, 'You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.'
Your version of this verse has very much changed/**stardized the original context of the verse as it is in the KJV and that is very decietful. The true verse (as by the KJV) was written as follows which gives it a much different view/definition...."He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation."
In the light of how that verse is written in the KJV we have a verse telling of David speaking to the Savior, not God the Father.
That is how you interpret it, and your interpretation contradicts what you previously claimed....that Christ is never referred to as the Father. If David is discoursing with Christ in this passage then it is obvious that David calls Him..'God' , 'Father', 'Rock' and 'Savior'. So you really aren't getting any backing from this verse on your stance that Christ is never referred to as the Father, if you are adamant that David was discoursing solely with Christ in Psalm 89.
Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.
Anyone reading this who has read the NT would assume Christ is speaking here, not
God the Father.
Then it must also be concluded that Christ is Yahweh, because that is who is identified as 'LORD' in this passage. Forget about the KJV, and just look at the original manuscripts...
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Isa&chapter=43&verse=11&version=KJV#11
Isaiah 45:21
Declare what is to be, present it— let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD ? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me
The same to be said of this verse.
And I can say the same of this verse as well. What you need to determine is.... Who is Yahweh?
Christ in Matthew 22:43,44 states this very thing....43 "He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying," 44 "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool."
Do note the spelling between LORD and Lord though many do not understand the spelling differences as they are found this way in the KJV OT. It denotes the difference in who is speaking in the OT
Ok, so in every case where the spelling is different we are to assume that there are two Lords being referred to. First I might remind you that the scriptures teach there is only One True Lord...so if you are saying there are two, then one of them is a false lord.
One only needs to do a shallow investigation and concordance search, of the phrase, or usage of these expressions 'Lord', in question and it will be clearly seen that two Lords are not referred to in this passage. Or the same interpretation methods would assume two Lords in every pasage that shares this expression. Below are some examples of the same expression used of God and shows the two separate spellings of Lord...I can be certain that Yahweh is the Lord in both expressions.
Psalm 8:9
O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
Psalm 97:5
The mountains melt like wax before the LORD,
before the Lord of all the earth.
Isaiah 1:24
Therefore the Lord, the LORD Almighty,
the Mighty One of Israel, declares:
"Ah, I will get relief from my foes
and avenge myself on my enemies. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 11:06:23 AM |
Seems like a good faith if people follow the general message (from what I gather) and that is well... peace, love and happiness. I do believe tho that there is really a lot to think about and consider if one was to be Christian. Seems to much of a daunting task for me but I do hope that those that are, learn as much as they can!
You might wan't to try to find a Messianic-Jewish fellowship in your local area. Maybe they could help bridge the gap. => | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 11:28:58 AM | Christ in Matthew 22:43,44 states this very thing....43 "He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying," 44 "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool."
Do note the spelling between LORD and Lord though many do not understand the spelling differences as they are found this way in the KJV OT. It denotes the difference in who is speaking in the OT
montanan76
I will agree that there is a difference in who is speaking in the passage when it comes to the Lord speaking to the Lord.....but in no way does our limited understanding of spiritual things separate the Lordship of the Godhead from being One.
Psalm 110:1
The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”
This verse only makes perfect sense within the scope of Trinitarian theology. In the broader context of Matthew 22:41-46, we find Christ “ putting the Pharisees into a corner” by asking them a question relating to the person of the Messiah. He asked “Whose son is he?” They responded “the son of David.” Their answer was correct since the old testament thoroughly established the Davidic lineage of the Messiah (2 Samuel 7:14). But their answer was also incomplete. Scripture not only teaches that the Messiah would be the son of David in terms to His humanity, it also teaches that He is God—and the Latter fact is what Christ wanted the Pharisees to acknowledge.
Christ anticipated the Pharisees half-answer and that is why He quoted a psalm from David (Psalm 110:1 cross ref. Matthew 22:43) the words ‘my Lord’ are a reference to David’s Messiah. This divine Messiah is invited to sit at the right hand of the “Lord” (God the Father). Here we have the first person of the trinity speaking to the 2’nd person of the trinity.
Jesus asked the Pharisees if the Messiah was the ‘son’ or descendant of David, “how is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls Him Lord”? (Matthew 22:43)
It seems odd that David would call his own son ‘my Lord”… Now the fact that the Messiah was David’s son testifies to the humanity of the Messiah. But David’s reference to ‘my Lord” also points to the undiminished deity of the Messiah, since “Lord” (Hebrew ‘Adonai’) was a title for deity. The Messiah would be David’s son but He also would be David’s God. Messiah would be both God and man. To make this completely clear Christ continued to interrogate the Pharisees; “ If then David calls Him Lord, how can He be his son”? verse (45)
The Pharisees were trapped! And they knew it!
If the Pharisees answered that David called Him Lord because He is God, then they could not object to Christ, David’s Son according to the flesh, claiming to be the Son of God. If they agreed that the Messiah was truly human and truly God, they must cease there objections to Christ’s claim concerning His person. The Pharisees realized the dilemma that faced them and refused to answer. None could refute the wisdom which He spoke, and from that day no one dared to ask Him any more questions! | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 2:03:30 PM | [That is how you interpret it, and your interpretation contradicts what you previously claimed....that Christ is never referred to as the Father]
Lets establish something I believe you will be in agreement with so you will not distort the meaning any longer.
Christ was refered to many names and titles. So also with God the Father. They were both called God and Lord. But each had distinct titles the other was not refered to. Christ was refered to as the father of this creation. The word with a small f in father was used for Christ. We can both agree with that. But the word father with a capital F as in Father was reserved to distinguish God the Father, The Father of the only begotten, The Father that Christ told us to pray to, etc. It was never written in a single instance God the Father Jesus Christ. Neither was it written God the Jesus Christ the Father as you so insinuate it was done through a Bible that you are using that has changed the spelling of certain words and thus has perverted the meaning of those words.
Having an opinion of what is written is one thing....having an opinion from words that have been changed to make a different meaning, that is a perversion of the scriptures.
I know your in disagreement so lets quote what you stated and make a comparison and you address it and explain the differances in the spelling you use compared to what has been for more then 1500 years.
What you wrote .....
Psalm 89:26
He will call out to me, 'You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.'
What is written in the KJV of Psalm 89:26
"He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation."
Your version supports the trinity doctrine but it is not found as you have spelled it in the KJV.
The real spelling of the verse from the KJV supports that David is speaking to Christ as his father and God and the rock of his (salvation(a term given to Christ, not God the Father).
Even in your response you are still capitolizing words the Bible does not capitalize. That does give it a new meaning.........[That is how you interpret it, and your interpretation contradicts what you previously claimed....that Christ is never referred to as the Father. If David is discoursing with Christ in this passage then it is obvious that David calls Him..'God' , 'Father', 'Rock' and 'Savior'. So you really aren't getting any backing from this verse on your stance that Christ is never referred to as the Father, if you are adamant that David was discoursing solely with Christ in Psalm 89......]
Why are you doing that? That is a perversion of the spelling of the words in that verse. When you purposely pervert the spelling to change the meaning of the verse to fit your definition it also shows you will go to any length to justify your opinion. I won't debate against that. It is wrong. Quote the verse as it was written and that I will debate.
But understand (as you already do) if you state your opinion from the correct spelling of the verse it will not support your opinion at all.
Who is Yahweh?
In my opinion that was the sacred name of Christ in the OT. It was not the sacred name of God the Father. That is my opinion.
[Ok, so in every case where the spelling is different we are to assume that there are two Lords being referred to. First I might remind you that the scriptures teach there is only One True Lord...so if you are saying there are two, then one of them is a false lord.]
You know that is not true. If you have read the OT and NT. God the Father is refered to as Lord and Jesus Christ is refered to as Lord. No opinions of the trinity or polytheism need to be injected to know this. Christ was called Lord and the Father was called Lord.
In the OT you will find these two different spellings...LORD God and Lord GOD. There is a reason for those different spellings. Arrive at your own conclusion. I have. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 2:57:52 PM | Montanan I apologize for slanting my bias with my responses. I will try to keep the truth in mind when I post. I do enjoy discussing these topics with you, as we have also in the past. Whether we come to an agreement or not is not important if we both can at least grasp a bit of what each other is trying to say. I really don't want to play word semantics that always are used to twist our own ideas, instead of seek for the truth of the matter...., but at the same time I do want to feed off every word spoken.
I must say I find your understanding quite unique, in that you see Christ as Yahweh, but yet you don't consider God the Father to be Yahweh. And if you don't consider Yahweh/Christ as God, then what can you say about this God you claim to know? Are there any scriptures about Him in the Old Testament that you can post for me?
I suppose what confuses me is that in Psalm 110:1 THe LORD {YHWH} that you agree to be God the Father speaking in this verse, ...yet you seem to be saying that God the Father is not Yahweh. I'm confused to what you are saying..can you clarify? | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 4:40:09 PM | This response is for the OP as much to your questions Consig.
Polytheism is as old as any other belief of God or the gods. So are parts of the beliefs incorperated into the term trinitarism. Both beliefs are ages old. Many types of beliefs extend from them both. The belief of God by the Israelites is an extention of both as not only do they believe in a single God that is a single being, they also believe he has no substance and is not a male or female. He just is. But the belief in a triune godhead, that has also existed from the earliest times of paganism.
The Bible states two things.....God the Father gave power to Christ to create all things. By Christ were all things made that are. But, the OT states that the spirits of this earth passing from this life shall return to the God that made them.
To me that is a two part process; 1. God the Father created all things spiritual. 2. He then gave power to Christ to create all things physical.
Here are some things to note that many do not. Never once in the first chapter of Genesis is the word 'lord' used. The word lord is first used in the second chapter of genesis, verse 4 and it is spelled LORD God. Not Lord GOD. To me, chapter one is about the spiritual creation completed by God the Father. That I believe is why the word lord is missing because it was not yet applicable to the name of the Son as his power was not in action yet. Only the work of the Father in bringing forth his spiritual creations was happening.
Verse 26 is the first time you hear of a plurality concerning the creation. I believe this is because Christ was the first of the spirits created and God the Father is speaking to him as he creates more spirits that would become living souls. I believe Christ was born a spirit with perfection unlike the rest of us. That put him in a position for Godhood. So we now have God the Father and God the Son, two beings working in unity for a single purpose. That purpose being to give the rest of us a chance to become as they are in spirit and purpose.
Chapter two from verses 4 through 9 speak of this physical creation that was the first uniting of spirit to physical form. This is the part of creation that is attributed to Christ but not God the Father. That is where I establish the differences between the two.
A few times did Christ in the NT speak as a co-equal to God the Father. Many times in the NT did Christ show he was almost, sub-serviant to God the Father. That he did the will of the Father and not his own. But NEVER did Christ ever say that he was God the Father or that God the Father was him. There are verses that we can use to make it sound that way but there are none that directly say that. But we have instances where God the Father even shows the differences in their beings like he tells Christ he will make his enemys his footstool. He invites him to sit on his right hand. We have instances where Christ makes these differances known between he and the Father by praying to him, talking to him, telling his power is not his own but is from the Father, etc.
All of those things tell me there are three seperate beings within a triune Godhead, but all working for the same purpose which is an undefiable unity of spirit and reason. Have I clarifyed? | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 5:34:56 PM |
Polytheism is as old as any other belief of God or the gods. So are parts of the beliefs incorperated into the term trinitarism. Both beliefs are ages old. Many types of beliefs extend from them both. The belief of God by the Israelites is an extention of both as not only do they believe in a single God that is a single being, they also believe he has no substance and is not a male or female. He just is. But the belief in a triune godhead, that has also existed from the earliest times of paganism.
montanan, unfortunately i cannot relate to what you understand, because I don't view the trinity in the same way as you do. For you it is polytheism, but for me it isn't, and until you undersdtand that there is only one God not three in the trinitarian belief, you will not understand what most christians consider a Triune Godhead.
I will try and explain what I understand, and hopefully you might get a better understanding...
there is one God
God is love
God created the roles of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. It is literally impossible for God to create a Son and not create a Father at te same time as they are inseparable in relations and in need of the other to fulfill the others role. The Father came into being when the Son came into being... as the Psalmist says in Psalm 2:7
I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, "You are my Son ; today I have become your Father.
Yet God always existed in the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient fulness and attributes which consists as the God of love, the assignment of the 3 roles was necessary for the purposes of creation's ends. This assignment of roles was all done in the eternal spiritual realm, just as the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. The lamb being slain is a spiritual metaphor, but at the same time a spiritual reality that brought glory to the Son before the world began....that is why Jesus says to the Father in John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
This glory Jesus remembers and is speaking about is the glory that has been given to Him for His role as the Lamb that was slain at the foundation of creation for mankind's salvation and redemption from death. That is why Jesus is praying this prayer and making this request, because He is prophetically proclaiming His own death as He is praying this final prayer.
Now considering that all this has taken place spiritually in the eternal now, before time and space were even put into motion, is it that difficult to see that the roles created for this purpose are easily manifested by the One God?
In even simple earthly realities I can be a father and a son and a comfort to my friends, yet all the while I am just one being. I will respond as a son when I am in volved in that role. I will act as a father when I am in that role, and also if I can comfort my friends I take on a different role. If I can do this in simple human terms...how much easier for a God to do these things. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 7:01:16 PM | Excellent reply Consig. But I will respond to the primary focus of your post. We understand things in human terms so I will address that point as you addressed it.
[In even simple earthly realities I can be a father and a son] .....(That you can be. But you cannot be your father and you cannot be your son, both of which could be said to be greater extensions of yourself then you being a combination father/son unto your own self.) .....[and a comfort to my friends,].....(and they a comfort to you while not being a part of you.)..... [yet all the while I am just one being.].....(As is what your father, your son and each of your friends are, each a single being.).....[I will respond as a son when I am in volved in that role. I will act as a father when I am in that role, and also if I can comfort my friends I take on a different role. If I can do this in simple human terms...how much easier for a God to do these things.].....(If you have the God given power to be these roles, to demonstrate not only their sameness but to show their individualness based on each person being a single being, your father, your self, your son, how much more true could it be that your father, you and your son are imitating the roles of each of the beings within the Godhood?)
[It is literally impossible for God to create a Son and not create a Father at the same time] .....(Without addressing this post for the moment, you do realize that you, through your above opini0n of God, have just put restrictions upon what God can or can't do? Thought I would enlighten that fact for you. Your apparently not aware of it.)
I'm still puzzled by your logic.....[It is literally impossible for God to create a Son and not create a Father at te same time as they are inseparable in relations and in need of the other to fulfill the others role.] .....In the Bible God the Father is called The Father because he is the creator of all spirits. That is a Bible fact that should not be twisted. Christ is a spirit. That means from the definition and not an interpretation he was created. After Christ became the first spirit created, God became The Father and Christ became The Son of the Father. Then each of the rest of us were created and we became sons and daughters of God the Father but not sons and daughters of Jesus Christ. That single point is unarguable though people try to give it an explanation. Though Christ was called father because he was the creator of things physical, he NEVER said he was the creator of our spirits. If that was true he would have stated that not only are we his brothers and sisters, we are also his sons and daughters because he created all things spirit and physical. Nothing was written like that.
You can run those rolls together all you want to define a single non-substance that in deciding it's future it beget itself into many personages and many things to make all things work together for it's primary purpose. Your explanation is the equivilent to this non-substance casting itself into an uncountable portion to create all that is. When it has finished it's purpose, it shall gather all parts back unto itself to become a single non-substance again. Since you think you understand this non-substance being, please explain it's purpose of being, then becoming all things and then and being again. What will doing that teach it that it already does not know?
You are trying to convince yourself that this being is somehow capable of teaching itself things that it apparently all ready has the knowledge and answers for. That it "blinds" a large portion of itself to the rest of its being that has all the knowledge so that the "blinded" portion will give reverence unto the "un-blinded" portion being revered.
Your belief leaves me a bit as it holds no true answers for anything.
If you cannot explain anything about the non-substance how do you even think that you can explain it's purpose for being? Face this fact....you can't. Not even by it's own basic logic it gave to you to think with can you explain anything about it. By your theory you are that being of non-substance but you don't have the knowledge to know that. Anything that creates everything from itself has not created anything because it has already been in existance. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 7:55:19 PM |
I'm still puzzled by your logic.....[It is literally impossible for God to create a Son and not create a Father at te same time as they are inseparable in relations and in need of the other to fulfill the others role.] .....In the Bible God the Father is called The Father because he is the creator of all spirits. That is a Bible fact that should not be twisted. Christ is a spirit. That means from the definition and not an interpretation he was created. After Christ became the first spirit created, God became The Father and Christ became The Son of the Father. Then each of the rest of us were created and we became sons and daughters of God the Father but not sons and daughters of Jesus Christ. That single point is unarguable though people try to give it an explanation. Though Christ was called father because he was the creator of things physical, he NEVER said he was the creator of our spirits. If that was true he would have stated that not only are we his brothers and sisters, we are also his sons and daughters because he created all things spirit and physical. Nothing was written like that.
The logic is simple, by nature, nothing is a called a father, until it reproduces. In the same way, until the Son came into being, the father had yet to become a father. The point being that the role of the Father is not eternal in the full scope of eternity, otherwise the Son is eternal in the full scope of eternity. The Father needs a Son to be considered a Father in the first place.
we differ in theology as I don't see the Son as a separately created spirit, but see the Son as the creator of 'all things' as the scriptures actually do teach....good luck posting a scripyure to back your theology that the Son never created these things...
Colossians 1
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
In case you are unaware montanan, thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers are spirits. If you don't believe so then I would point you to this verse...
Ephesians 6:12
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Though Christ was called father because he was the creator of things physical, he NEVER said he was the creator of our spirits. If that was true he would have stated that not only are we his brothers and sisters, we are also his sons and daughters because he created all things spirit and physical. Nothing was written like that
No....???
Isaiah 8
18 Here am I and the children whom the LORD has given me!
We are for signs and wonders in Israel
From the LORD of hosts,
Who dwells in Mount Zion.
Anyways you still haven't explained yourself how your theology considers Yahweh is Christ, but Yahweh is not God the Father, yet where God the Father(Yahweh) is clearly speaking to Christ in Psalm 110:1 you just choose to blatantly ignore this truth. Or is it that you just cannot see that Yhwh is talking to Adown in Psalm110:1. Just to let you know, your theology seems to have God talking to Himself, but yet you have accused the trinitarion theology of doing as much.
I don't doubt that you are confused by what I am saying, nor do I think you have any ability to grasp the trinity concept, It seems that you can't get past placing restrictions on God by considering Him with merely human attributes, yet you accuse me of putting restrictions on what God is capabale of doing....who is the one who is saying that He cannot fully manifest His attributes in multiple roles as the trinity suggests is the case? certainly not me.
You can run those rolls together all you want to define a single non-substance that in deciding it's future it beget itself into many personages and many things to make all things work together for it's primary purpose. Your explanation is the equivilent to this non-substance casting itself into an uncountable portion to create all that is. When it has finished it's purpose, it shall gather all parts back unto itself to become a single non-substance again. Since you think you understand this non-substance being, please explain it's purpose of being, then becoming all things and then and being again. What will doing that teach it that it already does not know?
You are trying to convince yourself that this being is somehow capable of teaching itself things that it apparently all ready has the knowledge and answers for. That it "blinds" a large portion of itself to the rest of its being that has all the knowledge so that the "blinded" portion will give reverence unto the "un-blinded" portion being revered.
Your belief leaves me a bit as it holds no true answers for anything.
If you cannot explain anything about the non-substance how do you even think that you can explain it's purpose for being? Face this fact....you can't. Not even by it's own basic logic it gave to you to think with can you explain anything about it. By your theory you are that being of non-substance but you don't have the knowledge to know that. Anything that creates everything from itself has not created anything because it has already been in existance.
actually I have no idea what you are talking about here, nor is it any part of what I believe, but as far as explaining the non-substance as you put God to be, I don't feel that is necessary, but only to prove what the perfect will of God is what I see as necessary.. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 8:53:04 PM |
The word with a small f in father was used for Christ. We can both agree with that. But the word father with a capital F as in Father was reserved to distinguish God the Father, The Father of the only begotten, The Father that Christ told us to pray to, etc. It was never written in a single instance God the Father Jesus Christ. Neither was it written God the Jesus Christ the Father as you so insinuate it was done through a Bible that you are using that has changed the spelling of certain words and thus has perverted the meaning of those words.
Consigliere is doing a fine job of clarifying the appropriateness of the Doctrine of the Trinity, so I'm not going to bother injecting another opinion and muddying the waters. However, I will say that your small "f", capital "F" explanation is based on an English bible (the KJV is I'm not mistaken) and shows that you don't understand Hebrew and Koine Greek or Aramaic. The "f", "F" is a choice based on what the translators perceive as the most accurate rendering of the original language. Appealing to it, while ignoring the original and most accurate texts, really doesn't work. Further, suggesting that those who don't follow the KJV, which may well be inaccurately translated in some cases such as this, as perverting or distorting the original words is inappropriate. Consigliere shows he does understand the original languages, does understand the context, and does understand the basis on which the Doctrine of the Trinity was formulated.
I hope that helps.
Peace.  | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 9:08:07 PM |
Consigliere is doing a fine job of clarifying the appropriateness of the Doctrine of the Trinity, so I'm not going to bother injecting another opinion and muddying the waters.
please feel free to inject opinions Romanticoptimist, I don't see how some fresh input could muddy the waters much more than they are? I don't think we need to worry about them clearing soon anyways on this topic. I once debated this topic wityh a elder from the JW organization on another forum, we shared over 330 posts and finally agreed to disagree. But it was educational. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 9:37:43 PM |
Maybe it's because I'm Jewish and I was raised to ask questions about my own faith to better understand.
You hit the nail on the head here. Christians are taught to not question God.
Matthew 4:7
Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 9:50:26 PM | You hit the nail on the head here. Christians are taught to not question God.
That's right - do not question Him or doubt Him
| |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/28/2008 10:22:01 PM |
That's right - do not question Him or doubt Him
I don't know about that, ....Lietenant Dan had a showdown with God and look at the blessing that quickly followed, him and Forrest were catching boatloads of shrimp after that!
And then there's that Jacob character( Isaac's son) who wrestled with the angel all night and wouldn't give up until the he was blessed, and look at the magnitude of the blessing that Jacob recieved!
Not to mention how the Bereans were considered of noble charcter because they actually investigated and questioned if the gospel Paul was teaching them was in fact true.
seems to me like questioning God and even going toe to toe with Him once and a while can bring some good things our way. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
