|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/29/2008 5:27:27 PM | What you said is actually very true Romanticop.........[ 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.]..............However, neither you or I or anyone here or anyone living can supply the true and accurate translation of the original writing that those translated words came from of the Torah. We have some translations but no one can say what their accuracy is.......The fact of the matter is that the Israelites who wrote those age old texts did have a spelling for "father" and for "Father" in the Torah. From the later translations that were in greek, etc., those who began the first english translations did their best to reinterpret their meaning to fit a new religion that was being winded from the words of the NT into the OT so they appeared the same in message context and with few if no contradictions. Give an english Bible to an orthodox Rabbi and ask him for his opinion of the Christian's old testament interpretation of their Torah. I did it. He smiled respectfully and asked me not to waste his time for Christians had _astardized the original writings of his Torah that had been passed down for ages.
So back to my point, what we have to work with is what we have, not from what we don't have. Romanticop, if you wish to contact a Rabbi and ask him the differences of the spellings, I would be more then glad to hear what you find out. But before you begin that endeavor if you so choose to do it, (which I probably will do, there are on-line Rabbi sites you can pose questions to.) please remember if a Christian and an Israelite read from certain verses of the Old Testament and where the studied Israelite will say this is G_d speaking in this verse, the studied Christian will say, this is God the son/Christ speaking. Are you following? A Christian cannot rightfully refer to the Israelite teachings of what is contained in their Torah pertaining to God because they do not teach what Christians teach about God. Their Torah has a completely different meaning in many places dealing with the word God then does the Christian rendition of their Torah we call the five books of Moses. They are very different books and their renditions of the five books of Moses in no way or form supports the modern day teaching of the Trinity because they don't believe in a trinity. If you wish us to use comparison writings for the five books of Moses the Christians have to the five books of Moses the Israelites have, we will have to stop speaking about Christianity all together because the original writings of the Torah are about a single being with a single non-substance/non-form and with a single character and is neither male nor female.
I will say if you do a study of the modern day Jewish definition of God and keep in mind their definition of God is older then the definition of God that Christians have, you will find strong similarities that lead many to believe parts of the trinity doctrine are pure write offs of the Jewish definition of God. It is also a fact that at the time of the birth of the Trinity doctrine, the Egyptians had a strong belief in a triune godhead. Amun was three gods in one. Re was his face, Ptah his body, and Amun his hidden identity. And then there was the the Etruscans. (I love history) As they slowly passed from Babylon through Greece and went on to Rome, they brought with them their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva. That trinity was a ‘new idea to the Romans and yet it became so typical or adoptive of Rome that it quickly spread throughout Italy. Even the names of the Roman trinity, Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, reflect the ancestry.
As I said before, many have no true understandings of the complications that the belief in a Trinity doctrine espouses that they are unaware of. To teach that something is nothing and had no begining as we understand that word, and had an intelligence to create something from nothing that it is proclaimed to be, the real question would then be what are we and what is our purpose if we are all one and the same of the creation that created us? | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/29/2008 10:51:35 PM |
I'm stumped beyond words (almost). Every time I ask to better understand, the people I ask get very frustrated and start to show anger towards my questions. Maybe it's because I'm Jewish and I was raised to ask questions about my own faith to better understand. I don't know.
Anywho~
I guess this question also questions my own faith but...
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?
{I understand the trinity but I do not understand the need to divide what is one. That is what eludes me here.}
In considering that you are Jewish, I have a curiousity how a Jewish person would understand this verse from Psalm 110:1 and if it was the same as I understood it from my christian perspective of faith.
To begin with, it is my understanding that part of the practice of certain sects of Judaism or maybe all, recite the 'shema' as part of thier practice. The shema being
Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
I'm not sure how you approach the New Testament, but when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, He recited the 'shema'.
Now here is where I have to question,...... by the commandment of God, there is One Lord, and by the Spirit of God, no one should be addressed as Lord except for God. Mere men may have been given the titles of lords, but they were not addressed this way by those who were speaking in the Spirit of God, In the Spiritual kingdom of God there is but One Lord and never could anyone be addressed by this title, or the shema becomes moot as a commandment. How is it that David could say such a thing as is said in Psalm 110:1 and this not raise some eyebrows and questions among those who are Jewish, as to him implying 2 Lords in the Spiritual kingdom?? I'm sure that both theologies (Jewish and christian) agree that David was in fact speaking in the Spirit when he wrote this. How can David be in the Spirit and address or imply 2 Lords, and still be obedient to the commandment of the shema? | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/30/2008 8:42:56 AM | NerdStatus said:
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.'"
How much have your studied "Christians" that you would know as an absolute (you didn't qualify with "some', "many", a"few", etc.) that Christians are taught not to question God? Or were you taught that and accepted it blindly without checking? I ask because the verse you quoted doesn't support your claim. The context of the verse is clear. I suggest you look it up in context. Hopefully then you'll stop using it out of context.
montana76: We disagree. And that's fine. I stand before God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and proclaim my belief in the Trinity. If I'm wrong, I trust all Three to have the power, access, and personal knowledge of who I am to correct me. I support, respect, and honour your belief and trust that God will do the same with you. After all, it's personal relationship so I expect it to reflect the personal way in which God has revealed Himself to each of us. Neither of us is required to obey this or that Doctrine, this or that Council, this or that Creed, only what God has revealed to each of us and what we can in good conscience believe and teach.  | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 4/30/2008 9:08:40 AM | montana76: We disagree. And that's fine. I stand before God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and proclaim my belief in the Trinity. If I'm wrong, I trust all Three to have the power, access, and personal knowledge of who I am to correct me. I support, respect, and honour your belief and trust that God will do the same with you. After all, it's personal relationship so I expect it to reflect the personal way in which God has revealed Himself to each of us. Neither of us is required to obey this or that Doctrine, this or that Council, this or that Creed, only what God has revealed to each of us and what we can in good conscience believe and teach.
Excellently said Romanticop, Excellently said!  | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/1/2008 1:28:05 PM | | I thought that jewish people are still waiting on Messiah to come, if thats the case, that falsifies what the subject at hand is...seeing that there is still another to come..what say ye. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/2/2008 6:58:13 AM |
I thought that jewish people are still waiting on Messiah to come, if thats the case, that falsifies what the subject at hand is...seeing that there is still another to come..what say ye.
God prophecies are not true because they are believed to be true by mankind.
The Old Testament prophecies are are fulfilled in the New Testament scriptures, The majority of Jewish people do not consider the New Testament to be true.
Christians understand the Old Testament and the New Testament to be all part of the same writing and there is no separation between them. For a christian, the Old tesatament is only part of the book.
for example in Jeremiah 31 there is a prophecy of the messianic age that will be upon the earth. Jews see this as yet fulfilled, but the writers of the New Testament proclaim these prophecies of the messianic age as fulfilled and upon them.
Here is an Old Testament prophecy that the Jews are yet awaiting...
Jeremiah 31:34
No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
This prophecy is propclaimed as fulfilled in the New Testament by the beloved disciple John.
1 John 2:27
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.
What the Jews or the christians believe doesn't have any relevance on making truth. And whether the Jews understand that Christ is the prophecied Messiah or not is irrelevant as to whether Christ is or not. What mankind believes is not what dictates truth in matters pertaining to God. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/2/2008 1:52:54 PM | | hi... this is how I see it... God and the Son and The Holy Spirit are ONE in Character, Mind, Purpose... Jesus came to earth so that man could see God in Person and see that God healed thesick and forgave and loved His enemies.... God says in the Bible that there is a veil between us and He now, due to sin.. Jesus is the Avocate between us and God... Jesus knows us by our commitment to know Him and thus He can go before The Father and speak on our behalf... mankind denied The Father but He gave us His Son... not only does God reopen an invitation to Eternal Life wwith Him and His Royal Family, He allowee His Son to come Personally with the invitation and to show us The Way to The Grand Party... blessings, warmly Mona | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/2/2008 1:58:13 PM | consigliere31
I am also a believer, just wanted the op to answer and those who took that point of view.
kinda baiting..... | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/3/2008 11:37:45 PM | In the words of a famous rabbi: "One can not ask reasonable and logical questions about myths." The story of Jesus is nothing new and it certainly is not Jewish. Krishna is the second person of the Hindu trinity. He is an avatar, the supreme being manifested in the flesh. The Vedic liturature predates Jesus by some 3000 years.
When Christians start quoting their scripture they are trying to prove a point that is based on fantasy, a story. Often they revert to the old ploy of "a text out of context is a pretext" and insist the Jewish Bible AKA "Old Testament" is somehow prophetic about their savior, when in fact it is not. Within the spirit of honest inquiry I have found that Christians can not explain their own belief and simply say that one must have faith. However, faith (belief) does not equal TRUTH. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/4/2008 2:38:39 PM | [The story of Jesus is nothing new and it certainly is not Jewish.]
YaacovYisrael, please expound upon your opinion of the statement you made that I quoted above.
I am surprised that in light of the growing evidence that certain fields of science are discovering that lends more and more credence to the story of Jesus, you would make that statement. I am very interested to hear of your non-evidence that gives more weight to the story of Jesus being exactly that and nothing more. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/4/2008 2:54:05 PM |
I am surprised that in light of the growing evidence that certain fields of science are discovering that lends more and more credence to the story of Jesus, you would make that statement. I am very interested to hear of your non-evidence that gives more weight to the story of Jesus being exactly that and nothing more.
I'm sure YaacovYisrael will respond to this but what "growing evidence?" Respectfully, apologists go over the same ground a lot but there is not a great deal of growing evidence in the mainstream of biblical archaeology that lends credence to the historicity of Jesus as described in the Gospels - note that I said "as in the Gospels."
More importantly, I think YaacovYisrael is maintaining the essential non-Jewish nature of the story of a sacrificed incarnated god-man. It fits in very well with neighbouring cultures but has nothing at all to do with the Hebrew faith. G-d doesn't become incarnated in men in Judaism, nor does the sacrifice of one man (or god-man) for another redeem anyone for any kind of sin (in fact this is expressly spoken out against in Ezekiel I believe). Somehow rationalizing the story to fit is the job of the apologist, understandibly.
Obviously there will be disagreement here, but hopefully the agreement to disagree can be maintained as there will likely be no middle ground to be found on this essential difference between the two faiths on the nature of sin and redemption, the nature of what sacrifice meant, and the essential nature of the one-ness and unity of G-d. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/4/2008 11:39:08 PM | I'm sure YaacovYisrael will respond to this but what "growing evidence?"
The growing circustantial evidence that is giving more and more credit to the story of Jesus not being a total, non-believing myth are more and more discoveries of more and more writings of the story that are being dated earlier and earlier.
There is no proof for the story of Jesus. That is a fact.
But understand this fact; papyri being dated older and older containing bits and pieces of phrases of New Testament passages are being discovered more and more often.
If that was not happening, if no discoveries were not being made except for what is being found in libraries on occassion, the story would absolutely be nothing but a myth. I would agree on that.
But that is not happening. The timeline for the story is being pushed back ever farther with each passing decade. That is a fact.  | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/4/2008 11:51:54 PM |
The growing circustantial evidence that is giving more and more credit to the story of Jesus not being a total, non-believing myth are more and more discoveries of more and more writings of the story that are being dated earlier and earlier.
There is no proof for the story of Jesus. That is a fact.
But understand this fact; papyri being dated older and older containing bits and pieces of phrases of New Testament passages are being discovered more and more often.
If that was not happening, if no discoveries were not being made except for what is being found in libraries on occassion, the story would absolutely be nothing but a myth. I would agree on that.
But that is not happening. The timeline for the story is being pushed back ever farther with each passing decade. That is a fact.
That's fair.
I am of the mind that there is likely some root element to the story that is likely true. I just don't personally believe that the story woven together by the Gospel authors bears much resemblance to it in the final version. Tales do indeed grow in the telling...if anything, despite the differences in theology, they do bear resemblance to Jewish stories in that they follow the structure of a midrash. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/6/2008 4:52:37 PM | ATTIS
Phrygia (aka Anatolia = modern Turkey). The worship of Cybele and Attis dated back centuries in Phrygia before it was imported to Rome in 204 BCE.
Roman writers mentioning the religion include: Lucretius (lived 98-54 BCE), Catullus (86-40 BCE), Varro (116-28 BCE), and Dionysus Halicarnasensis (first century BCE).
Attis predated Christ. Before and during the years the Christian Gospels were written (from the reign of Claudius, 41-54 CE) the Festival of Joy, celebrated Attis' death and rebirth yearly in Rome.
A Christian writer of the fourth century CE recounted ongoing disputes between Pagans and Christians over the remarkable similarities of the death and resurrection of their two gods. The Pagans argued that their God was older and therefore original. The Christians admitted Christ came later, but claimed Attis was a work of the devil whose similarity to Christ, and the fact he predated Christ, were intended to confuse and mislead men. This was apparently the stock answer, the Christian apologist Tertullian makes the same argument.
Attis was born of the Virgin Nana on December 25th. He was both the Father and the Divine Son. The Festival of Joy is the celebration of Attis' death and rebirth. On March 22 a pine tree was brought to the sanctuary of Cybele, on it hung the effigy of Attis. The God was dead. Two days of mourning followed, but when night fell on the eve of the third day, the worshippers turned to joy. "For suddenly a light shone in the darkness; the tomb was opened; the God had risen from the dead...[and the priest] softly whispered in their ears the glad tidings of salvation. The resurrection of the God was hailed by his disciples as a promise that they too would issue triumphant from the corruption of the grave." [For more see Frazer, Attis, chapter 1]
Attis' worshipers ate a sacramental meal of bread and wine. The wine represented the God's blood; the bread became the body of the savior. They were baptized in this way: a bull was placed over a grating, the devotee stood under the grating. The bull was stabbed with a consecrated spear. "It's hot reeking blood poured in torrents through the apertures and was received with devout eagerness by the worshiper...who had been born again to eternal life and had washed away his sins in the blood of the bull." [For more see Frazer, Attis, chapter 1]
Called the "Good Sheppard", the "Most High God", the "Only Begotten Son" and "Savior." [In Rome the new birth and the remission of sins by shedding of bull's blood took place on what is now Vatican Hill, in our days the site of the great basilica of St. Peter's.]
MITHRAS
Originally Persian, when the Christ myth was new Mithras and Mithraism were already ancient. Worshiped for centuries as God's Messenger of Truth, Mithras was long revered by the Persians (Zoroastrianism) and the Indians (see the Vedic literature).
Dating Mithras in Rome, Plutarch (Pompey, 24, 7) and Servilius (Georgics, 4, 127) say Pompey imported Mithraism into Rome after defeating the Cilician pirates around 70 BCE. Mithras appears epigraphically in the circles of the Roman emperor in the first century CE, around the time the canonical Christian Gospels were written (Corpus Incscriptionum Latinarum, 6, 732), and statues of the God were present by 101 CE (Corpus Incscriptionum Latinarum, 6, 718). As with Attis, Christian apologist Justin (1 Apologia, 66, 4) denounces the devil for having sent a God so similar to Jesus, yet preceding him.
Sadly there's a lot we don't know about this faith that comforted millions of souls. Early Christians established the dominance of their religion by exterminating Mithras' faithful, razing His temples, burning His sacred texts. We do know this: with twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men. He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead, an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing.
Every year in Rome, in the middle of winter, the Son of God was born one more, putting an end to darkness. Every year at first minute of December 25th the temple of Mithras was lit with candles, priests in white garments celebrated the birth of the Son of God and boys burned incense. Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was known as "Savior", "Son of God", "Redeemer" and "Lamb of God".
His followers kept the Sabbath holy, eating sacramental meals in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.
Baptism in the blood of the bull (taurobolum) - early. Baptism "washed in the blood of the Lamb" - late. Baptism by water [recorded by the Christian author Tertullian].
Mithraic rituals brought about the transformation. salvation and an ascent of the soul of the adherent into the realm of the divine. From the wall of a Mithraic temple in Rome: "And thou hast saved us by shedding the eternal blood." The great Mithraic festivals celebrated his birth (at the winter solstice) and his death and resurrection (at the spring solstice). | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/7/2008 8:30:09 AM | | my only question is if christianity is decended from judeism then why do christians not celebrate Hanukkah why was that abandoned cause they all agree up to the whole christ thing...but then christ was a jew so he celebrated it im sure | |
|
| |
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/7/2008 9:01:35 AM | my only question is if christianity is decended from judeism then why do christians not celebrate Hanukkah why was that abandoned cause they all agree up to the whole christ thing...but then christ was a jew so he celebrated it im sure
I think it's a "given" that Jesus (and most, if not all, of the first disciples and apostles) celebrated all the Jewish Festivals of their day. Jesus had great respect for the Jewish faith and honoured it. His only conflict with the Jewish "religion" appeared to be with the onerous burden placed on the people by the leaders, the hypocrisy of those leaders, and the way in which they prevented peo0ple from coming to God. The meeting at Jerusalem (often called the "First Council") referred to in Acts was in regard to Gentile Christians and how they should act in regard to Jewish Christians. The advice given indicates a sincere respect for Jewish dietary laws. The message is clear - while unnecessary for Christians, respect the sensibilities of the Jewish Christians. So, my conclusion is that Christianity should respect Judaism without needing to be a part of it. To me, we are one family under God, and while there is "neither Jew nor Greek" in Christ, love drives us to respect the differences and honour them wherever possible.
As for Christians today celebrating Hanukkah or any other Jewish festival, Christianity has historically moved away from those early Jewish roots and thus Jewish traditions aren't part of the whole, but some Christians do celebrate as part of their expression of their faith, some Christians don't celebrate regularly but engage when invited (me, for example), and some acknowledge the importance of such festivals but don't engage. I see no conflict in either position.
Ad for Mithras and Attis, coincidence doesn't make fact. :smile: | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/7/2008 11:14:52 AM |
I'm sure YaacovYisrael will respond to this but what "growing evidence?" Respectfully, apologists go over the same ground a lot but there is not a great deal of growing evidence in the mainstream of biblical archaeology that lends credence to the historicity of Jesus as described in the Gospels - note that I said "as in the Gospels."
More importantly, I think YaacovYisrael is maintaining the essential non-Jewish nature of the story of a sacrificed incarnated god-man. It fits in very well with neighbouring cultures but has nothing at all to do with the Hebrew faith. G-d doesn't become incarnated in men in Judaism, nor does the sacrifice of one man (or god-man) for another redeem anyone for any kind of sin (in fact this is expressly spoken out against in Ezekiel I believe). Somehow rationalizing the story to fit is the job of the apologist, understandibly.
Obviously there will be disagreement here, but hopefully the agreement to disagree can be maintained as there will likely be no middle ground to be found on this essential difference between the two faiths on the nature of sin and redemption, the nature of what sacrifice meant, and the essential nature of the one-ness and unity of G-d.
Just trying to form some type of agreement between Christianity and Judaism....
in regards to 'kinsmen redeemer' as being a 'seed doctrine' based in Judaism..... This concept is made from the law of Jubilee that is written in Leviticus 25....
48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. One of his relatives may redeem him: 49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself.
This concept of mankind's redemption through the atonement of a Savior does come from the law, both the law of Jubilee and also the law of atonement that puts away sin.
The law of atonement contains nothing in regards to 'penalty for sin' or substitution of one for anothers sin....but is a law that has but one purpose and that is to put away sin and destroy it.
The substitution concept comes from the law of Jubilee and has to do with . 'being related' and in the case of Christianity, the law of Jubilee is about God becoming 'related with' mankind in order that the law of Jubilee is fulfilled. This law of Jubilee is all a necessary part of Christ's mission in fulfilling the law to the jot and tittle. Not to mention speaks of the necessity of being of the same 'blood relations' as those who are to be redeemed. The very fact that a law of being a 'blood relative' is necessary in what is called 'kinsmen redemption',.... speaks of the Savior as needing to become human by relations to the human race as a whole. Only a spirit being would need to become human.
In regards to the unity of God, I a;lso understand the same 'shema' being a Christian as I think that the Judaism belief proclaims....
Judaism shema says...
Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
Christian shema says....
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
The thing is as a christian understanding, being One God the Father doesn't negate the fact that the Father is Lord, neither does One Lord, Jesus Christ, negate the fact that Christ is God. | |
|
| |
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/8/2008 8:58:44 PM |
Seems to me, that everybody is trying to prove that a BOOK is wrong from another BOOK...
Well that's a bit of an oversimplification...but I guess lacking any substantial evidence to the contrary...yeah that's pretty much the size of it.
Let's call the Jews Group A
Let's call the Christians Group B
Group A has a set of beliefs and frankly could care less whether anyone else believes in them or not so long as they are left alone to believe in them and practice them freely without being killed. This was not always the case but is now.
Group B loosely bases it's beliefs on the beliefs of Group A and some other things - BUT - is compelled by what's written in it's new book to go out and tell everyone about it, including all the people in Group A (who incidently were portrayed as necessary villains in Group B's new book). They tell Group A that they know Group A's teachings better than Group A does and "re-interpret them" to make them fit the new story for Group B. Group A says "Whatever, schmucks...just don't bother us." Group B says back "Heathens, we'll get you in the end" and proceeds to pick off group A a bit at a time for two millenia but slowly becoming more peaceful about it.
So mostly its Group B, trying to prove that Group A doesn't know their own beliefs because Group B needs their own ideas about Group A's beliefs to be right for Group B's new religion to work. Group A doesn't need Group B's revisions for their religion to work...it works just fine on its own and has for a long time...Further to that as Group A's religion now broadly encourages questioning and change, it is "self-correcting."
So it's not "everybody."
Just some folks. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/8/2008 9:54:40 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?
{I understand the trinity but I do not understand the need to divide what is one. That is what eludes me here.}
I ask you a question, myself, "Why do you see the need for dividing what is One?" There is no need, my friend.
"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.
 The boys got it, me thinks!!!
The ten commandments show us our need for a Savior, exposing how we can never be what our own hearts and mind tells us that is what we should be...while the Word tells us how we can be through Christ...
Maybe I said it best earlier in this post. I do not understand how Christians came from monotheism to a 3-in-1 God. I'm told that Jesus died, God raised him from the dead, Jesus went to heaven and now sits as Gods right hand man. What!? Since when did God need a right hand man?
Need a right hand man? GOD doesnt NEED anything. JC is simply there.
God doesn't need Him. God Is God. Jesus Christ Is His "Begotten" Son Who Is there, by His side.
Can I getta "This is Deep?" Who-Who | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/8/2008 10:14:21 PM | I hope I can shed some light on your question.......
Jesus said at one point that he and God were "One"........
If you take what he said... literally..... He IS Elohim in the flesh.....
Up to them The Lord Jehovah was realting to us as a "spirit being"....
After Jesus was born, he could now relate to us as a human would.
I hope some of this helps you.....
If you have any more questions, PLEASE do not hesitate to let me know...
Alex Harb | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/8/2008 10:51:32 PM |
Jesus said at one point that he and God were "One"........
If you take what he said... literally..... He IS Elohim in the flesh.....
Yeah but that poses a problem. The Greek word "hen", which was used in that text can mean of one mind, united in agreement...it requires context.
Jesus also used that same word to describe the other apostles as "hen" or one with Him. Does that mean that they ARE Elohim, in the flesh? How would one know? The sentence structure is exactly the same. Does it just mean it in one place because we want it to be what we want it to mean in one place or not in the other? Or is the simple explanation, that Jesus, raised and taught as a Jew who would recite the Sh'ma daily, would not say something like he was one and the same as God - a concept that would not exist in Jewish belief but would be entertained by their pagan next door neighbours...not that there's anything wrong with that.
From www.jewsforjudaism.org:
Question: In John 10:30 Jesus says, "I and the Father are one [hen]." Doesn't this show that they are one in essence?
This statement does not suggest either a dual or triune deity. What John's Jesus meant by the word hen ("one") becomes clear from his prayer concerning the apostles: "That they may be one [hen], just as we are one [hen]" (John 17:22), which means that they should be united in agreement with one another as he (Jesus) is always united in agreement with God, as stated: "I [Jesus] always do the things that are pleasing to Him [God]" (John 8:29).
There is thus no implication that Jesus and God, or the twelve apostles are to be considered as of one essence.
http://yourmediatube.com/godtitle.htm | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/9/2008 12:31:14 AM |
Yeah but that poses a problem. The Greek word "hen", which was used in that text can mean of one mind, united in agreement...it requires context.
Jesus also used that same word to describe the other apostles as "hen" or one with Him. Does that mean that they ARE Elohim, in the flesh? How would one know? The sentence structure is exactly the same. Does it just mean it in one place because we want it to be what we want it to mean in one place or not in the other? Or is the simple explanation, that Jesus, raised and taught as a Jew who would recite the Sh'ma daily, would not say something like he was one and the same as God - a concept that would not exist in Jewish belief but would be entertained by their pagan next door neighbours...not that there's anything wrong with that.
I'm beginning to see how this specific usage of 'hen' is not necessarily an arguement in favor of the Trinity. The context of the entire gospel of John regarding this 'oneness' does seem to merit what you are saying. I find it interesting that Jesus who knew all things would ask His accusers why they were passing a judgment worthy of death on Him. And I find it even more interesting that Jesus would refer to men being called gods in the law, as his initial response to thier accusation....
However i don't see how this concept can be denied......
There is thus no implication that Jesus and God, or the twelve apostles are to be considered as of one essence.
| |
|
|
|
Home
login 
