The Four Gods of Fundamentalism
Mark T
1. God the Father who is holy and spirit and therefore holy spirit ... but
not the same as number 3
2. God the Son, Messiah of God ... so therefore the God of God (if Messiah =
God) ... and also the Word of God ... but not the same as number 4
3. God the Holy Spirit ... who inspired number 4 ... but is not the same as
number 1
4. The Bible, the Word of God ... apparently equal to all the above ... but
not the same as number 2
Very confusing!!!!!!
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"Mark T" <www...@tdoyoumean.2176> wrote in message
news:4339e50f$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Fundamentalists have four Gods ......
Wrong!
True ones, have
Eph.4: "5ONE Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 ONE God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you
all."
Jeff...
Mark T
>> Fundamentalists have four Gods ......
..... replacing snipped bit ...........
Very confusing!!!!!!
> Eph.4: "5ONE Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 ONE God and Father of all,
> who is above >all, and through all, and in you all."
The ONE God YHWH would be nice.
Number 23:19 - "God is not a man"
Jesus of Nazareth is a man.
Jesus said "God is Spirit" (John 4:24)
Why do fundamentalists ignore what The Old Testament and Jesus the Messiah
both say
about God???
Then there are the other bible verses that fundamentalists ignore
................
Jn.14:28 "My FATHER (GOD) is GREATER than I (JESUS)."
1 Cor.11:3 "The HEAD of CHRIST is GOD."
1 Tim.2:5 "For there is ONE GOD, and ONE MEDIATOR between GOD and men, THE
MAN CHRIST JESUS."
Col.3:1 "CHRIST sitteth on the right hand of GOD."
Jn. 8:40 "But now ye seek to kill ME (JESUS), a MAN that hath told you the
truth, which I (JESUS) have heard of GOD."
Acts 17:31 "Because he (GOD) hath appointed a day, in the which he (GOD)
will judge the world in righteousness by that MAN (Jesus) whom he (GOD) hath
ordained; whereof he (GOD) hath given assurance unto all men, in that he
(GOD) hath raised him (JESUS) from the dead."
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a MAN"
Romans 5:19 "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many
were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one MAN (JESUS) the
many will be made righteous."
John 20:17 "I ascend to my (JESUS') Father (GOD) and your Father, and my
(JESUS') GOD and your GOD"
1 Cor. 15:28 "When he (GOD) has done this, then the Son (JESUS) himself
will be made subject to him (GOD) who put everything under him, so that GOD
may be all in all."
John 17:3 "that they might know you (GOD), the ONLY TRUE GOD, and JESUS
CHRIST whom you (GOD) have sent"
John 10:36 "Do you say of him (JESUS) whom the Father (GOD) SANCTIFIED and
sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming' because I said 'I am the SON of
GOD'"? (Why does Jesus need sanctifying if he is God already?)
Philippians 2:6 "He (JESUS) did not consider EQUALITY with GOD something
to be grasped."
Luke 18:19 "Why do you call me (JESUS) good? No one is good except GOD
alone."
1 Corinthians 3:23 "and you belong to CHRIST; and CHRIST belongs to GOD"
Ephesians 4:5 - 6 says there is "one LORD (JESUS), one faith, one baptism,
one GOD AND FATHER of all (LORD GOD)."
Luke 12:10: "And everyone who speaks a word against the SON OF MAN (JESUS)
will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the HOLY
SPIRIT (GOD) will not be forgiven."
John 7:16: "My (JESUS) teaching is not my (JESUS) own. It comes from HIM
(GOD) who sent ME (JESUS)."
John 14:1 "Trust in GOD; trust also in ME (JESUS)."
Acts 7:56 "the SON OF MAN (JESUS) standing at the right hand of GOD"
Rom. 16:27: "To the ONLY WISE GOD be glory forever through JESUS CHRIST
1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is but ONE GOD, the FATHER...and there
is but one LORD, JESUS CHRIST."
Acts 2:36 "GOD has made this JESUS ... both LORD (BOSS NOT GOD) and
CHRIST."
John 5:44 (JESUS speaking to GOD) "the ONLY GOD (FATHER)"
Jude Alexander
"Mark T" <www...@tdoyoumean.2176> wrote in message
news:4339e50f$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Ain't that the truth...
Griz
> Fundamentalists have four Gods ......
>
> 1. God the Father who is holy and spirit and therefore holy spirit
>... but
> not the same as number 3
>
> 2. God the Son, Messiah of God ... so therefore the God of God (if
>Messiah =
> God) ... and also the Word of God ... but not the same as number 4
>
> 3. God the Holy Spirit ... who inspired number 4 ... but is not the
>same as
> number 1
>
> 4. The Bible, the Word of God ... apparently equal to all the above
>... but
> not the same as number 2
>
>
> Very confusing!!!!!!
>
It is quite profound when people professing to be wise stand up to denounce
a particular group of people and through their denounciation willingly show
that their basic understanding of so many of that group's fundamentals are
so wrong, that they invalidate their own witness.
God the Father - God manifest in Heaven
God the Son - God manifest in flesh for our Salvation
God the Holy Spirit - the power of God manifest on this physical plane
One God -- manifest in three distinct ways, for three distinct purposes.
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Roy Mock
"Griz" <gr...@nosklem.cois.on.ca> wrote in message
news:11jlrbb...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Fundamentalists have four Gods ......
>>
>> 1. God the Father who is holy and spirit and therefore holy spirit
>>... but
>> not the same as number 3
>>
>> 2. God the Son, Messiah of God ... so therefore the God of God (if
>>Messiah =
>> God) ... and also the Word of God ... but not the same as number 4
>>
>> 3. God the Holy Spirit ... who inspired number 4 ... but is not the
>>same as
>> number 1
>>
>> 4. The Bible, the Word of God ... apparently equal to all the above
>>... but
>> not the same as number 2
>>
>>
>> Very confusing!!!!!!
>>
>
> It is quite profound when people professing to be wise stand up to
> denounce
> a particular group of people and through their denounciation willingly
> show
> that their basic understanding of so many of that group's fundamentals are
> so wrong, that they invalidate their own witness.
>
> God the Father - God manifest in Heaven
Csn you expand a little here with scriptural references?
> God the Son - God manifest in flesh for our Salvation
> God the Holy Spirit - the power of God manifest on this physical plane
And here as well?
> One God -- manifest in three distinct ways, for three distinct purposes.
This sounds like Modalism in it's purist sense.
Cheers.
Bogus Fracture
Violence
Patriarchy
Pornography
BF
Jude Alexander
The PRIMARY declaration of belief in God is that there is only ONE
God. Jesus didn't talk to Himself when He prayed.
Mark T
> God the Son - God manifest in flesh for our Salvation
Number 23:19 - "God is not a man"
Jesus of Nazareth is a man.
Jesus said "God is Spirit" (John 4:24)
Why do you ignore what The Old testament and Jesus the Messiah both say
about God???
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark T
> The PRIMARY declaration of belief in God is that there is only ONE
> God. Jesus didn't talk to Himself when He prayed.
This then, is how you should pray:
Our Jesus who is our God in Heavin,
Hello to your name,
Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,
Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,
Jesus,
Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,
Jesus,
Your Trew Kristyun country, the USA, become great forever and ever Amen
Fundamentalists' will be done on earth as it is in Trew Kristyun Heavin
Give us today our daily interest on our invested money in oil shares,
"In Oil We Trust"
Forgive us our debts as we also have forgotten to pay them
And lead us not into the temptation of disbelieving the Bible - ever!
But deliver us from new age, pagan, secular humanist, evolutionists
And evil liberal Christians
OOPS!
Wrong one!!!!!
"This then, is how you should pray:
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done on earth as it is in heaven
Give us today our daily bread
Forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors
and lead us not into temptation
but deliver us from the evil one."
Mark T
> Anxiety
> Violence
> Patriarchy
> Pornography
Yep! Those too! ;-)
~*~ FUNDAMENTALIST LINKS ~*~ - 2005
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BEST FUNDAMENTALIST PORN SITES
Bible Sex Stories
http://www.biblesexstories.com/
Treasury of Geriatric Erotica
http://www.chickenhead.com/stuff/gerotica/index.html
The World's First Christian Pornography Archives
http://www.recoveryman.com/dox/porn.htm
Virtual Pox
http://www.virtualpox.net/
Growing Dumberer
http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/
BEST FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCHES
True Christian Church
http://www.truechristian.com/index.html
Landover Baptist ...Unsaved Unwelcome!
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
Broomleigh Baptist Church
http://church.broomleigh.org/
McChurch Tabernacle
http://www.mcchurch.com/
First Church of the Last Laugh
http://www.saintstupid.com/
Official Fundamentalist Webpage
http://www.geocities.com/ruins_of_faith/fundamentalists
Fundamentalist Application Form
http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/fundy.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BEST FUNDAMENTALIST PRODUCTS
God Co.
http://www.angelfire.com/pq/godco/frames.html
Cheesy Jesus - Truly God awful stuff to buy
http://www.cheesyjesus.com/online-store/scstore/
Snake Oil Guide To Kooky Kontemporary Kristian Kulture
http://www.devilsweb.com/snakeoil/index.html
Jesus Museum
http://www.jesusmuseum.com/
Soylent Green Biscuit Co.
http://www.soylent-green.com/
666 Cough Syrup
http://www.deuceofclubs.com/write/666.htm
Dickheads
http://www.dickheads.com.au/
Robert Tilton Video
http://strange.timetrip.net/?entry=tilton
The ORIGINAL Illustrated Catalog Of ACME Products
http://home.nc.rr.com/tuco/looney/acme/acme.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BEST FUNDAMENTALIST BIBLICAL HELPS
Biblical Curse Generator
http://www.ship-of-fools.com/Features/Curses/Curses_body.html
Could YOU be the Antichrist?
http://www.recoveryman.com/
Woo-Woo Credo
http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html
Dr Evil Soundboard
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/drevil.html
Hells Homepage
http://www.sff.net/people/pitman/hell.htm
Tourist Guide To Hell
http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/12U1.html
Precious Hymns of Denial
http://www.recoveryman.com/dox/music.htm
Prayers, Hymns and Poems
http://www.nobeliefs.com/creativePrayer.htm
Scratch & Sniff
http://www.slabearkazad.com/sniff/
Lark News - "A good source for Christian news"
http://larknews.com/
Fundyland
http://fundyland.tripod.com/index.htm
People Against Fun
http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_electronics/savesummer/paintdrying.asp
Christ's Love
http://www.christslove.com/cl1.htm
Where's Christ?
http://www.fadetoblack.com/christ/christ2.htm
Jesus Dress up
http://www.jesusdressup.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Griz
>The PRIMARY declaration of belief in God is that there is only ONE
>God. Jesus didn't talk to Himself when He prayed.
Yet is God, who is ONE, "large" enough to exist outside of parameters we can
understand? We are told that the Christ came in the form of a servant -- in
the form of a mere man -- and willingly submitted Himself to that role.
That would have meant setting aside much of the Glory of God in order to do
so. Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and the Father when he
said that only the Father knew the day and the hour, and that he served not
his will, but the Father's -- and also at the point where he asked for the
cup the Father had placed before him, to pass. Jesus existed AS a
man in the flesh, both as an atonement sacrifice for us AND as an example:
so Jesus talked to the Father who remained unseen in Heaven, just as those
seeking a similar relationship with Him do today.
Jesus was showing us how men and women of flesh, could commune with the
Father who is Spirit.
He was also showing us how a man or woman of flesh could be infilled with
the power of God's Holy Spirit for the accomplishment of many Spiritual
tasks and feats (not just the "miraculous" but also the resisting of evil
and submission to the Father's will) that the flesh simply wasn't up to on
it's own.
I would suggest that the problem of understanding how Jesus, being all the
fullness of the Deity, could pray to the Father and not be talking to
himself
may be rooted first of all in not being able to "allow" God to exist beyond
our understanding, and secondly in the possible misunderstanding of just why
Jesus came.
We each need to ask ourselves just how "large" we are willing to let God be,
and what the main reasons are that Jesus came.
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Jude Alexander
> Jude said:
>
> >The PRIMARY declaration of belief in God is that there is only ONE
> >God. Jesus didn't talk to Himself when He prayed.
>
> Yet is God, who is ONE, "large"
No, ONE as in ONE, Griz, not as in LARGE. There are not 3
personalities in God. God is does not have some holy version of split
personality disorder. There is ONLY one. Jesus never was nor is not
God. The trinity was not a concept until after the apostolic age.
When Jesus said the Father and I are one, He mean as in union. It's a
figure of speech to denote unity and that Jesus lived in the will of
God.
It's not about being beyond our understanding. It's IS about our
understanding that there is ONLY ONE God, and that is the Creator of
all things.
Griz
>> Yet is God, who is ONE, "large"
>
>No, ONE as in ONE, Griz, not as in LARGE. There are not 3
>personalities in God. God is does not have some holy version of split
>personality disorder. There is ONLY one.
To continue, I said:
>Yet is God, who is ONE, "large" enough to exist outside of parameters we
>can understand?
There are not three personalities as in split-personality disorder or
schizophrenia -- for the "personality" is "God" and God is One. But there
are three distinct "persons" as shown by the times in Scripture when they
are seen either side by side, or in contrast to one another. Such as when
Jesus said that only the Father knew the day and the time of the fulfillment
of all things. The split between them was also apparent when Jesus' flesh
asked for the cup to be taken from him, and also when he died.
>>Jesus never was nor is not
>>God. The trinity was not a concept until after the apostolic age.
>>When Jesus said the Father and I are one, He mean as in union. It's a
>>figure of speech to denote unity and that Jesus lived in the will of
>>God.
To maintain this stance one would first have to have a process practiced by
which segments of Scripture that did not agree with what one had already
accepted as truth, could be discounted or re-translated. Scripture like:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing
came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
How can our Creation and our Saviour and our Life and the Light of men,
simply be another man? And the only way idolatry could be avoided in the
worship of Jesus, is if He were more than just another man. (Or as the JW's
believe, an angel -- overlooking that angel-worship is still idolatry).
Only God is worthy of our worship and praise.
My concern for you is that by whatever means, you already have this
"dismissaal process" as an active part of your faith. If something doesn't
fit what you've decided will be, it is rather speedily abandoned for any
number of reasons. That is still a god of self at the helm, whereby all
other things can be counted as erroneous so that the self may remain
"right".
Contrast that with being willing to be the one in error (or the one lacking
understanding), so that God may be "right". It is the age-old conflict of
self wanting to sit on the throne of our lives over God.
It can be quite easy to discount Jesus proclaimation of being one with the
Father as figurative had it only been an isolated case. But Jesus goes on
to declare equality with God several times. When He asked the mob in the
Garden who they had come for and He proclaimed "I Am He", why do you think
they fell prostrate as one would before God? Not just once, but twice!
That is not "normal" for an armed and angry mob who has just been told they
have found the object of their hatred. There was something else going on in
that proclamation "I Am He" -- for "I Am" is one of God's names given at the
time of Israel's exodus from Egypt.
Look Jude, I know that we both aspire to different belief-systems, different
Gods, different Saviours. And we could probably debate back and forth for
years. Am I correct that it appears you believe Jesus the Saviour was just
a man?
My assertion is that He is God. I relate to God as Triune, and it
is by the power of His Spirit that I bear witness to Him -- the idea of
letting the fruit a person bears be a measure of whether their faith is the
genuine article or not.
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Jude Alexander
> Jude said:
>
> >> Yet is God, who is ONE, "large"
> >
> >No, ONE as in ONE, Griz, not as in LARGE. There are not 3
> >personalities in God. God is does not have some holy version of
split
> >personality disorder. There is ONLY one.
>
> To continue, I said:
> >Yet is God, who is ONE, "large" enough to exist outside of
parameters we
> >can understand?
>
> There are not three personalities as in split-personality disorder
or
> schizophrenia -- for the "personality" is "God" and God is One. But
there
> are three distinct "persons" as shown by the times in Scripture when
they
> are seen either side by side, or in contrast to one another. Such
as when
> Jesus said that only the Father knew the day and the time of the
fulfillment
> of all things. The split between them was also apparent when Jesus'
flesh
> asked for the cup to be taken from him, and also when he died.
Jesus was the SON of God, not God. Therefore being in the womb of
Mary of a human seed, He was human but also shared in God's nature as
Father. Two in one. Jesus was not God. Jesus prayed to God, spoke
of God and always distinquished Himself FROM God. It's is "John" who
first claimed that Jesus was God/Creator.
You believe John. I don't. I believe that the words of Jesus were
probably passed forward pretty intact and I choose to believe what
Jesus has been reported as saying. I think I answered you last
question. Jesus is God's son meaning that somehow God imparted His
essence into the seed of Mary and started the splitting and growth of
the child, Joshua/Jesus.
Mark T
>>No, ONE as in ONE, Griz, not as in LARGE. There are not 3
>>personalities in God. God is does not have some holy version of split
>>personality disorder. There is ONLY one.
...
> There are not three personalities as in split-personality disorder or
> schizophrenia -- for the "personality" is "God" and God is One.
PARABLE - The Divine Escalator
If God is Jesus then the Divine Elevator looks like this.
God = God-1
Jesus the Christ = God-2
Holy Spirit =- God-3
First Floor = Heaven
Ground Level = Earth
Basement = Hell
The Old Testament
In the beginning God-1, from the first Floor created heaven (??? - I
thought he lived in heaven???) and the earth and God-3 came down from the
First Floor to the Ground Level and hovered over the waters but God-2 was
nowhere to be seen according to Genesis. God-1 came down from the First
Floor walked in the Garden of Eden on the Ground Level with Adam and Eve
although God-1 is a spirit and cannot be seen. God-2 and God-3 were
nowhere in the garden of Eden according to Genesis. The Garden of Eden and
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life mysteriously
vanish from the Ground Level of earth and cannot ne seen today ... along
with God-1, God-2 and God-3 who apperently all went to the First Floor
... although sometimes God-3 comes down to the Ground Level upon the
prophets and they prophesy ... and God-1 is sometimes comes down from the
Fisrt Floor to the Ground Level and is viewed as a cloud or burning bush
etc. ... but God 1, 2 and 3 are firmly back on the First floor by the end
of the Old Testament.
The New Testament
God 1,2 and 3 must have been busy between testaments as the Basement of
hell was created by the time of writing Matthew's gospel. God-1 in the
First Floor thinks it would be a good idea to send God -2 to the Ground
Level as God-2 has not been to earth before (his part in the creation of
the First Level and Ground Level must have been from the First Floor).
God-2 comes down to the Ground Level and when grown up God -3 visits him
to help him out at his baptism and with miracles etc. God -1 talks from
ther First Floor at God-2's baptism. God-3 then goes back to the First
Floor to await futher instructions. God-2 is murdered on a cross. God-1
raises God-2 from death and helps God-2 to visit the Basement (first
time any God has visited the Basement according to the bible). God-2
comes up the Divine Elevator to Ground Level but cannot be touched according
to his encounter with Mary (Has he travelled to the Fisrt Floor and back to
Ground Level by the time he sees Thomas and asks Thomas to touch his hands
and feet??? ) God-2 promises to send God-3 when he goes up the Divine
Elevator to the First Floor and sits by God-1's right hand side waiting
for the time when God-1 sends God-2 to go back down the Divine Elevator
to Ground Level and take all the Trew Kristyuns back to the First Floor and
send the naughty people to the Basement (also by Divine Elevator). God-2
sends God-3 to the Ground Level.
According to the bible the Divine Elevator is very busy in all this. The
First Floor is just beyond the blue dome when God-1 peers out through
holes in the night time (they aren't really stars up there!) The Basement
is
below the earth (as the Ground Level is not flat as they supposed this means
that hell is in the centre of the earth).
Ben Mitts
That's odd, the Word of God says Jesus is God
in many places in God's Word:
Isaiah 9:6
6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His
name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
John 20-27-28
27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger,
and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it
into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."
28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my
God!"
Rom 9:5
5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ
according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed
forever. Amen.
Matt 1:21-23
21 "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus,
for He will save His people from their sins."
22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the
Lord through the prophet:
23 "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND
SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME
IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."
Titus 2:13
13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the
glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
Interesting, dont you think? There are some 19
or more Verses naming Jesus as God! Wouldn't
it be nice if you would take the time to read The
Word of God yourself rather than just making
flat out statements that have no backing?
Now, if any ask you if Jesus Christ is God you
can show them these verses to prove you are
right in saying He is! Wont that be fun, hey!
Just thought I would help you to better under
stand who Jesus Christ really is!
Have a great day in the Lord Jesus Christ!
--
Peace!
Sincerely,
Ben mitts
"Feed your faith,.... Starve your doubts"
From The Word of God: And as Moses lifted up the serpent
in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted
up; that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life."
Similarly, God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotten Son, that who ever believes in Him should not
perish, but Have eternal life. Another: God did not send
the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the
world should be saved through Him. He spoke elsewhere:
I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me
shall live, even if he dies, and everyone who lives and
believes in Me shall never die. Believe you this?
Therefore we may, as many will to do so: "But as many as
received Him, to them He gave the right to become child-
ren of God, even to those who believe in His name,"
(John 1:12)
Mark T
> That's odd, the Word of God says Jesus is God
> in many places in God's Word:
Not as many places as those that say Jesus ISN'T God ....
> "Feed your faith,.... Starve your doubts"
Feed your mind, starve your rabid fundamentalism.
Jude Alexander
"Ben Mitts" <benm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:433C890...@sbcglobal.net...
Ben, the bible isn't the "word of God." It has errors and God doesn't
commit errors. It is a book written by 40 plus authors over 10s of
thousands of years. It is a valuable book but not inerrant.
how can I explain the many contradictions betwee biblical authors? I
don't even try. Perhaps, they got confused because obviously Jesus is
part of God's essence and Mary's humanity. I don't know and don't try
to figure out anything beyond God is the Creator and Jesus, his Son,
the Christ. Anything beyond that is interesting, good to contemplate
and to ponder over but that's it with me. Actually, I have enjoyed
many many an hour reading the bible as well as many an hours being
horrified at some of the things outlined in the bible. I have enjoyed
studying it but I know it has errors.
Ben Mitts
You say you have spent many an hour reading
The Bible and say it has many errors in it. Okay!
How do you say the verses I gave you to prove
The Written Word of God states Jesus Christ is
God are still in error. Do you just assume these
verses are wrong just as you think Gods written
Word is wrong
If you dont want to accept this, it is your right
to do so, but please dont say Jesus is not God
when the written Word of God says He is.
Have a good day!
Jude Alexander
I've spend many a year reading the bible and it DOES have many human
errors that are common to people. It is a book written by 40 plus
authors over 10s of thousands of years about the author's perception
of God. The fact that their perception was sometimes wrong doesn't
negate that there is a God.
The fact that many people have poured over the Jewish Bible to try and
understand Messanic prophecies CAN NOT be used to say that Jesus was
God.
Tell me how does Jesus, who I believe was part of God and part of Mary
(both of the essence that is human and that is divine) talk to Himself
when he prayed? Well, even Fundies realize how absurd that is so some
came up with the Trinity concept. Everybody's God now. We've got
God, the Creator, God Jesus and God Holy Spirit and God bible
(complete and inerrant reflection of ALL of God's words to man and
complete and inerrant reflection of ALL of God's personality and
complete and inerrant relection of ALL of God's work.)
>
> If you dont want to accept this, it is your right
> to do so, but please dont say Jesus is not God
> when the written Word of God says He is.
There is NO written "word of God." The closest you could say that
would be the fact that the Jewish scribes wrote down the sayings of
the prophets who claimed they were speaking from God's mouth to
theirs. Do yourself a favor (I'm not being sarcastic) and look up
"word" in any bible search engine (Blue Letter is my favorite) and
that will get you the times "word of God" appears. It's referred most
often to the "word" of God as being the prophetic sayings coming out
of a prophet. Even so, there are LOTS of people who suffer from
temporal lobe seisure that go around naked telling people that God has
a message. I've actually even met one guy like that while I worked at
JYC in downtown Philadelphia.
> Have a good day!
You have the absolute same kind of day you want me to have!
el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)
Jude Alexander wrote:
>
> Tell me how does Jesus, who I believe was part of God and part of Mary
> (both of the essence that is human and that is divine) talk to Himself
> when he prayed? Well, even Fundies realize how absurd that is so some
> came up with the Trinity concept.
hi jude.
couple of questions:
1) if Jesus is divine - doesn't that mean God? having the nature of
or being a deity? if not - then how are you using the term or do you
wish to say something else?
2) it wasn't because Jesus (the Son) talked to the Father which was
some puzzle or riddle so frustrating that a bunch of old world
fundamentalists came up with a Trinity concept. is that really your
understanding of the reasoning behind the Trinity concept?
peace.
pablo
Jude Alexander
"el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)" <rab...@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1128105782.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jude Alexander wrote:
>
> >
> > Tell me how does Jesus, who I believe was part of God and part of
Mary
> > (both of the essence that is human and that is divine) talk to
Himself
> > when he prayed? Well, even Fundies realize how absurd that is so
some
> > came up with the Trinity concept.
>
> hi jude.
> couple of questions:
>
> 1) if Jesus is divine - doesn't that mean God? having the nature
of
> or being a deity? if not - then how are you using the term or do
you
> wish to say something else?
The Son isn't the Father. The Son didn't exist before He was created.
He came into being. The Son comes FROM the Father and shares half of
his essence. From Mary, he got his humanity, from God, he shares in
God's divine essence but that doesn't make him God like some part of a
3 fold God head such the trinity like so many Fundies have purported
for about 1,800 years. That's the closest I can understand Jesus
being both human and sharing in God's divinity.
> 2) it wasn't because Jesus (the Son) talked to the Father which was
> some puzzle or riddle so frustrating that a bunch of old world
> fundamentalists came up with a Trinity concept. is that really your
> understanding of the reasoning behind the Trinity concept?
It is more than likely that the trinity concept started with "John"
who claimed that Jesus was God Himself and that He created the
Universe.
The Holy Spirit thing is bit more confusing as the Holy Spirit OF God
turned into the Holy Spirit another PERSON of God. In one gospel,
Jesus breaths on the apostles and says receive holy spirit. From the
text it seems like that what Jesus was refering to some sort of
essence, empowerment. In a psalm it says "Cast me not away from thy
presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me." It doesn't say "take
not THE Holy Spirit." This seems like don't leave and take your holy
essence/enpowerment/discernment of you away. It seems like calling
the presence and sense of God and his power and/or other gifts was
calling Holy Spirit. John has "And when he had said this, he breathed
on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosoever
sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins]
ye retain, they are retained." The remittance and retainin of sins is
tied into receiving the Holy Spirit/power of God.
To me the Holy Spirit OF God, the ONE God, the Creator is the holy
essence of God which would carry with it spiritual empowerment and
gifts as well as the discernment of God's presence.
> peace.
> pablo
>
Mark T
> please dont say Jesus is not God when the written Word of God says He is.
Jesus is not God. The written "Word of God" says so ....
Mark T
> 1) if Jesus is divine - doesn't that mean God? having the nature of
> or being a deity?
No.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from http://www.answers.com/topic/divine
di·vine (di-vin')
adj., -vin·er, -vin·est.
1..
1.. Having the nature of or being a deity.
2.. Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity:
sought divine guidance through meditation.
3.. Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
2.. Superhuman; godlike.
3..
1.. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of
the concerto.
2.. Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.
4.. Heavenly; perfect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Angels are divine but not God. It is meanings 1.b and 1.c that
fundamentalists do not understand. Jesus was divine in that sense.
> 2) it wasn't because Jesus (the Son) talked to the Father which was
> some puzzle or riddle so frustrating that a bunch of old world
> fundamentalists came up with a Trinity concept.
No ... it was of various combined origin .... Platonism and Gentile
misunderstanding of the term Logos .... & the fact that Caesar was
worshipped as Lord & son of God by Gentiles ... and the fact that Zeus and
the pantheon were human gods that Genmtiles could see (unlike YHWH who is
invisible). It came from the Gentile Christians (Paul and co) rather than
the Jewish Christians (Peter, James, John). Compare Mark (Jewish origin)
with John's gospel (Gentile origin) to see the difference ... it looks like
they are talking about two completely different beings!!!!!
Number 23:19 - "God is not a man"
Jesus of Nazareth is a man.
Jesus said "God is Spirit" (John 4:24)
Are you saying that Jesus of Nazareth is a spirit???? For that is what is
required for Jesus (visible man) to be God (invisible spirit).
el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)
> "el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)" <rab...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:1128105782.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Jude Alexander wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Tell me how does Jesus, who I believe was part of God and part of
> Mary
> > > (both of the essence that is human and that is divine) talk to
> Himself
> > > when he prayed? Well, even Fundies realize how absurd that is so
> some
> > > came up with the Trinity concept.
> >
> > hi jude.
> > couple of questions:
> >
> > 1) if Jesus is divine - doesn't that mean God? having the nature
> of
> > or being a deity? if not - then how are you using the term or do
> you
> > wish to say something else?
>
> The Son isn't the Father.
agreed.
> The Son didn't exist before He was created.
thus my question of what you mean by using the term, "divine" in
relation to Jesus. in your usage it cannot mean having the
nature/essence of or being a deity - so i am left with the question
what are you trying to say? or do you think maybe "divine" isn't
exactly the term you want to employ (or that you want to qualify your
usage of the term with more specificity)?
> He came into being. The Son comes FROM the Father and shares half of
> his essence.
can i ask for a bit of clarity here. i am not trying to be obtuse -
just want to understand what you are saying. the "half of his essence"
you refer to is that Jesus is half God or half the essence/nature of
his heavenly Father? or are you saying that half of the Father is in
the Father and half of the Father is in the Son?
> From Mary, he got his humanity, from God, he shares in
> God's divine essence but that doesn't make him God like some part of a
> 3 fold God head such the trinity like so many Fundies have purported
> for about 1,800 years.
just trying to parse what you are saying - his human side comes from
his mother mary. i think that is clear. what do you mean when you say
that from God, he shares in God's divine essence but is not essentially
God?
how do you see these two natures being operational or reconciled in one
person? are you saying that on the inside (the
spirit/soul/what-have-you) he is divine and in his flesh or body he is
human? or are you suggesting some type of mix between the two - both in
his body and his inner being or self? basically, how do you see this
combination of a person who shares in the divine essence and in
humanity working out in real time?
> That's the closest I can understand Jesus
> being both human and sharing in God's divinity.
i do see, in reading back over this, that you have qualified your usage
of the term "divinity" with the idea that Jesus shares in God's
divinity. i think i get that position - maybe? are you equating the
idea that christians have become partakers in the divine nature - with
the idea that Jesus was the first or a unique partaker in the divine
nature? if so, how so? or am i missing you altogether?
>
> > 2) it wasn't because Jesus (the Son) talked to the Father which was
> > some puzzle or riddle so frustrating that a bunch of old world
> > fundamentalists came up with a Trinity concept. is that really your
> > understanding of the reasoning behind the Trinity concept?
>
> It is more than likely that the trinity concept started with "John"
> who claimed that Jesus was God Himself and that He created the
> Universe.
it is a theme which runs through the scriptures - but john's gospel
certainly makes the explicit statements toward the matter. so, the
belief or position was held a bit longer than 1800 years. would you
say john was a fundie as well? no dig nor some baiting debate tactic
on my part towards you, just a serious question based upon what you
have presented in this thread.
how would evidence that the Trinitarian position and specifically the
deity of Jesus was something held by the church father's prior to the
1800 years ago mark? would that make a difference in your position
concerning the time frame for this teaching and understanding of Jesus
and his relation to the Father?
>
> The Holy Spirit thing is bit more confusing as the Holy Spirit OF God
> turned into the Holy Spirit another PERSON of God. In one gospel,
> Jesus breaths on the apostles and says receive holy spirit. From the
> text it seems like that what Jesus was refering to some sort of
> essence, empowerment.
i see you cite the gospel (john below) so i'll pick this back up down
there.
> In a psalm it says "Cast me not away from thy
> presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me." It doesn't say "take
> not THE Holy Spirit." This seems like don't leave and take your holy
> essence/enpowerment/discernment of you away. It seems like calling
> the presence and sense of God and his power and/or other gifts was
> calling Holy Spirit.
i see about 3 uses of the term, "spirit," in psalm 51 - the one
concerning God's Holy Spirit - seems closely tied to being allowed in
God's presence - and not being cast out of God presence.
again, let me offer something from john - who does have the most
specific statements concerning the Trinity - but not the only ones:
john 14
23 Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and
my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with
him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word
that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.
25 "These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,
he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I
have said to you.
here we have the 3 being spoken of: 1) the Father 2) the "we" being
the Son and the Father coming to make their home in the one who keeps
the words of Jesus 3) the Helper - the Holy Spirit.
1) the Holy Spirit 2) sent by the Father 3) in the name of Jesus the
Son.
> John has "And when he had said this, he breathed
> on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosoever
> sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins]
> ye retain, they are retained." The remittance and retainin of sins is
> tied into receiving the Holy Spirit/power of God.
well, certainly ... and this passage has been problematic in some
people's thinking - usually those who think woodenly or dogmatically.
because, this appears to be Jesus giving the Holy Spirit - prior to the
giving of the Holy Spirit at pentecost. however, you rightly noticed
that this giving of the Spirit was, in this instance when Jesus
breathed upon his disciples, tied to a very specific set of
instructions. this, is typically the difference between the Old
Testament giving of the Spirit (when the Spirit comes upon a person in
power for a purpose or task or to inspire prophecy) and the post
resurrection/pentecost giving of the indwelling, infilling, and baptism
of in Holy Spirit. here, as Jesus always did in his earthly ministry
prior to his resurrection - Jesus operates under the old covenant for
the new had not been established apart from the work he was yet to do
on the cross.
btw, this makes an even stronger claim to the divinity of Christ than
it first appears. the breath of God is literally what the hebrew idea
of Holy Spirit was - and here we have Jesus breathing out his own
breath and saying as he does, "receive the Holy Spirit." that's God
only kinda stuff - not something a mere mortal could do or should claim
to be doing. the empowerment - the remission or the retaining of sins
also is God only empowerment - nor mortal could give such a commission
nor appointment to other men.
>
> To me the Holy Spirit OF God, the ONE God, the Creator is the holy
> essence of God which would carry with it spiritual empowerment and
> gifts as well as the discernment of God's presence.
>
well, i hope i haven't minced up what you have been saying - i
certainly have read your entire train of thought - and hopefully i am
responding acurately to what you are saying.
i want to try and parse what you have just written - for clarity:
to you the Holy Spirit of God [the One God, Creator, etc.] is the Holy
essence of God.
this Holy essence of God carries with it spiritual empowerment and
gifts as well as the discernment of God's presence.
i know, i pretty much wrote the same thing you did - but as i broke the
sentence down - i wonder if we mean the same thing when we use the term
"essence"?
let me just grab a dictionary usage of the term (for conversation's
sake):
- - - - - - - -
1. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to
characterize or identify something.
2. The most important ingredient; the crucial element.
3. The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things.
4.
a. An extract that has the fundamental properties of a substance in
concentrated form.
b. Such an extract in a solution of alcohol.
c. A perfume or scent.
5. One that has or shows an abundance of a quality as if highly
concentrated: a neighbor who is the essence of hospitality.
6. Something that exists, especially a spiritual or incorporeal entity.
- - - - - - - -
now, in this sense i tend to use definitions 1 - 3,6, more when
speaking of the essence of a person, place, or thing - or of God.
the little device i use is, "are these essentially the same thing." in
all honesty i hear defintion 1. The intrinsic or indispensable
properties that serve to characterize or identify something.
so, to return to your sentence (in the parsed form):
1. to you the Holy Spirit of God [the One God, Creator, etc.] is the
Holy intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize
or identify God.
2. this Holy intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to
characterize or identify God carries with it spiritual empowerment and
gifts as well as the discernment of God's presence.
or more simply put, the Holy Spirit is essentially another name or
description of God. possibly seen or comprehended through empowerment,
gifting, and manifesting a sense or awareness of God's presence.
is that a fair summation of your position on the matter - or have i
missed what you've been saying?
and if this is what you are saying here concerning the Spirit being the
essence of God - what do you mean when you speak of the Son "from God,
he shares in God's divine essence" but is not essentially God?
peace.
pablo
el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)
> "pablo" wrote:
>
> > 1) if Jesus is divine - doesn't that mean God? having the nature of
> > or being a deity?
>
> No.
you not think so good mark t.
jude wrote and i quote:
> Tell me how does Jesus, who I believe was part of God and part of Mary
> (both of the essence that is human and that is divine) talk to Himself
> when he prayed?
"Jesus, who I believe was part of God and part of Mary (both of the
essence that is human and that is divine)...."
can you match the definition which fits the words jude wrote?
a) Having the nature of or being a deity.
b) Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity:
He sought divine guidance through meditation.
c) 3.. Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
one fits his words 2 do not - unless one really wants to shoehorn the
meanings about. or as i replied to jude - he might want to offer some
clarity or choose some other words to express his position more
clearly.
a)
"Jesus was part of God ... of the essence ... that is divine."
"Jesus was part of God ... of the essence ... that is Jesus had the
nature of or the being of a deity. example: Jesus was of the essence
that is divine."
b)
"Jesus was part of God ... of the essence ... that is divine."
"Jesus was part of God ... of the essence ... that is Jesus was Of,
relating to, emanating from, or being the expression, of a deity.
example usage: He sought divine guidance through meditation."
c)
"Jesus was part of God ... of the essence ... that is divine."
"Jesus was part of God ... of the essence ... that is Jesus was in the
service or worship of a deity; sacred. example: angels are divine
messengers."
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> from http://www.answers.com/topic/divine
>
> di·vine (di-vin')
> adj., -vin·er, -vin·est.
> 1..
> 1.. Having the nature of or being a deity.
> 2.. Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity:
> sought divine guidance through meditation.
> 3.. Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
> 2.. Superhuman; godlike.
> 3..
> 1.. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of
> the concerto.
> 2.. Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.
> 4.. Heavenly; perfect.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Angels are divine but not God. It is meanings 1.b and 1.c that
> fundamentalists do not understand. Jesus was divine in that sense.
angels are 1c. messengers in service or worship of God (we need not
mess with a deity - since there is but One).
and angel can deliver a divine message which would be 1b. this of
course would be either a message about or concerning God; or a message
from God; or a message communicating something being expressed by God.
an angel however cannot have the nature of, the essence of, nor the
being of God.
an angel cannot have the nature of, the essence of, nor the being of a
human either.
infact, 1b does not work for the human side of what jude has presented
concerning the humanity of Jesus if the word being defined was human as
opposed to divine.
jude's closer to the ballpark with his word choices IMO - Jesus is of
the essence that is divine - and there is only one divine - that is
God.
why do people fail to notice the obvious - such as the words in the
passage below which state that Jesus "had to be made like his brothers
in every respect." what an absurd statement if Jesus is not divine.
if Jesus were not divine - then why would anyone even have to mention
his "having to be made like his brothers in every respect"?
why would there be a need to write, "since...the children share in
flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook the same things"? if
Jesus was not divine (and there is only one divine, ie. God) then why
would anyone have to mention his partaking in flesh and blood, ie.
being human in all respects like his brothers?
i am not completely in agreement with judes part human / part God
statements - for Jesus had to be fully human - as the scriptures teach
below. 100% human - knowing real temptation as it says below.
the word did not put on flesh and dwell among us - the word became
flesh and dwelled among us. 100% logos and 100% flesh and blood human
being. Jesus was no phantom or apparition appearing to be human.
hebrews 2
14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself
likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might
destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to
lifelong slavery.
16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the
offspring of Abraham.
17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so
that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service
of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help
those who are being tempted.
as jude has been writing - human and divine:
romans 1
1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart
for the gospel of God,
2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy
Scriptures,
3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the
flesh
4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the
Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our
Lord,
>
>
> Number 23:19 - "God is not a man"
>
> Jesus of Nazareth is a man.
>
> Jesus said "God is Spirit" (John 4:24)
>
> Are you saying that Jesus of Nazareth is a spirit???? For that is what is
> required for Jesus (visible man) to be God (invisible spirit).
i'll go one better. i am saying that i am a spirit and i am a body.
is that not reasonable to accept?
or as the creed put it:
newish version:
(31) He is God from the Father's substance, begotten before time; and
He is man from His mother's substance, born in time.
(32) Perfect God, perfect man composed of a human soul and human flesh,
(33) equal to the Father in respect of His divinity, less than the
Father in respect of His humanity.
(34) Who, although He is God and man, is nevertheless not two, but one
Christ.
(35) He is one, however, not by the transformation of His divinity into
flesh, but by the taking up of His humanity into God;
(36) one certainly not by confusion of substance, but by oneness of
person.
(37) For just as soul and flesh are one man, so God and man are one
Christ.
oldish version:
31. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds:
and Man, of the substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God: perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh
subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead: inferior to the Father
as touching His Manhood.
34. And although He be God and Man; yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption
of the Manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance; but by unity of
person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is
one Christ.
peace.
pablo
Jude Alexander
Pablo, I DON'T have all the answers! lol Okay, it's easy enough to
understand that the son of someone isn't the someone but is *part* of
the someone. So, Jesus shares in God's essence which is spirit which
means, in so many words, God's divinity. However, the Trinity dogma
says that Jesus IS God and not that He was created. God isn't human
with DNA so if we can't really understand God as Spirit how can we
understand Jesus as sharing in that Spirit? It's impossible. H
>
> > He came into being. The Son comes FROM the Father and shares half
of
> > his essence.
>
> can i ask for a bit of clarity here. i am not trying to be obtuse -
> just want to understand what you are saying. the "half of his
essence"
> you refer to is that Jesus is half God or half the essence/nature of
> his heavenly Father? or are you saying that half of the Father is in
> the Father and half of the Father is in the Son?
>
> > From Mary, he got his humanity, from God, he shares in
> > God's divine essence but that doesn't make him God like some part
of a
> > 3 fold God head such the trinity like so many Fundies have
purported
> > for about 1,800 years.
>
> just trying to parse what you are saying - his human side comes from
> his mother mary. i think that is clear. what do you mean when you
say
> that from God, he shares in God's divine essence but is not
essentially
> God?
It's clear because it's something we understand, and even more so
today with DNA being defined.
>
> how do you see these two natures being operational or reconciled in
one
> person? are you saying that on the inside (the
> spirit/soul/what-have-you) he is divine and in his flesh or body he
is
> human? or are you suggesting some type of mix between the two - both
in
> his body and his inner being or self? basically, how do you see this
> combination of a person who shares in the divine essence and in
> humanity working out in real time?
They are able to be reconciled because we are both human and spirit.
The spirit of ourselves is not the holy spirit of God. The spirit
within Jesus WAS the holy spirit of God. The day we understand our
spirit and God's Spirit then we'll be able to understand how Jesus had
God's spirit/essence/power in Him. That's about as close as I can
explain because, like I said, I don't have ALL the answers and am not
SUPPOSED to have all the answers. If I did, then nothing would be
faith/trust. I'm just like everybody else. I would LIKE to know all
the answers and throw the faith/trust thing away.... lol
Griz
Griz said:
>> Look Jude, I know that we both aspire to different belief-systems,
>>different
>> Gods, different Saviours. And we could probably debate back and
>>forth for
>> years. Am I correct that it appears you believe Jesus the Saviour
>>was just a man?
>> My assertion is that He is God. I relate to God as Triune, and it
>> is by the power of His Spirit that I bear witness to Him -- the idea
>>of letting the fruit a person bears be a measure of whether their faith
>>is the genuine article or not.
>>
>
>You believe John. I don't. I believe that the words of Jesus were
>probably passed forward pretty intact and I choose to believe what
>Jesus has been reported as saying. I think I answered you last
>question. Jesus is God's son meaning that somehow God imparted His
>essence into the seed of Mary and started the splitting and growth of
>the child, Joshua/Jesus.
Correction: I believe God.
There are two different views being presented in our discussions. One
focusses on Man; and the other on God. One has a demi-god as a saviour; the
other has God Almighty. One marvels at how a mortal man could somehow have
God's essence; the other marvels at how all the fullness of the Deity could
be found in human form. I mean, the love, the compassion, the committment
to such lowly creatures as us -- the sacrifice so that we could be with Him.
I would suggest that one view still cannot escape from Paganism, the
thinly-veiled worship of self, and from trying to superimpose Man over God:
and "side-effects" result such as not being able to believe "this passage"
from Scripture, and not being able to believe "that author" from Scripture
etc -- and finally ending up with self as the only reliable translator and
interpretor of God! That means self is still supreme over God! In fact,
self BECOMES God. Even as the non-Scriptural belief goes, that Jesus
"became" God.
You said in a previous post that the concept of the Trinity was not advanced
until the Apostolic Age. I would suggest that the TERM "Trinity" was not
advanced until the Apostolic Age: for anyone who read the Apostle's
writings would know that they worshipped Jesus Christ as Lord and God yet
abhorred idol worship and Paganism.
A Christ who is Divine is the only reason why the Christ-centred paradigm is
not idolatry. Whereas the demi-god Christ is nothing but idolatry --
putting God as a subset of a man, rather than man in general as a subset of
God. Can you see how pride and self and Paganism have thoroughly
infiltrated the belief in Jesus as a demi-god, and how the prideful attempt
to measure God's word according to the self is the net result?
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Griz
Hi Ben.
I believe the analogy of the "narrow path" of Matt 7:14. The path we walk
of following Jesus as God is an exceedingly narrow one -- so narrow that at
times it can be hard to see exactly what we are standing on. But for those
who set aside self and seek God with a pure heart, the narrow gate will be
found. Jesus as God is spoken of clearly and repeatedly in Scripture. And
once one's eyes are open to this, there are a multitude of other passages
that allude to this -- and even more passages that "make you go Hmm!" (such
as why did so many songs of worship have the opening "Holy, Holy, Holy"?).
It is a narrow path, that one can only approach through the narrow gate: a
gate SO narrow that like a certain gate in historic Jerusalem, animal's
burdens had to be removed for them to pass through. The gate to life is
similarly narrow -- requiring us to remove the burden of self that we all
carry. And if we cannot set our human pride aside, we are limited in the
gates we can pass through. Our heads just won't fit! (Taken in all it's
various implications -- head swollen with pride, with self-importance, with
our "wonderous reasoning and powers of intellect", our storehouse of
"special wisdom" etc)
The path is narrow. Self and pride won't fit.
But there is a lot of power to the paradigm of Christ and that keeps the
world looking for various paths by which they can attain that power yet
retain their burden of self and pride. The end result are the miriads of
belief-systems that hold Jesus Christ in high regard, but consider Him more
of our seed and simply cannot accept a Christ who is Divine -- who is God.
And they then cannot accept God's word.
And they then cannot accept those who dare to believe God at His word/Word.
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Griz
>Tell me how does Jesus, who I believe was part of God and part of Mary
>(both of the essence that is human and that is divine) talk to Himself
>when he prayed? Well, even Fundies realize how absurd that is so some
>came up with the Trinity concept. Everybody's God now. We've got
>God, the Creator, God Jesus and God Holy Spirit and God bible
How much of His Heavenly glory did the Creator of all things set aside so
that He could be found in the form of a created servant? Yet being found in
the form of a servant, He submitted Himself to that role -- so that we who
ARE servants might know the proper way to relate to God. In prayer, in
Spirit, and in Truth.
BTW, fundamentalists do not see the Bible as God. That is a lie that those
seeking to besmirch fundamentalism tell over and over hoping that if they
tell it enough that somehow it will be so. If you would stand to proclaim
yourself an authority on the follies of fundamentalism, it would be good to
leave such games behind.
Again, you can carry them if you want to -- but be aware of just how much it
works against your witness.
My witness is for One God, manifest in three persons. One God who, by the
power of His Holy Spirit, has delivered and preserved His word (even through
the hands of imperfect Man) for those who seek with a heart unencumbered
with pride and self.
Mat 5:8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
. . . even past the imperfecations of Man trying to put into words, that
which transcends ALL.
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Griz
>Ben, the bible isn't the "word of God." It has errors and God doesn't
>commit errors. It is a book written by 40 plus authors over 10s of
>thousands of years. It is a valuable book but not inerrant.
>
>how can I explain the many contradictions betwee biblical authors? I
>don't even try. Perhaps, they got confused because obviously Jesus is
>part of God's essence and Mary's humanity. I don't know and don't try
>to figure out anything beyond God is the Creator and Jesus, his Son,
>the Christ. Anything beyond that is interesting, good to contemplate
>and to ponder over but that's it with me. Actually, I have enjoyed
>many many an hour reading the bible as well as many an hours being
>horrified at some of the things outlined in the bible. I have enjoyed
>studying it but I know it has errors.
Hi Jude.
Two observations I would quickly like to share:
1. Are you aware that the process by which you dismissed the church, is
exactly the same process by which you dismiss God's word? Namely, that the
people aren't perfect and flawless.
2. That things we don't currently understand are not automatically "errors
and contradictions".
Faith and trust go together. When humility is added, we accept our role as
children before God -- rather than asserting the role of Lords over God that
our human pride would like. The Bible is a very complex work. Imperfect
people wrote as the Holy Spirit inspired them. When we read it under the
influence of the same Holy Spirit, we can see that it is God's word -- even
as it comes through imperfect people.
I would ask you to be certain that you are not dismissing God, because
people are imperfect: and then dismissing the only perfect man who did live
as "just a man with a bit of God" instead of accepting Him as all the
fullness of the Deity in human form.
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Griz
>The Son isn't the Father. The Son didn't exist before He was created.
>He came into being. The Son comes FROM the Father and shares half of
>his essence. From Mary, he got his humanity, from God, he shares in
>God's divine essence but that doesn't make him God like some part of a
>3 fold God head such the trinity like so many Fundies have purported
>for about 1,800 years. That's the closest I can understand Jesus
>being both human and sharing in God's divinity.
So are you suggesting that the Son isn't God?
If He is not, how could the Disciples and Angels and all Creation worship
him . . . without entering into idolatry? How could God require all
Creation to worship the Lamb (a clear reference to Jesus Christ, the Lamb of
God who takes away the sins of the world), when such would be worshipping
another God over Him? Unless the Son is also God -- with God in the
beginning (not a created being) -- all things created through Him (yet it
was the Holy Spirit was the one who was present upon the waters of the
deep). The Trinity is simply the best theology to date at understanding a
God that is so far beyond us. It is a function of being willing to trust
God over over ourselves -- and isn't that what the Gospel message is all
about? And is this not the very stumbling block that pride trips on every
single time?
It is fine to one to have an opinion about who Jesus was. One can even set
aside what is written in order to maintain that opinion. But what then is
one's "source of truth", other than self and pride?
I know that some anti-fundamentalists accuse us of Paganism for worshipping
"many gods" -- but Paganism was all about trying to cast God in our image --
an image we can grasp. We need to be wary that on the very point we might
wish to condemn others on, we do not serve up our own condemnation.
>It is more than likely that the trinity concept started with "John"
>who claimed that Jesus was God Himself and that He created the
>Universe.
Or possibly that it started with Jesus, and John simply shared what he saw
and heard. Please don't mix up the coining of the term "Trinity" in the
Apostolic age, with it's being "created" then.
>The Holy Spirit thing is bit more confusing as the Holy Spirit OF God
>turned into the Holy Spirit another PERSON of God.
Gen 1:2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface
of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the
waters.
>In one gospel,
>Jesus breaths on the apostles and says receive holy spirit. From the
>text it seems like that what Jesus was refering to some sort of
>essence, empowerment. In a psalm it says "Cast me not away from thy
>presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me." It doesn't say "take
>not THE Holy Spirit." This seems like don't leave and take your holy
>essence/enpowerment/discernment of you away. It seems like calling
>the presence and sense of God and his power and/or other gifts was
>calling Holy Spirit. John has "And when he had said this, he breathed
>on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosoever
>sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins]
>ye retain, they are retained." The remittance and retainin of sins is
>tied into receiving the Holy Spirit/power of God.
>
I agree that the Holy Spirit is more difficult to reconcile as part of the
Triune Godhead. Scripture starts with God creating, yet it is His Spirit
that is given as present "moving over the surface of the waters" -- the
person of God manifest on this physical plane.
But teachings of the Holy Spirit are more for those who have already
reconciled the Father and the Son both as God. One needs to walk before
they can run.
Remember, Jesus is our Saviour, yet we are told in so many places -- both
pre-Christ and after-Christ -- that only God, and Jehovah alone are Saviour
(Titus 1:3, 2:10 3:4; 1 Tim 1:1, 2:3, 4:10; 2 Sam 22:3, Ps 7:10, 17:7,
106:21; Is 43:3, 43:11, 45:15, 21, 49:26, 60:16; Luke 1:47; Jude 25; Hos
13:4)
>To me the Holy Spirit OF God, the ONE God, the Creator is the holy
>essence of God which would carry with it spiritual empowerment and
>gifts as well as the discernment of God's presence.
As I offered up earlier in this thread, the Holy Spirit is God manifest
through Creation -- granting the empowerment and the gifts and the
discernment of God's presence on this physical realm.
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Mark T
> So are you suggesting that the Son isn't God?
Yep!
> If He is not, how could the Disciples and Angels and all Creation worship
> him
Says who?
> It is fine to one to have an opinion about who Jesus was.
> Remember, Jesus is our Saviour, yet we are told in so many places -- both
> pre-Christ and after-Christ -- that only God, and Jehovah alone are
> Saviour
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Pre- and Post-Easter Jesus
Understanding and knowing Jesus involves history, tradition, and experience.
-Marcus Borg
The pre-Easter Jesus means:
a.. The historical Jesus
b.. Jesus of Nazareth
c.. A first century Galilean Jew
d.. A figure of the past
The post-Easter Jesus means:
What Jesus became after his death, the Jesus of Christian experience and
tradition.
In Christian experience people continue to experience Jesus as a living
reality, as a figure of the present; as a spiritual living divine reality
In Christian tradition: Jesus is increasingly spoken of as a divine reality
and eventually seen as "very God of very God."
It is crucial to make this distinction, says Borg, or Jesus becomes unreal,
incredible and inaccessible.
Compare pre- and post-Easter Jesus
Pre-Easter Jesus / Post-Easter Jesus
4 B.C.E. to 30 C.E. / 30 C.E. to present
Corporeal, human being of flesh and blood Spiritual / non-material
reality
Finite and mortal / Infinite, eternal
Human / Divine
A Jewish peasant / King of Kings and Lord of Lords
Figure of the past / Figure of the present
Jesus of Nazareth / Jesus Christ
Monotheistic Jew / Becomes the second person of the trinity, "God with a
human face"
Galilean Jew of the first century / "The Face of God" (metaphor based on
2 Cor. 4:6 Beholding the glory of God in the face of Christ)
From http://www.united.edu/portrait/compare.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark T
>> > 1) if Jesus is divine - doesn't that mean God?
...
>> No.
>
>you not think so good
Look at the meaning of divine .... which is what I was talking about ....
You do not understand the meaning of divine ....
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> from http://www.answers.com/topic/divine
>
> di·vine (di-vin')
> adj., -vin·er, -vin·est.
> 1..
> 1.. Having the nature of or being a deity.
> 2.. Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a
> deity:
> sought divine guidance through meditation.
> 3.. Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
> 2.. Superhuman; godlike.
> 3..
> 1.. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of
> the concerto.
> 2.. Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.
> 4.. Heavenly; perfect.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> why do people fail to notice the obvious
Yes, why do you?
>> Number 23:19 - "God is not a man"
>> Jesus of Nazareth is a man.
>> Jesus said "God is Spirit" (John 4:24)
>> Are you saying that Jesus of Nazareth is a spirit???? For that is what
>> is
>> required for Jesus (visible man) to be God (invisible spirit).
>>
>i'll go one better. i am saying that i am a spirit and i am a body.
>is that not reasonable to accept?
Restated ... Is the historical Jesus of Nazareth an INFINITE spirit?
Is God infinite?
If God the Father is infinite spirit and the Holy Spirit is infinite spirit
AND the historical Jesus of Nazareth is infinite spirit then the whole lot
are one and the same without differentiation. This rests on proof that the
historical Jesus of Nazareth is infinite. Can any human being be infinite?
If God the Father is finite and the Holy Spirit is finite and the historical
Jesus of Nazareth is finite then none of them are any better than Zeus who
was a god and also finite. You also have plurality of gods with this choice
rather than One God.
This is a simple philosophical argument that should not be answered with a
vomit of bible verses. A vomit of bible verses proves nothing.
Simply stated my objection is that the historical Jesus of Nazareth is /
was not infinite spirit.
My argument rests on the fact that Christian definite of the One God
necessarily contains that the One God is infinite.
When the historical Jesus of Nazareth walked to Jerusalem was the infinite
One God walking to Jerusalem?
Was the infinite One God anywhere apart from the body of Jesus on this
journey?
Was the historical Jesus of Nazreth anywhere apart from his body during this
journey?
If the One God was operating anywhere outside the body of the historical
Jesus of Nazareth on the journey but the historical Jesus of Nazareth was
not operating anywhere outside of his body at the same time then
1. Jesus is not infinite and therefore not God because God is infinite ipso
facto
or
2. Jesus, if God, is a finite God no better than Zeus. If that is the case
then there ius not One God but a pluarlity of gods.
Please explain with a rational argument rather than a bible verse vomit.
Mark T
> Pablo, I DON'T have all the answers! lol Okay, it's easy enough to
> understand that the son of someone isn't the someone but is *part* of
> the someone.
A PART is not the WHOLE.
This is what my argument from inifinity is all about.
See last post.
If Jesus is PART God then Jesus is not WHOLE God.
To be whole God Jesus MUST be INFINITE spirit.
Mark T
> I believe God.
Believing God and believing a man made fallible Bible are two copmpletely
different things!!!!!
> A Christ who is Divine is the only reason why the Christ-centred paradigm
> is
> not idolatry.
What does "divine" mean???? It does NOT automatically mean "One God".
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> from http://www.answers.com/topic/divine
>
> di·vine (di-vin')
> adj., -vin·er, -vin·est.
> 1..
> 1.. Having the nature of or being a deity.
> 2.. Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a
> deity:
> sought divine guidance through meditation.
> 3.. Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
> 2.. Superhuman; godlike.
> 3..
> 1.. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of
> the concerto.
> 2.. Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.
> 4.. Heavenly; perfect.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nor have you addressed the following. Please note that Pre/Post - Easter
Jesus does not equate to your Pre / Post Christ.
Mark T
> I believe the analogy of the "narrow path" of Matt 7:14. The path we walk
> of following Jesus as God is an exceedingly narrow one
... more like narrow minded!
You have addressed the following. Please note that Pre/Post - Easter
Mark T
> The Bible is a very complex work.
--
The Bible ...[is] ... a collection of human responses to God (very human,
some of them all too human), which we are at liberty to use in the process
of formulating our own individual, unique response to God. We don't do that
by imitating these responses slavishly. I mean God, if he exists, doesn't
want innumerable clones of the apostle Paul. He wants us to respond to him,
each of us in our own unique way. And we can use the Bible to do that, but
we don't do it by obeying it slavishly and blindly. - Peter Cameron
"Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 195
Mark T
> BTW, fundamentalists do not see the Bible as God.
You call it the "word of God" ... what God says.
Your fundamentalist god must be confused as their are so many errors in what
he says.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God
of Love" - Bishop John Shelby Spong
ISBN: 0732282020
Publication Date: 25 May 2005
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the past the Bible has been used to justify oppression, violence,
discrimination against women and homosexuals, and murder.
.... in this bold new book, bishop and humanitarian John Shelby Spong
explains how the Bible has been misread - and how its overall message
eclipses what he deems these texts of terror. Exposing and challenging the
wrong done in the name
of God, Bishop Spong also seeks to redeem these texts and reveal their
ultimate depth and purpose.
Bishop Spong looks specifically at texts used to justify homophobia,
anti-Semitism, treating women as second-class citizens, corporal punishment,
and environmental degradation, but he also delivers a new picture of how
Christians can use the Bible today. ...
From
http://www.harpercollins.com.au/title.cfm?ISBN=0732282020&Author=0000677
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Book Description
In the history of the Western World, the Bible has been a perpetual source
of inspiration and guidance for countless Christians. However, this Bible
has also left a trail of pain. It is undeniable that the Bible is not always
used for good. Sometimes the Bible can seem overtly evil. Sometimes its
texts are terrible.
Bishop John Shelby Spong boldly approaches those texts that have been used
through history to justify the denigration or persecution of others while
carrying with them the implied and imposed authority of the claim that they
were the "Word of God." As he exposes and challenges what he calls the
"terrible texts of the Bible", laying bare the evil done by these texts in
the name of God, he also seeks to redeem these texts, hoping to recover
their ultimate depth and purpose. Spong looks specifically at texts used to
justify homophobia, anti-Semitism, treating women as second-class humans,
corporal punishment, and environmental degradation, but he also delivers a
new picture of how Christians can use the Bible today. As Spong battles
against the way the Bible has been used throughout history, he provides a
new framework, introducing people to a proper way to engage this holy book
of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Critical Praise
...
"Spong demonstrates the prophetic vocation that prefers truth to lies,
honesty to hypocrisy, common sense to sick religious ideologies."
--Matthew Fox, president, University of Creation Spirituality, author of
Original Blessing, Creativity: Where the Divine and the Human Meet, and One
River, Many Wells
"Another brilliant chapter in Spong's quest to rescue the Bible from
fundamentalism."
--Robert W. Funk, Jesus Seminar, author of Honest to Jesus
.....
"With prophetic vigor, Spong lays bare the evil done.in the name of
God...[and] calls the Christian community to accountability...."
--Spirituality and Health magazine
"This book is long overdue..."
--New York Times
From
http://www.harpercollins.com/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060762055
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Sins of Scripture is structured around 8 sections, each with at least 2
chapters:
1. The Word of God
Chapter 1: Why This Book, This Theme, This Author (pp. 3-14)
Chapter 2: A Claim that Cannot Endure (pp. 15-26)
2. The Bible and the Environment
Chapter 3: The Ethics of Overbreeding (pp. 29-39)
Chapter 4: The Virtue of Birth Control (pp. 41-48)
Chapter 5: The Earth Fights Back (pp. 49-58)
Chapter 6: Bad Theology Creates Bad Ecology (pp. 59-67)
3. The Bible and Women
Chapter 7: Creation - The Woman is Not Made in the Image of God (pp.
71-78)
Chapter 8: Sexism in Christian History (pp. 79-85)
Chapter 9: The Woman as the Source of Evil (pp. 87-93)
Chapter 10: Menstruation and the Male fear of Blood (pp. 95-100)
Chapter 11: Recasting the Negativity (pp. 101-109)
4. The Bible and Homosexuality
Chapter 12: The Ecclesiastical Battle Over Homosexuality (pp. 113-119)
Chapter 13: The Holiness Code from the Book of Leviticus (pp. 121-126)
Chapter 14: The Story of Sodom (pp. 127-133)
Chapter 15: The Homophobia of Paul (pp. 135-142)
5. The Bible and Children
Chapter 16: The Appeal in the Text "Spare the Rod" (pp. 145-149)
Chapter 17: Violence is Always Violent Whether the Victim Be a Child or an
Adult (pp. 151-160)
Chapter 18: God as Judge - Searching for the Source of the Human Need to
Suffer (pp. 161-167)
Chapter 19: God as Divine Child Abuser (pp. 169-174)
Chapter 20: Moving Beyond the Demeaning God into the God of Life (pp.
175-180)
6. The Bible and Anti-Semitism
Chapter 21: Searching for the Origins of Christian Anti-Semitism (pp.
183-192)
Chapter 22: Anti-Semitism is Present in the Gospels (pp. 193-198)
Chapter 23: The Role of Judas Iscariot in the Rise of Anti-Semitism (pp.
199-204)
Chapter 24: The Circumstances that Brought Judas into the Jesus Story (pp.
205-210)
7. The Bible and Certainty
Chapter 25: The Symptoms - Conversion, Missionary Expansion and Religious
Bigotry (pp. 213-218)
Chapter 26: Creedal Development in the Christian Church (pp. 219-229)
Chapter 27: Since I have the truth, "No One Comes to the Father Except
Through Me!" (pp. 231-237)
Chapter 28: My Vision of an Interfaith Future (pp. 239-244)
8. Reading Scripture as Epic History
Chapter 29: The Hebrew Scriptures Come into Being (pp. 247-266)
Chapter 30: Escaping the Limits of the Epic (pp. 267-276)
Chapter 31: Jesus and the Jewish Epic (pp. 277-283)
Chapter 32: Jesus Beyond Religion (pp. 285-298)
....
Online Book Discussion
An online discussion group, using the web forum pages, is planned for
shortly after the release of the book. The archives will then be available
to others as a resource.
From http://faithfutures.org/sinsofscripture.html
el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)
> > >
> > > The Son isn't the Father.
> >
> > agreed.
> >
> > > The Son didn't exist before He was created.
> >
> > thus my question of what you mean by using the term, "divine" in
> > relation to Jesus. in your usage it cannot mean having the
> > nature/essence of or being a deity - so i am left with the question
> > what are you trying to say? or do you think maybe "divine" isn't
> > exactly the term you want to employ (or that you want to qualify
> your
> > usage of the term with more specificity)?
>
> Pablo, I DON'T have all the answers! lol Okay, it's easy enough to
> understand that the son of someone isn't the someone but is *part* of
> the someone. So, Jesus shares in God's essence which is spirit which
> means, in so many words, God's divinity. However, the Trinity dogma
> says that Jesus IS God and not that He was created. God isn't human
> with DNA so if we can't really understand God as Spirit how can we
> understand Jesus as sharing in that Spirit? It's impossible. H
:-) i know, i don't have all the answers either. IMO, anyone who
approaches the incarnation must do so humbly. if the incarnation is
truth - and has been made known to us - then we can know it, we may not
know it exhaustively but we can know what has been revealed
sufficiently for our needs and our understanding.
i would even go so far as to say - we have a moral and important
responsibility to know what God has made known to us - especially
concerning the incarnation and these issues which are not tangental to
our faith - but lie at its very heart, ie. the coming of the King; the
work of our Lord; and the way of salavation and the establishment of
the new covenant with humanity.
Deuteronomy 29:29
29 "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that
are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do
all the words of this law.
those things which have been revealed belong to us - that we might know
them and do (or live) accordingly in their light. i think the
incarnation warrants such a revelation and thus such a gift placed in
our hands.
you wrote:
"the son of someone isn't the someone but is *part* of the someone.
So, Jesus shares in God's essence, which is spirit which means in so
many words, God's divinity."
i am the son of the senior el pablo sr. :-) therefore i share in his
nature / essence - which means that i am human. i am not partially
human - but fully 100% human. i share in "part" some traits carried in
my father and mother - traits packaged in each of them when they were
each in their mother's wombs actually. so, in the sense of traits - i
have part of the line of my mother and part of the line of my father.
i was mixed (so to speak) in my conception between my parents.
one of the reasons that we forever call mary the mother of Jesus virgin
- is because the action which placed Jesus in her womb - did not change
her virgin status. she was not ravaged, raped, or sexually impregnated
by God. when she gave birth to her first child she was still a virgin.
so, when i look at your sentence "the son of someone isn't the someone
but a part of the someone" i think of myself first - i am the son of my
father so i am not my father. but also as the son of my father i do
have his essence/nature in that i am a human.
if God has a Son, then that Son is not going to be the Father of
himself - but he is going to fully share in the essence/nature of his
Father - he is going to be divine (as you say) he is going to be God.
God is eternal - very unlike us - spirit - non-corporeal - and
infinite. so, when God has a Son who shares in his essence/nature 100%
- then his Son is going to be eternal - very unlike us - spirit -
non-corporeal - and infinite. it's a hard one to wrap one's mind
around - i'll grant you - but it is not illogical nor unreasonable.
basically put, if God has a Son then that Son is a God. but, there are
not many Gods - there are not two Gods - there is only one God. so,
the Son cannot be "a God" and it's is illogical to even suggest that he
would be "a God."
because, God is spirit - eternal - infinite - non-corporeal -
uncreated, and if God could have a Son then his Son by essence and
nature would be spirit - eternal - infinite - non-corporeal and
uncreated. that is logical and reasonable.
that is what is meant by the Trinity - that the Son is not the Father
but both the Father and the Son are God.
thus, in a long answer to your question posed - when the Son prays to
the Father he obviously is not praying to himself - but unto his
Father. if the creation of all things or the incarnation had never
occured - and God has a Son, then there would be an eternal
conversation and relationship between the Father and the Son. add the
incarnation to this idea - and what we see in Jesus praying is only a
continuation of what has always been - the Father and the Son in
conversation.
> >
> > > He came into being. The Son comes FROM the Father and shares half
> of
> > > his essence.
> >
> > can i ask for a bit of clarity here.
> >
a person comes to you and says, "Jesus was God in his spirit - but his
body was human." do you think that person is reflecting the truth of
the incarnation?
another person comes to you and says, "Jesus only appeared to have a
body, but infact, Jesus was a spiritual being wearing a human
disguise." do you think that person is reflecting the truth of the
incarnation?
yet another person comes and says, "Jesus was just a human being, yet
when he was baptized he was given power by the Holy Spirit to do
miracles and teach us about the secrets of God." do you think that
person is reflecting the truth of the incarnation?
still another says, "Jesus was half human and half God - mixed up into
one being or person." do you suppose that reflects the truth of the
incarnation?
you may not have all the answers - and we might think we are not
supposed to have all the answers - but having answers - having
understanding and wisdom about that understanding is not the anithesis
to faith/trust. faith/trust is when we have been given knowledge and
answers and we trust in those to be solid enough to invest our whole
weight upon them.
we know in part - but that doesn't make what we know untruth - only
that the truths we know about God are not exhaustive. they should
still be seen as truth in our eyes.
the secret things belong to God - but what God has made known to us -
though not exhaustive - belongs to us. it belongs to us with a moral
imperative that we know them to the extent that we can and live
accordingly with what has been made known.
so, knowledge of God is not impossible - it is possible.
our knowledge of God is not exhaustive - but it is truthful and
trustworthy.
our knowledge of God is in part - but none-the-less real.
Hebrews 11
11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of
things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their
commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by
the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that
are visible.
peace.
pablo
Mark T
> if God has a Son, then that Son is not going to be the Father of
> himself - but he is going to fully share in the essence/nature of his
> Father - he is going to be divine (as you say) he is going to be God.
If the historical Jesus of Nazareth is God then he is also infinite spirit
because God is infinite spirit.
Was the historical Jesus of Nazareth an infinite spirit?
> God is eternal - very unlike us - spirit - non-corporeal - and
> infinite.
Exactly!!!!! HOWEVER .... the historical Jesus of Nazareth was BOTH
CORPOREAL & FINITE!!!!!!! Therefore Jesus is not God.
> so, when God has a Son who shares in his essence/nature 100%
> - then his Son is going to be eternal - very unlike us - spirit -
> non-corporeal - and infinite.
NONE of those attributes are true of the historical Jesus of Nazareth
therefore Jesus is not the One God.
> because, God is spirit - eternal - infinite - non-corporeal -
> uncreated, and if God could have a Son then his Son by essence and
> nature would be spirit - eternal - infinite - non-corporeal and
> uncreated. that is logical and reasonable.
So???? Why don't you apply that to the historical Jesus of Nazareth?????
DOH!!!!!!
You are not thinking logically pablum ... er ... pablo sent by PILL!
Griz
>:-) i know, i don't have all the answers either. IMO, anyone who
>approaches the incarnation must do so humbly. if the incarnation is
>truth - and has been made known to us - then we can know it, we may not
>know it exhaustively but we can know what has been revealed
>sufficiently for our needs and our understanding.
I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head with this. The only way
to approach Jesus is humbly, and with a pure heart: a heart purified of our
own baggage and opinions and needs and wants and wishes and desires and
hubris.
There is a very great difference between humbly accepting what has been
revealed and considering it sufficient; and the more prideful approach of
insisting Jesus be only what we will "permit" according to our own wishes or
desires or logic or intellect. It is only by hubris that we would take
God's word that has stood the test of time for millennia before us and in
the span of the few decades of our lifespan consider ourselves wise enough
to alter it to accomodate us.
Jesus stands at the door and knocks: He doesn't run at the door and break
it down. He only enters at our invite, inhabits the "rooms" we welcome Him
into, and leaves when we close the door. He will watch us play all kinds of
games of using Scripture to turn Him into whatever our hubris desires -- yet
rushes to reveal Himself to those who approach humbly, with a broken and
contrite heart: purified by the power of His blood and wishing more than
anything else, to seek Him and to know Him. Not to know "their version" of
Him, but to actually know Him.
Humility is the key.
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Jude Alexander
"Mark T" <www...@tdoyoumean.2211> wrote in message
news:433f...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Griz" wrote:
>
> > BTW, fundamentalists do not see the Bible as God.
Just a play on words. Fundamentalists see the bible as accurately
REFLECTING God's nature, God's will, etc. etc. and therefore to know God is
to read the bible.
Jude Alexander
I'm not ready to do all this. Basically, all I have the time to do is make
some comments while I'm doing my work. I also work on weekends if need be.
"el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)" <rab...@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1128243631.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Nobody KNOWS how the birth was. OBVIOUSLY, it wasn't a clone type event or
the fetus would have been female. There is no reason that we should think
that God Himself as a mass of human tissue within Mary's womb, but rather
touched the egg within her womb and began the dividing process. With the
miracluous touch came the sharing of God's nature.
> so, when i look at your sentence "the son of someone isn't the someone
> but a part of the someone" i think of myself first - i am the son of my
> father so i am not my father. but also as the son of my father i do
> have his essence/nature in that i am a human.
Pablo, please. YOu are the son of your father AND your mother, two HUMAN
sources. Jesus' TWO sources were human and God. Mary wasn't just a holding
tank to carry God.
psalmsmith
"el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)" <rab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> a person comes to you and says, "Jesus was God in his spirit - but his
> body was human." do you think that person is reflecting the truth of
> the incarnation?
No,
> another person comes to you and says, "Jesus only appeared to have a
> body, but infact, Jesus was a spiritual being wearing a human
> disguise." do you think that person is reflecting the truth of the
> incarnation?
No,
> yet another person comes and says, "Jesus was just a human being, yet
> when he was baptized he was given power by the Holy Spirit to do
> miracles and teach us about the secrets of God." do you think that
> person is reflecting the truth of the incarnation?
No, but I can see how it might look that way to some. Jesus' body being
the incarnate word, did not change at His baptism, and neither did who
He was. But that was when the union became Full, and therefore can give
that appearance on first blush.
It is one reason that I don't judge the "Jesus was only a man" crowd as
harshly as others do. Just because someone doesn't "get it" will not
prevent God from redeeming the soul. If the Lord can save someone from
hell, I am sure he can save someone from bad doctrine.
Bad doctrine can be arrived at honestly too, I think. A case in point
is the way preterism is arrived at honestly. I still have trouble
describing it, exactly, but when a prophecy 'shoots' forward into time,
in the beginning there is a shockwave of fulfillment amlost like a sonic
boom.
The preterists see the echo of this and point to a fulfillment, never
seeing the doctrinal bullet whiz past their head.
The humanist Christian I met who believed this way, had all the fruitful
earmarks of genuine faith. And evidenced in his life the encroaching
divine correction through hints and journeys, of his doctrine.
> still another says, "Jesus was half human and half God - mixed up into
> one being or person." do you suppose that reflects the truth of the
> incarnation?
Erm, no not really, but it's a whale closer than the other options.
Well, close enough to learn most or all of the important doctrines, I
should say.
Yeshua was born of the seed of a woman and of the seed of God. This
messianic understanding began early:
Ge 3:15* And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt
bruise his heel.
And the seed of God, is faith, and the word of God. This word was
written in our hearts by faith, to grow fruitful in the life of Christ.
It was this same word, written in the heart of Mary, along with the Word
of God directly to her that she would concieve, which emboldened Mary's
faith. Her faith mixed with the word in her heart and empowered by the
Word of God to her, concieved with her seed and bore unto us the Son of
God.
Because there /is/ humanity in Him who came by the seed of God AND the
seed of Mary (which was preserved clean and holy by the great Flood).
el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)
> Pablo said:
>
> >:-) i know, i don't have all the answers either. IMO, anyone who
> >approaches the incarnation must do so humbly. if the incarnation is
> >truth - and has been made known to us - then we can know it, we may not
> >know it exhaustively but we can know what has been revealed
> >sufficiently for our needs and our understanding.
>
> I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head with this. The only way
> to approach Jesus is humbly, and with a pure heart: a heart purified of our
> own baggage and opinions and needs and wants and wishes and desires and
> hubris.
well, theology is a different kind of science - the object of our study
and inquiry cannot be put upon a dish and slid under our microscope -
or properly be called our "subject" in a literal wooden sense of the
word. we are the subjects and the objects of God's revelation of self.
we have been given much, more than we can fathom or fully explore -
and yet what has been revealed is just a drop. but, for us - swimming
in the drop of God's love and revelation is like swimming in an ocean.
what has been revealed we can know - and handle and touch and turn
about - it belongs to us. but, it is not given to us as like vance
havner once put the idea - like diamonds for us to play marbles with.
the things revealed to us have been given to us so that we might know
them and do them or live accordingly. it's an holy trust and a moral
trust to be given wisdom and understanding. the fear of the Lord is
the beginning of wisdom (thus the humility) and knowledge of the Holy
One is understanding (thus the object of our inquiry and end of our
worship).
for me, i always love the 4 living creatures expression of their
theology:
revelation 4
And around the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living
creatures, full of eyes in front and behind:
7 the first living creature like a lion,
the second living creature like an ox,
the third living creature with the face of a man,
and the fourth living creature like an eagle in flight.
8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full
of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to
say,
"Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who was and is and is to come!"
when Jesus spoke to the woman at the well he spoke of the change in
worship that was coming with the kingdom - that it would no longer be
people arguing about worship on this mountain or that mountain (and
btw, jerusalem was the correct mountain) but instead the Father is
seeking worshipers who will worship in spirit and in truth (which in
part means in the temple of the human heart - in another sense it means
everywhere and anywhere - just like the new bethel that Jesus described
to nathaniel upon nathaniel's meeting Jesus - and in another sense it
means very much like the worship of the 4 living creatures - in the
spiritual presence of the Lord and in the truth of who the Lord truly
is).
these 4 living creatures are full of eyes - and yet i only have two -
and it's hard enough for me to keep my two eyes focused. yet, these
creatures filled with eyes are very focused upon the Lord.
i have no wings for flight yet these creatures have 6 - but they employ
these wings not in flight to vast and various places - but in worship
and in circling endlessly the Lord in worship.
i have so little time - and even with the small measure which should be
in my control i struggle so to use my time wisely. these creatures
have endless time and yet they never cease to spend and invest their
time in worship.
there's a proverb which says, "as water reflects a face, so words
reflect the heart." and this is what i see in the worshipful acts and
words of the 4 living creatures.
and i believe the words of the 4 living creatures gives evidence as to
why they can focus their great vision abilities upon the Lord. it
gives reason as to why they can focus their great mobility upon one
circle in all the vastness of what is. their words tell us why they
can spend endless days and nights circling around and around the One
who sits on the throne:
"Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who was and is and is to come!"
first - the Lord God almighty is holy, holy, holy! God is a singular
find of which there is no other. thus capturing attention, vision,
motion, and time in the very being of these creatures.
second - God was and is and is to come - God is forever and eternal -
and in a sense these 4 living creatures are saying over and over again
- "there is so much to know in God - this one of a kind endless
discovery of perfection."
ultimately, the truth be told, for the sinner or the saint - the lost
or the saved - the devil or the angel - to be in the presence of God is
to worship God - one cannot produce another response... every knee
shall bow and every tongue confess the Lordship, wonder, and majesty of
our God.
>
> There is a very great difference between humbly accepting what has been
> revealed and considering it sufficient; and the more prideful approach of
> insisting Jesus be only what we will "permit" according to our own wishes or
> desires or logic or intellect. It is only by hubris that we would take
> God's word that has stood the test of time for millennia before us and in
> the span of the few decades of our lifespan consider ourselves wise enough
> to alter it to accomodate us.
thank God for grace - or as bono said in so many words - thank God it's
grace and not karma that we find in Jesus Christ.
so often we find the misguided christian or the very near searcher and
we have to be careful not to brand them as teaching doctrines of demons
or heresy - when they might simply be where we were - or where we are
in certain matters. we're sheep - we need the flock - as you and i
have discussed many times in many ways - there's really no substitute
for the body - for church. it's really not easy to get into that
relationship with a church body either - not for many people anyway -
and yet even the nudging and budging discomfort of sheep standing -
seemingly apart in a field (yet being one flock in one fence) is such a
help. how we need to pray for the many we meet here day in and day out
who do not have a home church or local fellowship and a growing
relationship (be it slow or fast growing - hard or smooth going)
relationship with a local church.
gotta run... waxed wordy and i'z got'z to go'z n get'z the wife.
peace.
el pablo
Mark T
> Jesus stands at the door and knocks
Griz stands at the door, knocks, lights a paper bag full of crap and runs
off.
Mark T
> well, theology is a different kind of science
Fundamentalist theology is like a virulent fungus.
*******************************************************
Fundamentalists Anonymous: by Lee Adams Young
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
All who have chosen to walk away from biblical fundamentalism are welcome to
join Fundamentalists Anonymous, and to consider embracing the following
Twelve Steps:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I realize that I had turned control of my mind over to another person or
group, who had assumed power over my thinking.
2. That person or group persuaded me of the inerrancy of the Bible, in spite
of its many internal contradictions.
3. I became addicted to the Bible as the supreme focus of my faith, in spite
of the commandment that God should come first.
4. I admit to God, to myself and to another person the shortcomings of my
belief in the unbelievable.
5. I have made an inventory of my false claims about the Bible.
6. I have made a list of those whom I led into confusion about the Bible.
7. I am willing to make amends to all those whom I may have led astray.
8. I realize that I have the inner power to restore sanity to my life and to
search Scripture for the truth.
9. I will reach out to friends who can help me clarify my thinking about the
Bible, God and Jesus.
10. I confess that only with God's help can my mind grasp the truth.
11. I will seek through prayer and meditation to improve my conscious
contact with God, praying for knowledge of God's will for me and the power
to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these twelve steps, I
will offer these steps to other former biblical fundamentalists.
These 12 steps are adapted from those of Alchoholics Anonymous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Griz
> > BTW, fundamentalists do not see the Bible as God.
>Just a play on words. Fundamentalists see the bible as accurately
>REFLECTING God's nature, God's will, etc. etc. and therefore to know >God
is
>to read the bible.
Well it's still funny the people who have a serious hate-on for the
fundamentalists who feel they need to insert some degree of falsehood into
their assertions about us in order to find enough to justify their campaigns
of hate. If we were truly the ogres that some believe justifies their
extended campaign of hatred towards us, one would think the truth would not
have to be "spiced up" so.
Actually, to read the Bible by the power of the Holy Spirit, is a powerful
tool towards knowing God. He works not just throught the words of Scripture
however, but through day-by-day relationship with us. But Scripture is His
written word -- the path of Him making Himself known to People.
Look Jude.
We can still be friends and have a degree of respect for each other despite
our differing beliefs. But it's very hard to when you keep inserting
reasons to hate us that are either entirely fallicious or not quite the
whole truth. Let our exchanges be our best reflection of the God we serve.
Even with the "inaccuracies" you believe Scripture is riddled with, we
should be able to agree from it's pages that God values truth.
Let our exchanges be in truth.
Not in falsehoods.
Yours in Christ,
Griz
psalmsmith
"el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)" <rab...@gmail.com> wrote:
I was cut off before I could finish earlier, and wanted to go ahead and
post what I had written.
Because there /is/ humanity in Him who came by the seed of God AND the
seed of Mary (which was preserved clean and holy by the great Flood).
Right at the start, it was much about who would carry the line. Seth
was chosen. In the midst of Nephillim, the line was preserved through
Noah.
The Lord is, after all, the son of Shem. And of Abraham Isaac and
Jacob. A child of Israel.
Abraham's seed, Judah's scepter, Jesse's branch, and David's legacy.
Each one chosen and pledged by God to bear the seed of redemption.
The chosen line.
And then there was Mary, and Joseph, and Bethlehem town of David.
Where the word was born.
the very truth.
Shalom!
Glen
psalmsmith
"Mark T" <www...@tdoyoumean.2212> wrote:
> "pablo" wrote:
>
> > if God has a Son, then that Son is not going to be the Father of
> > himself - but he is going to fully share in the essence/nature of his
> > Father - he is going to be divine (as you say) he is going to be God.
>
> If the historical Jesus of Nazareth is God then he is also infinite spirit
> because God is infinite spirit.
>
> Was the historical Jesus of Nazareth an infinite spirit?
>
>
> > God is eternal - very unlike us - spirit - non-corporeal - and
> > infinite.
>
> Exactly!!!!! HOWEVER .... the historical Jesus of Nazareth was BOTH
> CORPOREAL & FINITE!!!!!!! Therefore Jesus is not God.
A head is not a human, but you can look at a head and tell that it is
human. The human head is diverse from all other creatures.
You are saying that because the whole of God is invisible, therefore His
Word, a component of God, must likewise be invisible. Because the whole
of God is a Spirit, then every part of Him can only be Spirit.
This is a problem of composition. Decomposition to be precise. also
called division.
1. The whole X has characteristics A, B, C.
2. Therefore all the parts of X must have characteristics A, B, C,
"The ball is blue, therefore the atoms that make it up are also blue."
"A living cell is organic material, so the chemicals making up the cell
must also be organic material."
"Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."
"Sodium chloride (table salt) may be safely eaten. Therefore its
constituent elements, sodium and chloride, may be safely eaten."
"Americans use much more electricity than Africans do. So Bill, who
lives in primitive cabin in Maine, uses more electricity than Nelson,
who lives in a modern house in South Africa. "
> > so, when God has a Son who shares in his essence/nature 100%
> > - then his Son is going to be eternal - very unlike us - spirit -
> > non-corporeal - and infinite.
>
> NONE of those attributes are true of the historical Jesus of Nazareth
> therefore Jesus is not the One God.
Well, right now Yeshua IS non-corporeal, and He IS with us everywhere.
He was likewise non-corporeal before He came to be born.
We both talk of Jesus in the here and now, or at least I assume that you
do. If Jesus is here, right now, then where is His body? Is He not
also spirit even now as we speak?
We ought bear in mind that He exists here with us today as much more
than merely a memory.
> > because, God is spirit - eternal - infinite - non-corporeal -
> > uncreated, and if God could have a Son then his Son by essence and
> > nature would be spirit - eternal - infinite - non-corporeal and
> > uncreated. that is logical and reasonable.
>
> So???? Why don't you apply that to the historical Jesus of Nazareth?????
>
> DOH!!!!!!
>
> You are not thinking logically pablum ... er ... pablo sent by PILL!
>
You are decomposing again.
Mark T
>> If the historical Jesus of Nazareth is God then he is also infinite
>> spirit
>> because God is infinite spirit.
>> Was the historical Jesus of Nazareth an infinite spirit?
>> > God is eternal - very unlike us - spirit - non-corporeal - and
>> > infinite.
>> Exactly!!!!! HOWEVER .... the historical Jesus of Nazareth was BOTH
>> CORPOREAL & FINITE!!!!!!! Therefore Jesus is not God.
...
> You are saying that because the whole of God is invisible, therefore His
> Word, a component of God, must likewise be invisible.
What does your word "whole" mean???????
If the WHOLE of God is invisible then the Logos (Mind / Reason / Word) is
also invisible.
> Because the whole of God is a Spirit, then every part of Him can only be
> Spirit.
If the WHOLE of God is spirit, then every part of God MUST be spirit.
Number 23:19 - "God is not a man"
Jesus of Nazareth is a man.
Jesus said "God is Spirit" (John 4:24)
Why do you ignore what The Old testament and Jesus the Messiah both say
about God???
>> > so, when God has a Son who shares in his essence/nature 100%
>> > - then his Son is going to be eternal - very unlike us - spirit -
>> > non-corporeal - and infinite.
>>
>> NONE of those attributes are true of the historical Jesus of Nazareth
>> therefore Jesus is not the One God.
>
> Well, right now Yeshua IS non-corporeal, and He IS with us everywhere.
Prove it without a Bible Verse Vomit.
The historical Jesus of Nazareth was definitely NOT non-corporeal or
infinite so therefoire he cannot be God.
> He was likewise non-corporeal before He came to be born.
Prove it without a Bible Verse Vomit.
el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)
> MAN! Pablo, I didn't have ANY idea this would be a long winded post! Geez,
> I'm not ready to do all this. Basically, all I have the time to do is make
> some comments while I'm doing my work. I also work on weekends if need be.
sure, i understand that - i too do not have much time - but i do things
the other way and pick a couple of posts from time to time - you do
this your way and spread a bit here and there over many posts. no big.
> > you wrote:
> >
> > "the son of someone isn't the someone but is *part* of the someone.
> > So, Jesus shares in God's essence, which is spirit which means in so
> > many words, God's divinity."
> >
> > i am the son of the senior el pablo sr. :-) therefore i share in his
> > nature / essence - which means that i am human. i am not partially
> > human - but fully 100% human. i share in "part" some traits carried in
> > my father and mother - traits packaged in each of them when they were
> > each in their mother's wombs actually. so, in the sense of traits - i
> > have part of the line of my mother and part of the line of my father.
> > i was mixed (so to speak) in my conception between my parents.
> >
> > one of the reasons that we forever call mary the mother of Jesus virgin
> > - is because the action which placed Jesus in her womb - did not change
> > her virgin status. she was not ravaged, raped, or sexually impregnated
> > by God. when she gave birth to her first child she was still a virgin.
>
> Nobody KNOWS how the birth was. OBVIOUSLY, it wasn't a clone type event or
> the fetus would have been female. There is no reason that we should think
> that God Himself as a mass of human tissue within Mary's womb, but rather
> touched the egg within her womb and began the dividing process. With the
> miracluous touch came the sharing of God's nature.
sure, all we are told is that he was made like his brothers in everyway
- and that his birth was a normal human birth (mechanically speaking)
and that in the fullness of time God sent his Son born of a woman,
under the law. we have a few more details than that - but basically we
agree that this was not a conception by normal means - but God sending
his Son - not the Father being sent nor the Spirit being sent - but the
Son. we do not speak of "the divine natures" but of "the divine
nature" because there is only one divine nature - only one God.
so, no one suggests that God sent the Godhead when they say "And the
Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory
as of the only Son from the Father...." it is the eternal Son of God
who was incarnated.
>
> > so, when i look at your sentence "the son of someone isn't the someone
> > but a part of the someone" i think of myself first - i am the son of my
> > father so i am not my father. but also as the son of my father i do
> > have his essence/nature in that i am a human.
>
> Pablo, please. YOu are the son of your father AND your mother, two HUMAN
> sources. Jesus' TWO sources were human and God. Mary wasn't just a holding
> tank to carry God.
well, i spoke this way on purpose - not really focusing upon the next
important element - the humanity of Jesus from the line of mary. i
agree with you. i only parsed this down to the idea of a father and
son for the sake of consideration and to make 1/2 of the initial
position plain. the next part of a discussion on these matters has to
take in the humanity of Jesus.
that being said - the proposition concerning, "if God has a Son," is
still sound in my thinking. whether one believes that this Son came
about at the time of conception or from all eternity - the nature of
God truly having what can truly be called a Son means that the Son
would be of the nature and essence of God - which is eternal, etc.
having said that - the nature of mary having a Son and sharing in her
nature means just as the scriptures teach - that he had to be made like
his brothers in all ways. mary's Son was fully human.
as you said above - mary wasn't just a holding tank for God - or i
might have worded it - "a holding tank for the divine Son." mary is
going to have a human and thus the mystery of godliness:
1 Timothy 3:16
16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:
He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.
my position is simply that the Son was made flesh - and that in Jesus
we find the Son of God (100% of the essence/nature of his Father) and
the Son of Man (100% of the essence/nature of his mother, ie. human)
and that we do not find a mixture of these two, we do not find two, but
we find in Jesus one person with two natures - divine and human.
peace.
pablo
psalmsmith
"Mark T" <www...@tdoyoumean.2218> wrote:
> "psalmsmith" wrote:
>
> >> If the historical Jesus of Nazareth is God then he is also infinite
> >> spirit
> >> because God is infinite spirit.
> >> Was the historical Jesus of Nazareth an infinite spirit?
> >> > God is eternal - very unlike us - spirit - non-corporeal - and
> >> > infinite.
> >> Exactly!!!!! HOWEVER .... the historical Jesus of Nazareth was BOTH
> >> CORPOREAL & FINITE!!!!!!! Therefore Jesus is not God.
> ...
> > You are saying that because the whole of God is invisible, therefore His
> > Word, a component of God, must likewise be invisible.
>
> What does your word "whole" mean???????
>
> If the WHOLE of God is invisible then the Logos (Mind / Reason / Word) is
> also invisible.
That, is the logical fallacy of division, or decomposition.
> > Because the whole of God is a Spirit, then every part of Him can only be
> > Spirit.
>
> If the WHOLE of God is spirit, then every part of God MUST be spirit.
Says who?
> Number 23:19 - "God is not a man"
>
> Jesus of Nazareth is a man.
>
> Jesus said "God is Spirit" (John 4:24)
>
> Why do you ignore what The Old testament and Jesus the Messiah both say
> about God???
Abusive ad Hominem, I am not the one ignoring the Tanakh in any way.
Poisoning the well, if I am ignorant of the Old Testament, then my
position must be wrong.
> >> > so, when God has a Son who shares in his essence/nature 100%
> >> > - then his Son is going to be eternal - very unlike us - spirit -
> >> > non-corporeal - and infinite.
> >>
> >> NONE of those attributes are true of the historical Jesus of Nazareth
> >> therefore Jesus is not the One God.
> >
> > Well, right now Yeshua IS non-corporeal, and He IS with us everywhere.
>
> Prove it without a Bible Verse Vomit.
Uhh, that Yeshua is here, but not physically present? Well, it's kinda
self-evident. That Yeshua is here. yes. That there is no corporeal
body to indicate His presence. Also yes.
> The historical Jesus of Nazareth was definitely NOT non-corporeal or
> infinite so therefoire he cannot be God.
That sounds strikingly like "The Jesus Project"
> > He was likewise non-corporeal before He came to be born.
>
> Prove it without a Bible Verse Vomit.
Stop vomiting, pig. Have some respect. Do you not have an ounce of
humility in your heart? Look, you're giggling to yourself with glee
right now because you managed to piss me off.
Do you imagine Jesus Christ giggling with glee as He sent the Pharisees
into canniptions? How far you truly are, if only you would see...
el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)
> "pablo" wrote:
>
> >> > 1) if Jesus is divine - doesn't that mean God?
> ...
> >> No.
> >
> >you not think so good
>
>
> Look at the meaning of divine .... which is what I was talking about ....
>
> You do not understand the meaning of divine ....
anyone who cares can go back and engage in some honest discussion
around the definition of divine which i parsed down on this matter
showing which one fit jude's usage of the term. bluster is not
discussion.
>
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > from http://www.answers.com/topic/divine
> >
> > di·vine (di-vin')
> > adj., -vin·er, -vin·est.
> > 1..
> > 1.. Having the nature of or being a deity.
> > 2.. Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a
> > deity:
> > sought divine guidance through meditation.
> > 3.. Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
> > 2.. Superhuman; godlike.
> > 3..
> > 1.. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of
> > the concerto.
> > 2.. Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.
> > 4.. Heavenly; perfect.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> > why do people fail to notice the obvious
>
> Yes, why do you?
snipping out a line from someone's thoughts and scoring a cheap shot is
not discussion.
>
>
> >> Number 23:19 - "God is not a man"
> >> Jesus of Nazareth is a man.
> >> Jesus said "God is Spirit" (John 4:24)
> >> Are you saying that Jesus of Nazareth is a spirit???? For that is what
> >> is
> >> required for Jesus (visible man) to be God (invisible spirit).
> >>
> >i'll go one better. i am saying that i am a spirit and i am a body.
> >is that not reasonable to accept?
>
>
> Restated ... Is the historical Jesus of Nazareth an INFINITE spirit?
again you snip - and what i presented was not a vomit or rendering of
bible verses - it was the summation of the classical theological and
philosophical reasoning on this matter.
you miss the point about my being spirit and flesh - probably because
you snipped and failed to read.
go back to the other post and read the classic philosophical argument -
and take this with you - the emphasis on the statement, "i am a spirit
and i am a body," is placed upon the word "I" as that is the issue at
hand. it is reasonable to say that my "I"ness resides in two disparate
natures - one of flesh and one of spirit - so that when i speak from my
body it is "I" that you are hearing - yet when my flesh dies - my
personality - my "I" will go on with my spirit but not with my
flesh/body. such is reasonable.
Jesus being fully human and fully divine - two natures in one "I,"
likewise, is equally as reasonable or logical. granted, the gulf
between my spirit and flesh is not as wide as the gulf between being
fully human and fully divine - but that's not the argument - only that
such is possible and evident - and therefore not beyond the realm of
being logical or reasonable. you might not agree that Jesus was two
natures but spoke and lived as one "I" - but it is not illogical nor
unreasonable.
>
> Is God infinite?
sure nuff - therefore the incarnation is completely possible. keep in
mind the teaching of john 1 - it tells us that the word became flesh
and dwelled among us - it does not say that the Spirit nor the Father
became flesh and dwelled among us. it cannot be said that the flesh
became God - just as we cannot say spirit is God, or love is God. you
argue against affirmations which have not been made.
it's little coinage to debate with you - you do not buy the virgin
birth - nor do you believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and
appeared to many witnesses nor that he ate with them after his
resurrection. in your world, the flesh and bones of Jesus are still on
this earth somewhere - right?
this calls into question what you could possibly mean when you speak of
yourself being a christian and yet deny the basic elements of
christianity. i am willing to accept you at your word on the matter of
your prayer in faith to God (some years back) to be your savior and
Lord - and i have a great trust in the ability of the Holy Spirit to
guide those who have called upon the name of the Lord and i am
confident that He who began a good work in you will perfect it unto the
day of Christ Jesus. everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will
be saved. so, i have no vested interest in running the "saved or no"
meter on you - but what you have come to believe is the opposite of the
christian message and i am not merely speaking about the mystery of
the incarnation - but the whole matter of the gospel and the God who
has revealed himself to us that we might know him.
God says there is a point when God will strive with men no further
(women too) but concerning that stiffnecked people israel God has also
said, "the calling of God is without repentence." so, i strive with
you - out of love - counting your message an enemy of the cross - but
praying always in hope that you might spark to light the flame of life
and know the joy of your salvation in Jesus Christ the risen one - who
is coming again.
Hebrews 11:6
6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would
draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those
who seek him.
peace.
pablo
Mark T
>> >> If the historical Jesus of Nazareth is God then he is also infinite
>> >> spirit because God is infinite spirit.
>> >> Was the historical Jesus of Nazareth an infinite spirit?
>> >> > God is eternal - very unlike us - spirit - non-corporeal - and
>> >> > infinite.
>> >> Exactly!!!!! HOWEVER .... the historical Jesus of Nazareth was BOTH
>> >> CORPOREAL & FINITE!!!!!!! Therefore Jesus is not God.
>> ...
>> > You are saying that because the whole of God is invisible, therefore
>> > His
>> > Word, a component of God, must likewise be invisible.
>> What does your word "whole" mean???????
>> If the WHOLE of God is invisible then the Logos (Mind / Reason / Word) is
>> also invisible.
>
> That, is the logical fallacy of division, or decomposition.
What does the word "WHOLE" mean????????
Use a dictionary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> > Because the whole of God is a Spirit, then every part of Him can only
>> > be
>> > Spirit.
>> If the WHOLE of God is spirit, then every part of God MUST be spirit.
>
> Says who?
Logic.
>> Number 23:19 - "God is not a man"
>> Jesus of Nazareth is a man.
>> Jesus said "God is Spirit" (John 4:24)
>> Why do you ignore what The Old testament and Jesus the Messiah both say
>> about God???
...
>if I am ignorant of the Old Testament, then my position must be wrong.
It IS wrong
>> >> > so, when God has a Son who shares in his essence/nature 100%
>> >> > - then his Son is going to be eternal - very unlike us - spirit -
>> >> > non-corporeal - and infinite.
>> >> NONE of those attributes are true of the historical Jesus of Nazareth
>> >> therefore Jesus is not the One God.
>> > Well, right now Yeshua IS non-corporeal, and He IS with us everywhere.
>> Prove it without a Bible Verse Vomit.
>
> Uhh, that Yeshua is here, but not physically present? Well, it's kinda
> self-evident. That Yeshua is here. yes. That there is no corporeal
> body to indicate His presence. Also yes.
That ISN'T a proof.
> Stop vomiting, pig.
Ad hominem by rabid fundamentalist who cannot anbswer my questions.
> you managed to piss me off.
You mangaed to piss God off with your rabid fundamentalist ratbaggery.
psalmsmith
"Mark T" <www...@tdoyoumean.2220> wrote:
Logic says:
Fallacy: Division
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/division.html
Description of Division
The fallacy of Division is committed when a person infers that what is
true of a whole must also be true of its constituents and justification
for that inference is not provided.
There are two main variants of the general fallacy of Division:
The first type of fallacy of Division is committed when 1) a person
reasons that what is true of the whole must also be true of the parts
and 2) the person fails to justify that inference with the required
degree of evidence. More formally, the "reasoning" follows this sort of
pattern:
1.
2. The whole, X, has properties A, B, C, etc.
3. Therefore the parts of X have properties A, B, C, etc.
That this line of reasoning is fallacious is made clear by the following
case: 4 is an even number. 1 and 3 are parts of 4. Therefore 1 and 3 are
even.
It should be noted that it is not always fallacious to draw a conclusion
about the parts of a whole based on the properties of the whole. As long
as adequate evidence is provided in the argument, the the reasoning can
be acceptable. For example, the human body is made out of matter and it
is reasonable to infer from this that the parts that make up the human
body are also made out of matter. This is because there is no reason to
believe that the body is made up of non-material parts that somehow form
matter when they get together.
The second version of the fallacy of division is committed when a person
1) draws a conclusion about the properties of indvidual members of a
class or group based on the collective properties of the class or group
and 2) there is not enough justification for the conclusion. More
formally, the line of "reasoning" is as follows:
1.
2. As a collective, Group or class X has properties A, B, C, etc.
3. Therefore the individual members of group or class X have
properties A, B, C, etc.
That this sort of reasoning is fallacious can be easily shown by the
following: It is true that athletes, taken as a group, are football
players, track runners, swimmers, tennis players, long jumpers, pole
vaulters and such. But it would be fallacious to infer that each
individual athlets is a football player, a track runner, a swimmer, a
tennis player, a swimmer, etc.
It should be noted that it is not always fallacious to draw a conclusion
about an individual based on what is true of the class he/she/it belongs
to. If the inference is backed by evidence, then the reasoning can be
fine. For example, it is not fallacious to infer that Bill the Siamese
cat is a mammal from the fact that all cats are mammals. In this case,
what is true of the class is also true of each individual member.
Examples of Division
1.
2. "The ball is blue, therefore the atoms that make it up are also
blue."
3.
4. "A living cell is organic material, so the chemicals making up the
cell must also be organic material."
5.
6. "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."
7.
8. "Sodium chloride (table salt) may be safely eaten. Therefore its
constituent elements, sodium and chloride, may be safely eaten."
9.
10. "Americans use much more electricity than Africans do. So Bill,
who lives in primitive cabin in Maine, uses more electricity than
Nelson, who lives in a modern house in South Africa. "
11.
12. "Men receive more higher education than women. Therefore Dr.
Jane Smart has less higher education than Mr. Bill Buffoon. "
13.
14. "Minorities get paid less than 'whites' in America. Therefore,
the black CEO of a multi-billion dollar company gets paid less than the
white janitor who cleans his office."
Mark T
>> >> > 1) if Jesus is divine - doesn't that mean God?
>> >> No.
>> >you not think so good
>> Look at the meaning of divine .... which is what I was talking about ....
>> You do not understand the meaning of divine ....
...
> bluster is not discussion.
Fundamentalist bullshit dogma is not logical discussion. I've been a
fundamentalist in the past. I left fundamentalism because it offers no real
answers only bullshit dogma. By preaching the same bullshit back at me you
are merely repeating the bullshit that I have already heard and dismissed as
unwoirthy of any attention. You have failed to produce any type of cogent
argument for your belief ... and failed to answer any of my questions. (See
end of this post)
> >> Number 23:19 - "God is not a man"
> >> Jesus of Nazareth is a man.
> >> Jesus said "God is Spirit" (John 4:24)
....
> Restated ... Is the historical Jesus of Nazareth an INFINITE spirit?
...
> again you snip
I always snip fundamentalist bullshit dogma. Think for yourself and answer
the bloody question: Is the historical Jesus of Nazareth an INFINITE spirit?
If YES ... then he is God.
If NO ... then he is not God.
Try to prove your answer with rational discussion not rabid fundamentalist
bullshit dogma..
>> Is God infinite?
>sure nuff
Is the historical Jesus of Nazareth an INFINITE spirit?
> keep in mind the teaching of john 1
Not written by the apostle John who was dead at the time. (90 -120 CE)
Dreadfully overquoted and miusunderstood by ignorant fundamentalists.
> in your world, the flesh and bones of Jesus are still on
> this earth somewhere - right?
Yep! If not, which way did Jesus fly through the sky like Superman? We
should be able to track him with a telescope!
>this calls into question what you could possibly mean when you speak of
>yourself being a christian and yet deny the basic elements of
>christianity.
What bullshit! Jesus plainly stated what the "basic elements of
Christianity" were but silly little fundamentalists have added to it when
their fundamentalist ratbaggery started about 100 years ago .....
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God (GOD NOT THE MESSIAH) with all your
heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the FIRST and
GREATEST COMMANDMENT. And the SECOND is like it: 'Love your neighbor as
yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these TWO COMMANDMENTS." -
Matthew 22:37-40
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing
that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the
COMMANDMENTS, which is the MOST IMPORTANT?" "The MOST IMPORTANT ONE,"
answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God (GOD NOT THE
MESSIAH) the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God (GOD NOT THE MESSIAH) with
all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all
your strength.' (Mark12:28-30)
And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying,
"Teacher, WHAT SHALL I DO TO INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE?"
He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read?" And he
answered, "You shall love the Lord your God (GOD NOT THE MESSIAH) with all
your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all
your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." And he said to him, "You have
answered right; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE." (Luke 10:25-28)
These are repeated THREE TIMES. They are in each of the synoptic
gospels. The commandments do not mention anything about the finite
human Jesus of Nazareth, The Messiah ...or about being born again ... or
about Christians following any of the man made "fundamentals" ... or about
Christians having to believe in the bible ... or about Christians having to
be fundamentalist.
AND THE GOSPEL ....................
What is recorded in Mark and Matthew about the CONTENT of the gospel that
Jesus preached?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MARK'S GOSPEL (ending at Mark 16:8)
1:15; 4:11; 4:14; 6:12; 9:1;13:9-10 all describe the gospel / good news as
announcing that the kingdom [realm] of God is here so one must turn away
from one's sins. Nothing more! Count how many times Jesus says the "the
kingdom of God is like" in Mark's gospel!
MATTHEW'S GOSPEL
4:17; 4:23; 5:19; 6:33; 7:21; 9:35; 10:7; 11:12; 12:28; 13:11; 13:19; 13:38;
13;52; 18:2; 19:23; 21:31 21:43; 23:13; 24:34; 25:34 ff; 26:13; describe the
gospel / good news as announcing that the kingdom [realm] of heaven is here
so one must turn away from one's sins. Nothing more! (Matthew prefers
'kingdom of heaven" to "kingdom of God") Count how many times Jesus says
the "the kingdom of God is like" in Matthew's gospel!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> what you have come to believe is the opposite of the
> christian message
Read the bible you worship (references above) and note that it is YOU whoi
is disopbeying what Jesus clearly said in the earliest of the gospels. Why
do you ADD fundamentalist dogma to the gospel of Jesus and to the two
greatest commandments????
Don't be fecking patronising with me, you little shit!
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
My argument rests on the fact that Christian definition of the One God
necessarily contains that the One God is infinite.
YOU HAVE FAILED TO ANSWER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS!!!!!
When the historical Jesus of Nazareth walked to Jerusalem was the infinite
One God walking to Jerusalem?
Was the infinite One God anywhere apart from the body of Jesus on this
journey?
Was the historical Jesus of Nazreth anywhere apart from his body during this
journey?
If the One God was operating anywhere outside the body of the historical
Jesus of Nazareth on the journey but the historical Jesus of Nazareth was
not operating anywhere outside of his body at the same time then
1. Jesus is not infinite and therefore not God because God is infinite ipso
facto
or
2. Jesus, if God, is a finite God no better than Zeus. If that is the case
then there ius not One God but a pluarlity of gods.
Please explain with a rational argument rather than a bible verse vomit.
Is this too difficult for your silly little fundamentalist mind to cope
with????
--
#################################################
My Testimony at
http://www.christian-life.us/testimonials/mark_tindall.htm
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
Mark T
>> >> >> If the historical Jesus of Nazareth is God then he is also infinite
>> >> >> spirit because God is infinite spirit.
>> >> >> Was the historical Jesus of Nazareth an infinite spirit?
>> >> >> > God is eternal - very unlike us - spirit - non-corporeal - and
>> >> >> > infinite.
>> >> >> Exactly!!!!! HOWEVER .... the historical Jesus of Nazareth was
>> >> >> BOTH
>> >> >> CORPOREAL & FINITE!!!!!!! Therefore Jesus is not God.
>> >> > You are saying that because the whole of God is invisible, therefore
>> >> > His Word, a component of God, must likewise be invisible.
>> >> What does your word "whole" mean???????
>> >> If the WHOLE of God is invisible then the Logos (Mind / Reason / Word)
>> >> is
>> >> also invisible.
....
>> What does the word "WHOLE" mean????????
>> Use a dictionary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Obviously your fecking little fundy mind is unable to use a dictionary!!!!
>> >> If the WHOLE of God is spirit, then every part of God MUST be spirit.
>> > Says who?
>> Logic.
>
> Logic says:
>
> Fallacy: Division
Fecking bullshit!!!!
WHAT DOES "WHOLE" MEAN, you little turd of fundamentalist??????
READ!!!!!!!!
COMPREHEND!!!!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
whole [ hol ]
adjective
Definitions:
1. entire: complete, including all parts or aspects, with nothing left out
2. undivided: not divided into parts or not regarded as consisting of
separate parts
3. relating to duration or extent: relating to or representing the full
duration or extent of something
stayed up the whole night
4. unbroken: not damaged or broken
not a single item of furniture left whole
5. unimpaired: not wounded, impaired, or incapacitated
no longer a whole man
6. healed or healthy: healed or restored to health physically or
psychologically
made him whole again
7. having parents in common: having both parents in common with your
siblings
a whole sister
8. not fractional: containing no fractions or decimals
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am using "whole" in the meaning of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8.
You are using "whoile with the single meaning of number 7. Even if Jesus
does have the same Father as I do (God) that does not make Jesus or me ...
or you .... God!!!!!!
Either Jesus is the WHOLE God or he is no God at all. There is no half way.
If you divide God up then God is not WHOLE (not One God)!!!!
psalmsmith
In article <4340...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, "Mark T"
<www...@tdoyoumean.2221> wrote:
> "pablo"wrote:
>
> >> >> > 1) if Jesus is divine - doesn't that mean God?
> >> >> No.
> >> >you not think so good
> >> Look at the meaning of divine .... which is what I was
> >> talking about .... You do not understand the meaning of
> >> divine ....
> ...
> > bluster is not discussion.
>
> Fundamentalist bullshit dogma is not logical discussion. I've
> been a fundamentalist in the past. I left fundamentalism
> because it offers no real answers only bullshit dogma. By
> preaching the same bullshit back at me you are merely repeating
> the bullshit that I have already heard and dismissed as
> unwoirthy of any attention. You have failed to produce any type
> of cogent argument for your belief ... and failed to answer any
> of my questions. (See end of this post)
"Fundamentalist bullshit dogma is not logical discussion."
Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule
Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh. Description of
Appeal to Ridicule The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which
ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."
This line of "reasoning" has the following form:
X, which is some form of ridicule is presented
(typically directed at the claim).
3. Therefore claim C is false. This sort of "reasoning" is
fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false.
This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's
the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!" It should be noted
that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of
legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it
reasonable to reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning
is known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). In
this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a
statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a
claim. For example: "Bill claims that a member of a minority group
cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this:
white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill's claim, it
would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan,
Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations." Since
the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist
organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim
that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false. Examples
of Appeal to Ridicule 1. 2. "Sure my worthy opponent claims that we
should lower tuition, but that is just laughable." 3. 4. "Support
the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah!
Hah!" 5. 6. "Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong
military is the key to peace!"
"I've been a fundamentalist in the past."
and the unstated conclusion "(therefore I know fundamentalism sucks.)"
Offers a composition fallacy in an appeal to emotion, provoking
a genetic fallacy. You have raised illogic to an artform.
Composition fallacy: "I've known bad fundies, therefore all
fundies are bad." Appeal to emotion: "trust me folks, I've been
there, these fundies were really bad to me." Genetic Fallacy:
"You've heard how bad the fundies are, so what comes from
fundamentalism can only be bad."
"I left fundamentalism because it offers no real answers only bullshit
dogma."
Fallacy: Biased Sample
Also Known as: Biased Statistics, Loaded Sample, Prejudiced
Statistics, Prejudiced Sample, Loaded Statistics, Biased Induction,
Biased Generalization
Description of Biased Sample
This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a
population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some
manner. It has the following form:
Sample S, which is biased, is taken from population P. Conclusion C
is drawn about Population P based on S. The person committing the
fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known
variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and
Statistical Generalization:
X% of all observed A's are B''s.
Therefore X% of all A's are Bs.
The fallacy is committed when the sample of A's is likely to be
biased in some manner. A sample is biased or loaded when the method
used to take the sample is likely to result in a sample that does
not adequately represent the population from which it is drawn.
Biased samples are generally not very reliable. As a blatant case,
imagine that a person is taking a sample from a truckload of small
colored balls, some of which are metal and some of which are
plastic. If he used a magnet to select his sample, then his sample
would include a disproportionate number of metal balls (after all,
the sample will probably be made up entirely of the metal balls).
In this case, any conclusions he might draw about the whole
population of balls would be unreliable since he would have few or
no plastic balls in the sample.
The general idea is that biased samples are less likely to contain
numbers proportional to the whole population. For example, if a
person wants to find out what most Americans thought about gun
control, a poll taken at an NRA meeting would be a biased sample.
Since the Biased Sample fallacy is committed when the sample (the
observed instances) is biased or loaded, it is important to have
samples that are not biased making a generalization. The best way
to do this is to take samples in ways that avoid bias. There are,
in general, three types of samples that are aimed at avoiding bias.
The general idea is that these methods (when used properly) will
result in a sample that matches the whole population fairly
closely. The three types of samples are as follows
Random Sample: This is a sample that is taken in such a way that
nothing but chance determines which members of the population are
selected for the sample. Ideally, any individual member of the
population has the same chance as being selected as any other. This
type of sample avoids being biased because a biased sample is one
that is taken in such a way that some members of the population
have a significantly greater chance of being selected for the
sample than other members. Unfortunately, creating an ideal random
sample is often very difficult.
Stratified Sample: This is a sample that is taken by using the
following steps: 1) The relevant strata (population subgroups) are
identified, 2) The number of members in each stratum is determined
and 3) A random sample is taken from each stratum in exact
proportion to its size. This method is obviously most useful when
dealing with stratified populations. For example, a person's income
often influences how she votes, so when conducting a presidential
poll it would be a good idea to take a stratified sample using
economic classes as the basis for determining the strata. This
method avoids loaded samples by (ideally) ensuring that each
stratum of the population is adequately represented.
Time Lapse Sample: This type of sample is taken by taking a
stratified or random sample and then taking at least one more
sample with a significant lapse of time between them. After the two
samples are taken, they can be compared for changes. This method of
sample taking is very important when making predictions. A
prediction based on only one sample is likely to be a Hasty
Generalization (because the sample is likely to be too small to
cover past, present and future populations) or a Biased Sample
(because the sample will only include instances from one time
period). People often commit Biased Sample because of bias or
prejudice. For example, a person might intentionally or
unintentionally seek out people or events that support his bias. As
an example, a person who is pushing a particular scientific theory
might tend to gather samples that are biased in favor of that
theory.
People also commonly commit this fallacy because of laziness or
sloppiness. It is very easy to simply take a sample from what
happens to be easily available rather than taking the time and
effort to generate an adequate sample and draw a justified
conclusion.
It is important to keep in mind that bias is relative to the
purpose of the sample. For example, if Bill wanted to know what NRA
members thought about a gun control law, then taking a sampleat a
NRA meeting would not be biased. However, if Bill wanted to
determine what Americans in general thought about the law, then a
sample taken at an NRA meeting would be biased.
Examples of Biased Sample
Bill is assigned by his editor to determine what most Americans
think about a new law that will place a federal tax on all modems
and computers purchased. The revenues from the tax will be used to
enforce new online decency laws. Bill, being technically inclined,
decides to use an email poll. In his poll, 95% of those surveyed
opposed the tax. Bill was quite surprised when 65% of all Americans
voted for the taxes.
The United Pacifists of America decide to run a poll to determine
what Americans think about guns and gun control. Jane is assigned
the task of setting up the study. To save mailing costs, she
includes the survey form in the group's newsletter mailing. She is
very pleased to find out that 95% of those surveyed favor gun
control laws and she tells her friends that the vast majority of
Americans favor gun control laws.
Large scale polls were taken in Florida, California, and Maine and
it was found that an average of 55% of those polled spent at least
fourteen days a year near the ocean. So, it can be safely concluded
that 55% of all Americans spend at least fourteen days near the
ocean each year.
"By preaching the same bullshit back at me you are merely repeating the
bullshit that I have already heard and dismissed as unwoirthy of any
attention."
Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem
Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to
attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is
making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy
involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such
as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background,
etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest
to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's
interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity
of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide
them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or
fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's
circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect
the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the
following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican,
so his claim is false."
There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's
claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased
by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company
representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would
be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the
person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or
not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to
make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a
parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would
be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this
obviously does not make her claim false.
Examples of Circumstantial Ad Hominem
"She asserts that we need more military spending, but that is
false, since she is only saying it because she is a Republican."
"I think that we should reject what Father Jones has to say about
the ethical issues of abortion because he is a Catholic priest.
After all, Father Jones is required to hold such views."
"Of course the Senator from Maine opposes a reduction in naval
spending. After all, Bath Ironworks, which produces warships, is in
Maine."
"Bill claims that tax breaks for corporations increases
development. Of course, Bill is the CEO of a corporation."
"You have failed to produce any type of cogent argument for your belief"
Fallacy: Personal Attack
Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.
Description of Personal Attack
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive
remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or
claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack
is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim
itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person
making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual
might be, he or she can still make true claims.
Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's
characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity
of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a
pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be
unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological
liars might speak the truth on occasion.
In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of
the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that
determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of
the person making the claim.
Examples of Personal Attack
In a school debate, Bill claims that the President's economic plan
is unrealistic. His opponent, a professor, retorts by saying "the
freshman has his facts wrong."
"This theory about a potential cure for cancer has been introduced
by a doctor who is a known lesbian feminist. I don't see why we
should extend an invitation for her to speak at the World
Conference on Cancer."
"Bill says that we should give tax breaks to companies. But he is
untrustworthy, so it must be wrong to do that."
"That claim cannot be true. Dave believes it, and we know how
morally repulsive he is."
"Bill claims that Jane would be a good treasurer. However I find
Bill's behavior offensive, so I'm not going to vote for Jill."
"Jane says that drug use is morally wrong, but she is just a
goody-two shoes Christian, so we don't have to listen to her."
Bill: "I don't think it is a good idea to cut social programs."
Jill: "Why not?"
Bill: "Well, many people do not get a fair start in life and hence
need some help. After all, some people have wealthy parents and
have it fairly easy. Others are born into poverty and..."
Jill: "You just say that stuff because you have a soft heart and an
equally soft head."
"and failed to answer any of my questions. (See end of this post)"
Fallacy: Burden of Proof
Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed
on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence
for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the
burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is
an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the
following form:
Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually
rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it.
This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The
claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of
proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The
difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the
burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be
a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof
is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is
assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of
proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the
burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final
example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim
something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and
sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof
Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the
interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of
the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"
Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have
psychic powers."
"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."
> Fundamentalist bullshit dogma is not logical discussion. I've
> been a fundamentalist in the past. I left fundamentalism
> because it offers no real answers only bullshit dogma. By
> preaching the same bullshit back at me you are merely repeating
> the bullshit that I have already heard and dismissed as
> unwoirthy of any attention. You have failed to produce any type
> of cogent argument for your belief ... and failed to answer any
> of my questions. (See end of this post)
Fallacy: Appeal to Spite
Description of Appeal to Spite
The Appeal to Spite Fallacy is a fallacy in which spite is
substituted for evidence when an "argument" is made against a
claim. This line of "reasoning" has the following form:
Claim X is presented with the intent of generating spite.
Therefore claim C is false (or true)
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because a feeling of spite
does not count as evidence for or against a claim. This is quite
clear in the following case: "Bill claims that the earth revolves
around the sun. But remember that dirty trick he pulled on you last
week. Now, doesn't my claim that the sun revolves around the earth
make sense to you?"
Of course, there are cases in which a claim that evokes a feeling
of spite or malice can serve as legitimate evidence. However, it
should be noted that the actual feelings of malice or spite are not
evidence. The following is an example of such a situation:
Jill: "I think I'll vote for Jane to be treasurer of NOW."
Vicki: "Remember the time that your purse vanished at a meeting
last year?"
Jill: "Yes."
Vicki:"Well, I just found out that she stole your purse and stole
some other stuff from people."
Jill: "I'm not voting for her!"
In this case, Jill has a good reason not to vote for Jane. Since a
treasurer should be honest, a known thief would be a bad choice. As
long as Jill concludes that she should vote against Jane because
she is a thief and not just out of spite, her reasoning would not
be falacious.
Examples of Appeal to Spite
Bill: "I think that Jane did a great job this year. I'm going to
nominate her for the award."
Dave: "Have you forgotten last year? Remember that she didn't
nominate you last year."
Bill: "You're right. I'm not going to nominate her."
Jill: "I think Jane's idea is a really good one and will really
save a lot of money for the department."
Bill: "Maybe. Remember how she showed that your paper had a fatal
flaw when you read it at the convention last year..."
Jill:"I had just about forgotten about that! I think I'll go with
your idea instead."
Jude Alexander
"Griz" <gr...@nosklem.cois.on.ca> wrote in message
news:11k10uo...@corp.supernews.com...
Quit trying to characterize yourself as our victim. I don't hate you,
Griz. I think Mark has a distinct dislike for you but, from what hear, his
interaction with you was quite different than mine. I WILL continue to
point out the errors in the bible and how people use it as a weapon by
calling it the "word of God," which it is not. People have done great
damage by that belief and I will do what I can in the time I'm here on the
net to change that.
Thanks for calling me a liar. Keep it up and perhaps one day I ALSO will
not like you.
Mark T
>> "I've been a fundamentalist in the past."
>
> and the unstated conclusion "(therefore I know fundamentalism sucks.)"
Yep!
Fundamentalist bullshit dogma is not logical discussion. I've
been a fundamentalist in the past. I left fundamentalism
because it offers no real answers only bullshit dogma. By
preaching the same bullshit back at me you are merely repeating
the bullshit that I have already heard and dismissed as
unworthy of any attention. You have failed to produce any type
of cogent argument for your belief ... and failed to answer any
of my questions.
You're a dickhead!
Mark T
> Quit trying to characterize yourself as our victim. I don't hate you,
> Griz. I think Mark has a distinct dislike for you but, from what hear,
> his
> interaction with you was quite different than mine.
I think Griz is a dickhead who thionks of himself as more spitualk than
everyone else .... but I don't hate him. Someone needs to point out to Griz
that his spiritual asceticism and bible addiction doesn't work in the real
world.
Have you ever noticed that fundamentalists never answer the hard questions?
psalmsmith
"Mark T" <www...@tdoyoumean.2221> wrote:
> "psalmsmith" wrote:
>
>
> >> "I've been a fundamentalist in the past."
> >
> > and the unstated conclusion "(therefore I know fundamentalism sucks.)"
>
>
> Yep!
>
> Fundamentalist bullshit dogma is not logical discussion. I've
> been a fundamentalist in the past. I left fundamentalism
> because it offers no real answers only bullshit dogma. By
> preaching the same bullshit back at me you are merely repeating
> the bullshit that I have already heard and dismissed as
> unworthy of any attention. You have failed to produce any type
> of cogent argument for your belief ... and failed to answer any
> of my questions.
>
> You're a dickhead!
I apologize Mark. All I was doing was asking you to not to lecture me
about logic. If you must, however, by all means. That is an easier
exercise, at least.
Mark T
> I apologize Mark.
Thou art forgiven.
psalmsmith
"Mark T" <www...@tdoyoumean.2221> wrote:
> "psalmsmith" wrote:
>
> >> >> >> If the historical Jesus of Nazareth is God then he is also infinite
> >> >> >> spirit because God is infinite spirit.
> >> >> >> Was the historical Jesus of Nazareth an infinite spirit?
> >> >> >> > God is eternal - very unlike us - spirit - non-corporeal - and
> >> >> >> > infinite.
> >> >> >> Exactly!!!!! HOWEVER .... the historical Jesus of Nazareth was
> >> >> >> BOTH
> >> >> >> CORPOREAL & FINITE!!!!!!! Therefore Jesus is not God.
> >> >> > You are saying that because the whole of God is invisible, therefore
> >> >> > His Word, a component of God, must likewise be invisible.
> >> >> What does your word "whole" mean???????
> >> >> If the WHOLE of God is invisible then the Logos (Mind / Reason / Word)
> >> >> is
> >> >> also invisible.
> ....
> >> What does the word "WHOLE" mean????????
> >> Use a dictionary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Obviously your fecking little fundy mind is unable to use a dictionary!!!!
Mark, if you take three crystals, a red, cyan, and green, and place them
in on a light projector into a diffuse screen. The light would appear
white. Because the light on the screen is white, does not mean that if
you removed one of the crystals, then that crystal would also be white,
or rather colorless.
Components of x do not necessessarily have the traits of x.
Yes, and the whole number 4 is an even number. The trait of evenness
attached to 4, is much like the trait of 'invisible spirit' attached to
God.
But two components of the number four, are the numbers 1 and 3. Because
4 has the trait of evenness, does not mean that 1 and 3 likewise must
have the trait of evenness. You see, 1 and 3 are both odd, much like
your description of Jesus' trait of humanty.
Griz
>Quit trying to characterize yourself as our victim. I don't hate you,
>Griz. I think Mark has a distinct dislike for you but, from what hear, his
>interaction with you was quite different than mine. I WILL continue to
>point out the errors in the bible and how people use it as a weapon by
>calling it the "word of God," which it is not. People have done great
>damage by that belief and I will do what I can in the time I'm here on the
>net to change that.
I'm nobody's victim Jude, and neither are you -- unless we would choose to
be.
And can you make the leap from not hating me, to loving me? This is one of
the requirements of the Christ-centred paradigm.
>Thanks for calling me a liar. Keep it up and perhaps one day I ALSO will
>not like you.
If one tries to impart characteristics upon fundamentalists that are not
entirely true of the group, what are we to think? But my intent was not to
accuse you of lying. In all things, that remains the Holy Spirit's job.
But I have in the span of a very few days seen an insistance of certain
things upon a broad group of believers (that you don't seem to like very
much), that are not an accurate witness of them.
Look Jude, you can continue in this mode if you want . . . but it does tend
to trash one's personal witness.
But enough of this.
I offered something to you because I care. It is yours to do with as you
wish.
Yours in Christ,
Griz
el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)
> "pablo"wrote:
>
> >> >> > 1) if Jesus is divine - doesn't that mean God?
> >> >> No.
> >> >you not think so good
> >> Look at the meaning of divine .... which is what I was talking about ....
> >> You do not understand the meaning of divine ....
> ...
> > bluster is not discussion.
>
> Fundamentalist bullshit dogma is not logical discussion. I've been a
> fundamentalist in the past. I left fundamentalism because it offers no real
> answers only bullshit dogma. By preaching the same bullshit back at me you
> are merely repeating the bullshit that I have already heard and dismissed as
> unwoirthy of any attention. You have failed to produce any type of cogent
> argument for your belief ... and failed to answer any of my questions. (See
> end of this post)
bluster is still not discussion. as i said before - if you or anyone
wants to discuss the meanings of the word divine and how it applies to
this discussion -- i have already begun a discussion on that - snipping
it and complaining about fundamentalist bogeymen is not discussion.
>
>
> > >> Number 23:19 - "God is not a man"
> > >> Jesus of Nazareth is a man.
> > >> Jesus said "God is Spirit" (John 4:24)
> ....
> > Restated ... Is the historical Jesus of Nazareth an INFINITE spirit?
> ...
> > again you snip
>
>
> I always snip fundamentalist bullshit dogma. Think for yourself and answer
> the bloody question: Is the historical Jesus of Nazareth an INFINITE spirit?
well, then
> > in your world, the flesh and bones of Jesus are still on
> > this earth somewhere - right?
>
> Yep! If not, which way did Jesus fly through the sky like Superman? We
> should be able to track him with a telescope!
>
>
> >this calls into question what you could possibly mean when you speak of
> >yourself being a christian and yet deny the basic elements of
> >christianity.
>
> What bullshit! Jesus plainly stated what the "basic elements of
> Christianity" were but silly little fundamentalists have added to it when
> their fundamentalist ratbaggery started about 100 years ago .....
>
>
> Don't be fecking patronising with me, you little shit!
mark, the death, burial, bodily resurrection, appearing to many
witnesses, ascension and coming of our Jesus Christ our Lord is not
something fundamentalists made up 100 years or so ago. if this is the
fundamentalism which you fear and so loathe - then what you fear and
loathe is christianity plain and simple.
christianity is about the risen Savior and his kingdom is of no
consequence apart from the resurrection of the dead. our faith is
nothing if Christ is not raised from the dead.
1 Corinthians 15
1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you,
which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being
saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you-unless you
believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:
that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance
with the Scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he
appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom
are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to
James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely
born, he appeared also to me.
12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of
you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ
has been raised.
14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and
your faith is in vain.
15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified
about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true
that the dead are not raised.
16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.
17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are
still in your sins.
18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19 If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people
most to be pitied.
this is not a bible verse vomit - it is what you call fundamentalism -
and it did not begin 100 years ago.
peace.
pablo
::: vera :::
Mark's "interactions" with you?
I did not know there have ever been any. I only saw Mark attacking you
for no reason at all. Maybe he means Mark's actions against you.
He might mean all the libel, insults and lies that came from Mark
Tindall.
That is the truth.
God bless you,
::: vera :::
____________________________________________________
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::::::
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::::::
::::::: http://www.e-sword.net :::::::
Roy Mock
"el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)" <rab...@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1128429575....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The dating of fundamentalism is cited in places like
http://tinyurl.com/b7o6u or http://tinyurl.com/cb6qn or
http://tinyurl.com/5vzp7.
"THE FUNDAMENTALS" that was distributed at the beginning if the 20th century
can be read online at http://tinyurl.com/7j4qm.
el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)
> > mark, the death, burial, bodily resurrection, appearing to many
> > witnesses, ascension and coming of our Jesus Christ our Lord is not
> > something fundamentalists made up 100 years or so ago.
>
> The dating of fundamentalism is cited in places like
> http://tinyurl.com/b7o6u or http://tinyurl.com/cb6qn or
> http://tinyurl.com/5vzp7.
>
> "THE FUNDAMENTALS" that was distributed at the beginning if the 20th century
> can be read online at http://tinyurl.com/7j4qm.
hi roy, i am well aware of the rise of classical liberalism in the mid
19th century, etc. and one of the responses which became known as
fundamentalism. but, the charge that the centrality of the cross, the
death, burial, bodily resurrection, appearing to many witnesses,
ascension and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ was something added to
christianity 100 years ago is baseless. it
isn't something that was made up and imposed upon the church about 100
years or so ago was it?
as i quoted paul in the last post - the work of Christ has been
understood and held as the center of the christian faith since early
times - certainly longer than 100 years.
just in case you wish to ref this passage:
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Corinthians+15
here is an interesting article on pauline influences in the gospel of
mark:
http://ww3.6URL.com/PAULMARK
at any rate - christianity affirms the very things which the new
testament gives witness to concerning Jesus Christ our Lord - his
death, burial, resurrection, appearing to many witnesses, ascension,
and coming are not inventions of some modern era.
peace.
pablo
Roy Mock
> Roy Mock wrote:
>
>> > mark, the death, burial, bodily resurrection, appearing to many
>> > witnesses, ascension and coming of our Jesus Christ our Lord is not
>> > something fundamentalists made up 100 years or so ago.
>>
>> The dating of fundamentalism is cited in places like
>> http://tinyurl.com/b7o6u or http://tinyurl.com/cb6qn or
>> http://tinyurl.com/5vzp7.
>>
>> "THE FUNDAMENTALS" that was distributed at the beginning if the 20th
>> century
>> can be read online at http://tinyurl.com/7j4qm.
>
> hi roy, i am well aware of the rise of classical liberalism in the mid
> 19th century, etc. and one of the responses which became known as
> fundamentalism. but, the charge that the centrality of the cross, the
> death, burial, bodily resurrection, appearing to many witnesses,
I'm with you there, mate.
> ... was something added to
> christianity 100 years ago is baseless. it
> isn't something that was made up and imposed upon the church about 100
> years or so ago was it?
Maybe I got my wires crossed. But certainly it was movements like Modernism
that propelled fundamentalism to the fore a century ago.
> as i quoted paul in the last post - the work of Christ has been
> understood and held as the center of the christian faith since early
> times - certainly longer than 100 years.
>
> just in case you wish to ref this passage:
> http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Corinthians+15
>
> here is an interesting article on pauline influences in the gospel of
> mark:
> http://ww3.6URL.com/PAULMARK
>
> at any rate - christianity affirms the very things which the new
> testament gives witness to concerning Jesus Christ our Lord - his
> death, burial, resurrection, appearing to many witnesses, ascension,
> and coming are not inventions of some modern era.
Yea, verily.
I don't know your thoughts on the Five Fundamentals or the Chicago
Statement: From what I can see, neither 'death' nor 'resurrection' are
itemised in the two statements.
Mark T
> If one tries to impart characteristics upon fundamentalists that are not
> entirely true of the group, what are we to think?
But this IS true .....
Mark T
>> >> >> If the WHOLE of God is invisible then the Logos (Mind / Reason /
>> >> >> Word)
>> >> >> is also invisible.
>> ....
>> >> What does the word "WHOLE" mean????????
>> >> Use a dictionary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Obviously your fecking little fundy mind is unable to use a
>> dictionary!!!!
>
> Mark, if you take three crystals, a red, cyan, and green, and place them
> in on a light projector into a diffuse screen. The light would appear
> white.
Red is not the WHOLE of white.
Cyan is not the WHOLE of white.
Green is not the WHOLE of white.
There is only One God.
You are the one who has to prove that Jesus is the WHOLE of this One God.
Or are you really worshipping three gods like the three colours?????
Red, Cyan and Green are only parts not the WHOLE of white.
There is only one number 4.
1 is not the WHOLE of 4.
2 is not the WHOLE of 4
3 is not the WHOLE of 4.
There is only One God.
You are the one who has to prove that Jesus is the WHOLE of this One God.
Or are you really worshipping three gods like the three numbers?????
1,2,3 are only parts not the WHOLE of 4.
Mark T
>> this is not a bible verse vomit - it is what you call fundamentalism -
>> and it did not begin 100 years ago.
>
> The dating of fundamentalism is cited in places like
> http://tinyurl.com/b7o6u or http://tinyurl.com/cb6qn or
> http://tinyurl.com/5vzp7.
>
> "THE FUNDAMENTALS" that was distributed at the beginning if the 20th
> century can be read online at http://tinyurl.com/7j4qm.
Exactly!!!!
Fundamentalism is a recent movement.
Fundamentalists will never know if they don't read anything except the bible
and rabid fundamentalist books.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George M Marsden "Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism" (W B
Eerdmans : 1991)
A fundamentalist is an evangelical who is mad about something. That seems
simple and is fairly accurate. ... A more precise statement of the same
point is that an American fundamentalist is an evangelical who is militatnt
in opposition to liberal theology in the churches or to changes in cultural
values or mores, such as those associated with "secular humanism". In
either the long or the short definitions, fundamentalists are a subtype of
evangelicals and militancy is crucial to their oputlook. Fundamentalists
are not just religious conservatives, they are conservatives who are willing
to take a stand and to fight. This definition would be fairly clear if we
knew exactly wha an evangelical is. However our task is made more difficult
because neither fundamentalism nor evangelicalism is a clearly defined
religious organization with a membership list. Rather, both evanglicalism
and fundamentalism are religious movements. Each of these movements, though
only informally organized, is an identifiable set of groups and individuals
with some common history and traits. So we may talk about each movement as
a whole, as when we say fundamentalists are militant. At the same time, it
is just as true that each of these movements is a coalition of submovements,
which are sometimes strikingly diverse and do not always get along. pp.1 - 2
All share to some dgree the common experience of being outsiders to the most
sophisticated modern culture. p. 6
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Fundamentalism] is a manifestation of a fairly low level of mental health
.... For a start, Fundamentalists call for a literal interpretation
of scripture, and as we saw when we were discussing secular values, focusing
in on the letter of the law is a characteristic of the less healthy. In
addition, wise people tend not to exhibit literal mindedness, so it seems
singularly inappropriate to assume that this is the vein in which great
spiritual teahers are speaking. Then again, whether we're talking about
Christianity, Islam, Judaism or Hinduism, the values of Fundamentalists seem
aimed at making themselves feel better by placing all negative and
destructive emotions in people with different beliefs, and enjoying the
golden glow of self-justification that results. ... You know that simile:
'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.' ... the Inquisition did
largely miss the point of 'Love Thy Neighbour', didn't they? Wasn't burning
heretics 'worse' than being tolerant towards them? ...
Robin Skinner & John Cleese "LIFE ...and how to survive it" - (Methuen;
London:1993)p. 287
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...biblical fundamentalists. Their obscurantism and their inability
to look historical facts in the face mark them out as very insecure people
who need some outward token of infallible authority because they lack an
inner authority adequate to control their deep confusions and fears.
Psychotherapy constantly produces evidence that this narrowness of
view-point and tendency to bigotry covers an unfortunate tug-of-war between
instinctual drives and super-ego authority, issuing in obsessive symptoms.
C Edward Baker "The Church's Neurosis & 20th Century Revelations" (Rider &
Co; London; 1975) p. 38
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FUNDAMENTALISM (from Peter Cameron's "Fundamentalism and Freedom"
(Doubleday; Sydney: 1995.)
To reduce that to convenient headings, the Fundamentalist is uncomfortable
with freedom, truth, and dissent.' and very much at home with authority,
obedience, and conformity But the most striking feature of the
Fundamentalist is that, whether he is conscious of it or not, his approach
results in the total contradiction of what he professes to believe. p7
They will be fearful in the face of any challenge to their security and
brutal in their reaction; they will seek to bolster their security by
persuading others of its validity.; and those others will be persuaded
because of their own increasing sense of insecurity in the modern world.
...the key concepts being security and power ...the Fundamentalist is
usually both a bully and a coward. ...the potential bully in them responds
eagerly to authority and looks forward to the time when they will exercise
that authority; while the most bullying of the bosses tend to shelter behind
the more cowardly and get them to do their dirty work for them.
...security for the convert ... The Fundamentalist deals in absolutes. ...
"We have the answer. The answer is to ask no questions. Everything is set
out ion the Holy Book. Simply obey and you will find happiness - in other
words, security."
... Argument, debate, the possibility that they might be wrong - these are
not on the agenda. In any other walk of life they would be regarded as
unhinged. Very few of them have ever been exposed to the simplest form of
biblical criticism, yet they feel qualified to tell people who have spent
half a lifetime on the subject that they are barking up he wrong tree. It's
rather like witchdoctor medicine confronted with real medicine. The
primitive reaction is one of fear, suspicion and hostility - out with the
spears and shields. And the witchdoctors themselves, of course, have vested
interests to protect: their positions of control and authority. naturally
they resist.
...Fundamentalists need an enemy; an enemy both gives them their own
identity and unites them. ...they stand for nothing positive at all - simply
obedience to rules and the condemnation of those who break them.
...Fundamentalists are impervious to rational argument. They are convinced
that they are God's chosen instrument and that their victims are agents of
the devil. They need to be convinced of this, because it is what gives them
purpose to their lives. Fundamentalism's real purpose is not to save but to
condemn: for the dissenter or for the outsider it is dangerous almost be
definition.
... the danger is manifested in the methods used. No holds are barred. All
is fair in holy war. The end always justifies the means. ...appropriate is
the Old Testament norm, according to which the apostate who deviates from
true doctrine contaminates the people of God and must be weeded out and
burned.
The pattern therefore is one of private hearings, and stacked committees,
and kangaroo courts, or - more simply and more devastatingly - a
behind-the-scenes verdict and a sentence of ostracism with no possibility of
appeal.
... a closed system of rules and obedience, and authoritarian control, and
rigid conformity. Instead of a religion of love which proceeds by
invitation, it is a religion of fear which proceeds by intimidation.
...Fundamentalism is wrong, it is a distortion of Christianity, in fact it
is its complete contradiction. ... it masquerades as the truth.
Christianity is not a matter of obeying commandments, or of obtaining
salvation through the acceptance of an authoritative holy book, or of
believing in certain propositions like a physical resurrection. the irony
is that what Fundamentalist Christianity teaches is exactly the sort of
thing which the founder of Christianity came to warn people about.
...Fundamentalism ... thrives on protective stupidity.
...fear in the face of any challenge to the status quo; indoctrination in
order to prevent dissent, and brutality in suppressing dissent; the
exaltation of authority and rules and control and manipulation; and
certainty on the part of those in charge that they possess the truth, hand
in hand with an actual perversion of the truth into mere expediency. p. 10
ff
--
#################################################
My Testimony at
http://www.christian-life.us/testimonials/mark_tindall.htm
***********************************************************
'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.
Griz
>Mark's "interactions" with you?
>
>I did not know there have ever been any. I only saw Mark attacking you
>for no reason at all. Maybe he means Mark's actions against you.
>
>He might mean all the libel, insults and lies that came from Mark
>Tindall.
>
>That is the truth.
>
>God bless you,
>
> ::: vera :::
Each and every person gets to choose how they will respond to one another,
and what god their lives will bear witness to. Both from Scripture and from
personal experience with people over the years, I believe it an axiom that
whatever fills the heart will inevitable show up in works and deeds (one's
fruit) manifest over the years.
The only question then would be why would anyone choose a god that fills
their heart and enslaves them with treachery, slander, mis-truths,
blindness, pride, anger and desires for vengeance -- when God Almighty will
set us free from bondage and fill us with love, joy, peace, patience,
forgiveness, kindness, longsuffering, grace and many other fruits of His
Spirit?
Yours in Christ,
Griz
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> If one tries to impart characteristics upon fundamentalists that are not
> entirely true of the group, what are we to think?
How sure are you that it's not entirely true of the group ?
lawrence
el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)
yeah, and i thought after hitting send that i should have commented on
the good links you provided - the last one certainly was a good read
with good references as well. so, a belated - thanks.
i think we can make too much out of the doctrinal affirmations which
were pulled together in the face of those who wished to deny them 200 -
80 something years ago (or the about 100 years ago point in time). 1
cor 15 obviously contains a response to some people within the church
(or influential towards the church) that were teaching (or holding the
belief) that there was no coming resurrection of the dead (the general
resurrection). paul's response goes further and makes a case
concerning the centrality of the resurrection in the gospel - but again
we can hear him speaking to the controversy (or controversial ones):
1 cor 15:12
Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of
you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
with a certainty - most of the teachings of the church which are
sourced (in some part) in 1 and 2 corinthians are in response to
someone teaching or holding a position contra to the gospel. this is
the case in much of paul's writings and certainly in the espistles of
john (if not the gospel as well). it might be argued that each gospel
speaks to some missunderstandings at one point or another as well. so,
the church responding to views contra to it's core message is as old as
the church - or thereabouts. certainly, the first 7 ecumenical
counsels were called for much the same reasons. much of the early lit
we have - from the church fathers is equally written in reaction to
errors. augustine's life work or corpus of writings were shaped in
response to error.
this continues on throughout the history of the church. i am not
saying that all writings were simply apologetics or defenses - but it's
there in the record and part of the weave of christian lit through the
ages. take edward's writing of "brainard's journal" it is a defense of
revivalism from a reformed perspective - and it is a book about
brainard.
so, there has been a church long tradition of the pulls of those who
would re-write the definition of christianity (or elements therein) and
a tradition of those who have sought to bring definition and clarity to
such tensions.
but...
my point in this post is not about that - it's about lumping positions
held by the church since the compostion of the scriptures and
especially those matters which the church has held to be the gospel -
and lumping them into some bogey of an 100 year old time frame - as if
the resurrection (bodily),et. al was invented by fundamentalists. the
notion that these elements of the gospel - the death, burial,
resurrection, appearing to many witnesses, ascension, and the coming of
our Jesus Christ our Lord are something new in the church - doesn't
wash. the specific allegation that such things were added to the
gospel which Jesus taught or that they were added 100 or so years ago
also does not wash.
the tent is big - but it does have an edge. those who stand outside
that edge and continue to suggest that what they are calling
christianity is the bonafide deal - are wrong.
and that's the theological tent i am speak of - for the salvation tent
(even knowing that the way is narrow that leads to life) still is of
grace and i am certain it extends a beyond the edge of the theological
tent (at the very least i am not the competent judge of the unseen
dealings between God and the heart of another who has called upon the
name of the Lord). but, even that tent has an edge.
>
> > as i quoted paul in the last post - the work of Christ has been
> > understood and held as the center of the christian faith since early
> > times - certainly longer than 100 years.
> >
> > just in case you wish to ref this passage:
> > http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Corinthians+15
> >
> > here is an interesting article on pauline influences in the gospel of
> > mark:
> > http://ww3.6URL.com/PAULMARK
> >
> > at any rate - christianity affirms the very things which the new
> > testament gives witness to concerning Jesus Christ our Lord - his
> > death, burial, resurrection, appearing to many witnesses, ascension,
> > and coming are not inventions of some modern era.
>
> Yea, verily.
forsoothe and verily... veryily verily...
>
> I don't know your thoughts on the Five Fundamentals or the Chicago
> Statement: From what I can see, neither 'death' nor 'resurrection' are
> itemised in the two statements.
no need for mystery - i stand within that circle of affirmation of
those fundamentals as being truth (though even just reading about them
i don't know them by heart - so if that millenial things is in there -
then i'm not on that list - i get these lists confused sometimes - not
big on my life's agenda) and the chicago statement is something i would
sign - it's kinda long - so there might be a few bits i'd want to
change here and there - but yes.
but, even if i were a rabid "hold the fort" and small tent christian
(which i am not) what i am speaking about in this thread is not a
defense of the fundamentalists nor their position - but in the kerygma
and didache which has been consistent of christianity from the
beginning. there's wiggle room in just about all those areas - denial
room? not quite so much IMO.
peace.
pablo
el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)
> "Roy Mock" wrote:
>
> >> this is not a bible verse vomit - it is what you call fundamentalism -
> >> and it did not begin 100 years ago.
> >
> > The dating of fundamentalism is cited in places like
> > http://tinyurl.com/b7o6u or http://tinyurl.com/cb6qn or
> > http://tinyurl.com/5vzp7.
> >
> > "THE FUNDAMENTALS" that was distributed at the beginning if the 20th
> > century can be read online at http://tinyurl.com/7j4qm.
>
>
> Exactly!!!!
>
> Fundamentalism is a recent movement.
>
belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is not the product of a
recent movement. instead of quoting people who have some axe to grind
against the perceived bogey of the evil fundamentalists - why not prove
your case and show that the church and the mainstream of christianity
did not hold a belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus up until just
about 100 or so years ago.
all fundy chat aside - any system of thought which does not affirm the
bodily resurrection of Christ - is not a system which can wear the
label "christian" and be telling the truth about itself. it can be a
deluded system of thought or an erroneous system of thought - but it is
not christianity.
14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and
your faith is in vain.
15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified
about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true
that the dead are not raised.
peace.
pablo
::: vera :::
Yes, Griz, you are perfectly right - but the devil does not rest, does
he? That is the answer.
Be blessed,
::: vera :::
Yes, Griz, you are perfectly right - but the devil does not rest, does
he? That is the answer.
Be blessed,
::: vera :::
Mark T
> Both from Scripture and from
> personal experience with people over the years, I believe it an axiom that
> whatever fills the heart will inevitable show up in works and deeds (one's
> fruit) manifest over the years.
THE SPIRIT & FRUIT OF GRIZ
Griz's spirit and fruit has been:
- his subjective assumption that he has the gift of discernment
- his subjective assumption that he is a leader
- his subjective assumption that he has ministry on the newsgroups
- his subjective assumption that he is called by God to implement his cult
- his subjective assumption that his cult's guidelines for the
unmoderated newsgroup ACC were "God given"
- his subjective assumption that Christians should all agree with his
asceticism and fundamentalist belief otherwise they are not really
Christians.
- his subjective assumption that diversity is not part of God's kingdom
- his insipid tone of pious superiority to all other Christians as though
they do not also have access to God
- his demonising of other Christians
Mark T
> paul's response
Paul was a fallible human just like everyone else.
>most of the teachings of the church which are
> sourced (in some part) in 1 and 2 corinthians are in response to
> someone teaching or holding a position contra to the gospel.
Whose Gospel???? That of Paul (who never met the historical Jesus of
Nazareth) or that of the historical Jesus of Nazareth??? Why do you follow
Paul more than Jesus of Nazareth????
> those who would re-write the definition of christianity (or elements
> therein)
Those would be fundamentalists.
Mark T
>> > The dating of fundamentalism is cited in places like
>> > http://tinyurl.com/b7o6u or http://tinyurl.com/cb6qn or
>> > http://tinyurl.com/5vzp7.
>> > "THE FUNDAMENTALS" that was distributed at the beginning if the 20th
>> > century can be read online at http://tinyurl.com/7j4qm.
>> Exactly!!!!
>> Fundamentalism is a recent movement.
>
> belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is not the product of a
> recent movement.
No ... it is a product of John's gospel's platonism, a misreading of Paul's
fallible letters, the misinterpretation by Gentile Christians (via paul) of
Jewish Christian's (via James and Peter) idioms and belief, etc etc etc ...
a deception that has gone on for two thousand years.
Fundamentalist Gentile Christianity (via Paul & the Antioch Christians)
bears little resemblance to the Jewish Christianity of the historical Jesus
of Nazareth, the Christ (via Peter and James and the Jerusalem Christians)
The Gentile Christians easily absorbed Jesus as a god like Zeus ... or a
Lord God and Saviour like Caesar .... and produced John's gospel in their
confusion. (Not written by the apostle John who was dead at the time ...
90 - 120 CE)
The Jerusalem Christians would never have imagined ... or accepted .. that
any human ... including the Jesus of Nazareth ... could be the One Goid,
YHWH. The historical Jesus of Nazareth never claimed to be YHWH.
Who knew the historical Jesus of Nazareth better - Paul or James and
Peter?????
> any system of thought which does not affirm the bodily resurrection of
> Christ - is not a
> system which can wear the label "christian" and be telling the truth about
> itself.
That's what ALL silly fundamentalists like yourself say ...
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
You're wrong!
A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Christ. These are found by
examining the layers of the gospel. Read my last posts ... Even better
read John Dominc Crossan & Jonathon L Reed "Excavating Jesus: Beneath the
stones, Behind the texts" (Harper SanFrancisco: 2001 - Updated and revised)
... two brilliant scholars!!!
Your fundamentalist Post-Easter Jesus (the Christ of Faith, God in the
flesh) bears no resemblance to the Pre-Easter Jesus ( historical Jesus of
Nazareth, the human Christ)
THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!
It is not a matter of what has been wrongly believed by the church through
the ages but a matter of what is TRUE about the historical Jesus of Nazareth
(The Pre-Easter Jesus)
Again, this is found by examining the layers of the gospel like an
archeologist would do with any other ancient text. The bible is no
different in that respect. One cannot assume that all the writers and all
the documents in the bible hold the same weight of truth ... or that within
a document things have not been changed or added. There are many
contradictions and changes in the kerygma from ( in time sequence) the
historical Jesus of Nazareth to Paul ( who wrote first but had never met the
historical Jesus of Nazareth) to Mark's gospel to Matthew's gospel to Luke's
gospel / Acts to John's gospel (not written by the apostle John).
Fundamentalists put more weight on John's gopel that the earlier (and more
reliable) accounts about Jesus.
The earlier the account the more closer it is to the real time / space Jesus
of Nazareth.
The later the account the farther away it is from the real time / space
Jesus of Nazareth and the more it resembles the made up make believe Christ
of faith (The Post-Easter Jesus) who never existed in tiome / space history.
I don't give a shit about your silly Post-Easter Jesus (the Christ of faith)
which is a fictional man made construction bearing no resemblance to the
historical Jesus of Nazareth.
I care very deeply about the One God, YHWH and his Christ, the historical
Jesus of Nazareth (the Pre-Easter Jesus)
The two are miles apart!!!!!
I've been a fundamentalist who for decades believed the lie of the Christ of
faith (Post-Easter Jesus) ... I had a "music ministry", preached this false
gospel, taught it in Christian Schools, wrote Australian wide school
curriculum based on this Christ of faith lie. I have not the slightest
desire to return to this Christ of faith vomit. It simply isn't true in any
sense of the word true.
TRUTH MATTERS.
FUNDAMENTALISM ISN'T TRUE. It is based on false assumptions reagrding the
accuracy and truth of the documents in the bible. It ignores scholarship
and contemporary methodology in examining the texts.
Do you understand the huge gap between the Pre- / Post- Easter
Jesus?????????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Pre- and Post-Easter Jesus
Understanding and knowing Jesus involves history, tradition, and experience.
-Marcus Borg
The pre-Easter Jesus means:
a.. The historical Jesus
b.. Jesus of Nazareth
c.. A first century Galilean Jew
d.. A figure of the past
The post-Easter Jesus means:
What Jesus became after his death, the Jesus of Christian experience and
tradition.
In Christian experience people continue to experience Jesus as a living
reality, as a figure of the present; as a spiritual living divine reality
In Christian tradition: Jesus is increasingly spoken of as a divine reality
and eventually seen as "very God of very God."
It is crucial to make this distinction, says Borg, or Jesus becomes unreal,
incredible and inaccessible.
Compare pre- and post-Easter Jesus
Pre-Easter Jesus / Post-Easter Jesus
4 B.C.E. to 30 C.E. / 30 C.E. to present
Corporeal, human being of flesh and blood Spiritual / non-material
reality
Finite and mortal / Infinite, eternal
Human / Divine
A Jewish peasant / King of Kings and Lord of Lords
Figure of the past / Figure of the present
Jesus of Nazareth / Jesus Christ
Monotheistic Jew / Becomes the second person of the trinity, "God with a
human face"
Galilean Jew of the first century / "The Face of God" (metaphor based on
2 Cor. 4:6 Beholding the glory of God in the face of Christ)
From http://www.united.edu/portrait/compare.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nothing in the following words by the historical Jesus of Nazareth, the
Christ, says that one has to affirm the bodily resurrection (resuscitation
of Jesus' corpse) in order to be a Christian .... it was never part of the
original kerygma (see below) or the original Christianity practised by
Peter, James and John.
Jesus of Nazareth pointed to the One God and the One God's kingdom not his
own kingdom.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God (GOD NOT THE MESSIAH) with all your
heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the FIRST and
GREATEST COMMANDMENT. And the SECOND is like it: 'Love your neighbor as
yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these TWO COMMANDMENTS." -
Matthew 22:37-40
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing
that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the
COMMANDMENTS, which is the MOST IMPORTANT?" "The MOST IMPORTANT ONE,"
answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God (GOD NOT THE
MESSIAH) the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God (GOD NOT THE MESSIAH) with
all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all
your strength.' (Mark12:28-30)
And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying,
"Teacher, WHAT SHALL I DO TO INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE?"
He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read?" And he
answered, "You shall love the Lord your God (GOD NOT THE MESSIAH) with all
your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all
your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." And he said to him, "You have
answered right; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE." (Luke 10:25-28)
These are repeated THREE TIMES. They are in each of the synoptic
gospels. The commandments do not mention anything about the finite
human Jesus of Nazareth, The Messiah ...or about being born again ... or
about Christians following any of the man made "fundamentals" ... or about
Christians having to believe in the bible ... or about Christians having to
be fundamentalist ... OR ABOUT BELIEVING IN A PHYISCAL RESUSCITATION OF
JESUS' CORPSE!!!!
AND THE GOSPEL ....................
What is recorded in Mark and Matthew about the CONTENT of the gospel that
Jesus preached?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MARK'S GOSPEL (ending at Mark 16:8)
1:15; 4:11; 4:14; 6:12; 9:1;13:9-10 all describe the gospel / good news as
announcing that the kingdom [realm] of God is here so one must turn away
from one's sins. Nothing more! Count how many times Jesus says the "the
kingdom of God is like" in Mark's gospel!
MATTHEW'S GOSPEL
4:17; 4:23; 5:19; 6:33; 7:21; 9:35; 10:7; 11:12; 12:28; 13:11; 13:19; 13:38;
13;52; 18:2; 19:23; 21:31 21:43; 23:13; 24:34; 25:34 ff; 26:13; describe the
gospel / good news as announcing that the kingdom [realm] of heaven is here
so one must turn away from one's sins. Nothing more! (Matthew prefers
'kingdom of heaven" to "kingdom of God") Count how many times Jesus says
the "the kingdom of God is like" in Matthew's gospel!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above is the original kerygma of Jesus of Nazareth.
NO resuscitation of Jesus' corpse is mentioned or made mandatory to be a
Christian.
Why do you ADD to the clear words of Jesus of Nazareth?????
Why have you ignored this early evidence?????
Still waiting for your answer without a vomit of bible verses.
A Bible Verse Vomit proves nothing!
Mark T
Fundamentalists mistake the Christ of faith (Post-Easter Jesus) for the
historical Jesus of Nazareth (Pre-Easter Jesus). They are not the same.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The pre-Easter Jesus means:
The post-Easter Jesus means:
Human / Divine
From http://www.united.edu/portrait/compare.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
el pablo vs the gravamen (JIL sent me)
> "pablo" wrote:
>
> >> > The dating of fundamentalism is cited in places like
> >> > http://tinyurl.com/b7o6u or http://tinyurl.com/cb6qn or
> >> > http://tinyurl.com/5vzp7.
> >> > "THE FUNDAMENTALS" that was distributed at the beginning if the 20th
> >> > century can be read online at http://tinyurl.com/7j4qm.
> >> Exactly!!!!
> >> Fundamentalism is a recent movement.
> >
> > belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is not the product of a
> > recent movement.
>
> No ... it is a product of John's gospel's platonism, a misreading of Paul's
> fallible letters, the misinterpretation by Gentile Christians (via paul) of
> Jewish Christian's (via James and Peter) idioms and belief, etc etc etc ...
> a deception that has gone on for two thousand years.
oh, so it's 2000 years now - not just 100 years. the gospel, this
thing called christianity has been wrong for 2000 years - more than
wrong - an outright deception which has gone on for 2000 years.
the death, burial, resurrection, appearing to many witnesses,
ascension, and the coming of Jesus Christ our Lord must surely be a
part of this deception and error of 2000 years - because the church has
held this death to be atoning and this burial to be vicarious and this
resurrection to be bonafide. this 2000 year old deception and error
called christianity has foolishly based itself on the supposed
appearances of the resurrected Christ as well. and the ascension of
Christ with the promise of the second paraclete the gift of the Holy
Spirit - which was said to have been fulfilled at pentecost after the
cross is also part of this grand deception and error of 2000 years.
and the promise of the resurrection of the dead - the hope of glory for
which christians have waited upon is also part of this deception and
error no doubt? the coming again of Jesus Christ our Lord and savior
is also just part of a 2000 year old deception and error. am i getting
you thus far?
>
>
> > any system of thought which does not affirm the bodily resurrection of
> > Christ - is not a
> > system which can wear the label "christian" and be telling the truth about
> > itself.
>
> That's what ALL silly fundamentalists like yourself say ...
no, it's pretty much the truth mark. calling me silly or little or a
fundamentalist really doesn't change that. you no longer hold to your
first love and have bought a bag of crap and named it "wondrous."
2000 years or so of stupid people are all wrong in your book - but
praise the lawd you dun woked up and seen the lite!
>
> #################################################
> ... i got mad at my church because of women preacher issues and the
homosexual issue and then i let out all of my unbelief in a series of
books
slamming the church for being the church - Peter Cameron "Heretic"
(Doubleday;
Sydney: 1994) p. 178
> #################################################
>
> You're wrong!
>
> A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Christ. These are found by
> examining the layers of the gospel. Read my last posts ... Even better
> read John Dominc Crossan & Jonathon L Reed "Excavating Jesus: Beneath the
> stones, Behind the texts" (Harper SanFrancisco: 2001 - Updated and revised)
> ... two brilliant scholars!!!
>
> Your fundamentalist Post-Easter Jesus (the Christ of Faith, God in the
> flesh) bears no resemblance to the Pre-Easter Jesus ( historical Jesus of
> Nazareth, the human Christ)
>
> THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!
you mean post-resurrection - yeah - all christians are.
we follow the teachings and the Teacher - the risen Lord Jesus.
>
> I don't give a shit about your silly Post-Easter Jesus (the Christ of faith)
> which is a fictional man made construction bearing no resemblance to the
> historical Jesus of Nazareth.
>
> I care very deeply about the One God, YHWH and his Christ, the historical
> Jesus of Nazareth (the Pre-Easter Jesus)
>
> The two are miles apart!!!!!
>
mark, no logic seems to get through your prejudice - so i am at a loss
for words - not that i did not know that you denied the faith and that
your conscience has been calloused - but this blindness of yours is
only curable by Christ - so i will pray to Jesus for you concerning
this.
do me a favor though - quit playing christian without telling people
that you consider the faith of 2000 years to be a deception and an
error - and quit this 100 year old fundamentalist talk. you got people
who think you really are only mad at fundies - when really you are mad
at classical christianity and you oppose the basic everything of the
faith known around the world as christianity. this whole mark the guy
who fights fundamentalists is not the true face. it is mark who fights
those who hold to traditional christianity. come on out and say it -
say it loud - wear it proud. seriously.
you might as well get over being angry with people telling you that you
are not a christian - because that is what you are going to hear. my
hope is that you're just blinded and missguided. if your wife asks if
people still think you are the devil - tell her no - they just know
that i am not a believer in the risen Lord Jesus as my Savior and Lord.
and get off your duff and go to church - you stupid clod - you break my
heart - makes me so angry - not with you - just really want you to know
the risen Lord - that i am sure you encountered at least once in your
life - is real and there.
sorry i got no more fights left in me.
peace.
pablo
psalmsmith
"Mark T" <www...@tdoyoumean.2223> wrote:
> "psalmsmith" wrote:
>
> >> >> >> If the WHOLE of God is invisible then the Logos (Mind / Reason /
> >> >> >> Word)
> >> >> >> is also invisible.
> >> ....
> >> >> What does the word "WHOLE" mean????????
> >> >> Use a dictionary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> Obviously your fecking little fundy mind is unable to use a
> >> dictionary!!!!
> >
> > Mark, if you take three crystals, a red, cyan, and green, and place them
> > in on a light projector into a diffuse screen. The light would appear
> > white.
>
> Red is not the WHOLE of white.
Correct
> Cyan is not the WHOLE of white.
Correct
> Green is not the WHOLE of white.
Correct
> There is only One God.
Correct
> You are the one who has to prove that Jesus is the WHOLE of this One God.
Never said He was, that's Steve Winter's theology, not mine.
> Or are you really worshipping three gods like the three colours?????
No.
> Red, Cyan and Green are only parts not the WHOLE of white.
Exactly, and Yeshua Messiah, is part of God.
Correct
> 1 is not the WHOLE of 4.
Correct
> 2 is not the WHOLE of 4
Correct
> 3 is not the WHOLE of 4.
Correct
> There is only One God.
Correct
> You are the one who has to prove that Jesus is the WHOLE of this One God.
Why would I wan to prove something I don't believe?
> Or are you really worshipping three gods like the three numbers?????
No
> 1,2,3 are only parts not the WHOLE of 4.
Exactly
> Either Jesus is the WHOLE God or he is no God at all. There is no half way.
Yeshua is a component of God, He is God's incarnate Word. He is not the
source of God, nor is He the Spirit of God, He is the Word of God.
> If you divide God up then God is not WHOLE (not One God)!!!!
>
There is only one God, Mark.
Griz
>Yes, Griz, you are perfectly right - but the devil does not rest, does
>he? That is the answer.
>
>Be blessed,
>
> ::: vera :::
And he is our enemy.
Not those enslaved and blinded by him.
It is very sad to see, and can be very frustrating as we interact with them
and watch them interacting with others, desperately trying to enslave and
blind others (for misery loves company!) -- knowing that a release from all
that binds is simply a prayer away.
But as I said, each person gets to choose what they will fill up their
temple with an abundance of and what they will be an ambassador of -- love
or hate.
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Mark T
>> > belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is not the product of a
>> > recent movement.
>> No ... it is a product of John's gospel's platonism, a misreading of
>> Paul's
>> fallible letters, the misinterpretation by Gentile Christians (via paul)
>> of
>> Jewish Christian's (via James and Peter) idioms and belief, etc etc etc
>> ...
>> a deception that has gone on for two thousand years.
>
> oh, so it's 2000 years now - not just 100 years.
Fundamentalism is 100 yrs of deceipt regarding the bodily resurrection of
Jesus / resuscutation of Jesus' corpse as a mandatory belief to be a
Christian.
Fundamentalism's ancestors have been around for 200 years and have spred
their decepit regarding the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a mandatory
belief to be a Christian.
I was / am talking about the resuscitation of Jesus' corpse ... not the
whole of Christianity.
Don't put words in my mouth.
You have still not answered my question .....
Is the historical Jesus of Nazareth an INFINITE spirit?
If YES ... then he is God.
If NO ... then he is not God.
Try to prove your answer with rational discussion not rabid fundamentalist
bullshit dogma..
>> > any system of thought which does not affirm the bodily resurrection of
>> > Christ - is not a system which can wear the label "christian" and be
>> > telling the truth
>>> about itself.
>> That's what ALL silly fundamentalists like yourself say ...
>
> no, it's pretty much the truth
It is neither pretty nor truth.
>> Your fundamentalist Post-Easter Jesus (the Christ of Faith, God in the
>> flesh) bears no resemblance to the Pre-Easter Jesus ( historical Jesus of
>> Nazareth, the human Christ)
>> THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!
...
> we follow the teachings and the Teacher - the risen Lord Jesus.
That's also part of the problem! "Jesus' words after the resurrection /
ascension (same thing)" were NEVER said by the historical Jesus of Nazareth
in time / space history.
>> I don't give a shit about your silly Post-Easter Jesus (the Christ of
>> faith)
>> which is a fictional man made construction bearing no resemblance to the
>> historical Jesus of Nazareth.
>> I care very deeply about the One God, YHWH and his Christ, the historical
>> Jesus of Nazareth (the Pre-Easter Jesus)
>> The two are miles apart!!!!!
...
> no logic seems to get through your prejudice
Pablum, no truth seems to get past your fundamentalist dogma.
> not that i did not know that you denied the faith and that
> your conscience has been calloused
Neither of your assumptions is anywhere near the truth. I do not deny faith
in the One God, YHWH. I accept the historical Jesus of Nazareth as YHWH's
Messiah / Christ. My conscience is better than it ever was since poisoned
by fundamentalist dogma.
> but this blindness of yours is only curable by Christ
This blindness of yours to the truth is only curable by using your God-given
mind. I will pray to YHWH for you concerning this ... just as YHWH's Christ,
Jesus, would have done.
> do me a favor though - quit playing christian without telling people
> that you consider the faith of 2000 years to be a deception and an
> error
I never said that! Don't put words into my mouth. I said that the
resuscitation of Jesus' corpse was never a mandatory belief to be a
Christian ... despite what fundamentalists say.
> you might as well get over being angry with people telling you that you
> are not a christian - because that is what you are going to hear.
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
> if your wife asks if people still think you are the devil
She does. She reads your posts and those of other fundamentalists and
laughs her head off!
> i am not a believer in the risen Lord Jesus as my Savior and Lord.
I am not a believer in the Christ of fithj (Post-Easter Jesus) as my Lord
and saviour.
YHWH is my Lord and Saviour ... as YHWH's Messiah / Christ, the historical
Jesus of Nazareth, clearly stated.
You have still not answered my question .....
Is the historical Jesus of Nazareth an INFINITE spirit?
If YES ... then he is God.
If NO ... then he is not God.
Try to prove your answer with rational discussion not rabid fundamentalist
bullshit dogma..
> and get off your duff and go to church
Get off your fundamentalist hobby-horse and use your God-given mind, you
silly little fundamentalist.
> just really want you to know the risen Lord
YHWH is more important that the Post-Easter Jesus (Christ of faith). Even
the historical Jesus of Nazareth said so. YHWH and YHWH's Messiah / Christ,
the historical Jesus of Nazareth are both real but different. The Christ of
faith (Post-Easter Jesus) is a fiction.
You have still not answered my question .....
Is the historical Jesus of Nazareth an INFINITE spirit?
If YES ... then he is God.
If NO ... then he is not God.
Try to prove your answer with rational discussion not rabid fundamentalist
bullshit dogma..
--
#################################################
My Testimony at
http://www.christian-life.us/testimonials/mark_tindall.htm
***********************************************************
'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
Mark T
>> Red is not the WHOLE of white.
> Correct
>> Cyan is not the WHOLE of white.
> Correct
>> Green is not the WHOLE of white.
> Correct
>> There is only One God.
> Correct
>> You are the one who has to prove that Jesus is the WHOLE of this One God.
...
> Never said He was
Good! Then you finally admit that Jesus is not the WHOLE One God therefore
Jesus is not God.
>> Or are you really worshipping three gods like the three colours?????
> No.
>> Red, Cyan and Green are only parts not the WHOLE of white.
> Exactly, and Yeshua Messiah, is part of God.
Correct. He is PART of God but he is not the SAME as the One God YHWH. The
Christ / Messiah is YHWH's Messiah / Christ. I am also part of God ... as
you are a part of God ... for we live and move and have our being in YHWH -
NOT in YHWH's Messiah / Christ /... just as the bible says.
>> There is only one number 4.
> Correct
>> 1 is not the WHOLE of 4.
> Correct
>> 2 is not the WHOLE of 4
> Correct
>> 3 is not the WHOLE of 4.
> Correct
>> There is only One God.
> Correct
>> You are the one who has to prove that Jesus is the WHOLE of this One God.
>
> Why would I wan to prove something I don't believe?
Good! then you finally admit that Jewsus cannot be the WHOLE One God as
Jesus is only a part of God. A PART God is not a WHOLE God.
>> Or are you really worshipping three gods like the three numbers?????
> No
>> 1,2,3 are only parts not the WHOLE of 4.
> Exactly
>> Either Jesus is the WHOLE God or he is no God at all. There is no half
>> way.
>
> Yeshua is a component of God
Therefore he is not WOLE One God but PART God.
>> If you divide God up then God is not WHOLE (not One God)!!!!
> There is only one God
Yep - YHWH! ... and Jesus is not YHWH but YHWH's Messiah / Christ.
Or are you saying that Jesus is the YHWH of YHWH????? (which is what is
meant if Christ = God)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from Karen Armstrong's 'A History of God' ( Vintage;
London:1993)
For centuries monotheists in each of the God-religions had insisted that God
was not merely another being. He did not exist like the other phenomena we
experience. p. 396
The anthropomorphical, personal God of Western Christendom was vulnerable.
p.397
Hegel had thus asserted the old monotheistic insight - characteristic of
also Christianity and Islam - that 'God' was not separate from mundane
reality, an optional extra in a world of his own, but was inextricably bound
upo with humanity. Like Blake, he expressed this insight dialectically,
seeing humanity and Spirit, finite and infinite, as two halves of a single
truth which are mutually interdependent and involved in the same process as
self-realisation. p. 404
The danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard (1813-55) insisted that the old
creeeds and doctrines had become idols, ends in themselves and substitutes
for the ineffable reality of God. True Christian faith was a leap out of
the world, away from these fossilised human beliefs and outmoded attitudes,
into the unknown. p. 406
Monotheists in all three religions [Judaism, Christianity & Islam] had
regarded the creation as a mythy, in the most positive sense of the word: it
was a symbolic account which helped men and women to cultivate a particular
religious attitude. .... in the West there had been a tendency to regard the
Bible as factually true in every detail. p.407
Throughout history people have discarded a conception of God when it no
longer works for them. p.408
C G Jung's (1875-1961) God was similar to the God of the mystics, a
psychological truth, subjectively experienced by each individual. When
asked by John Freeman in the famous face To face interview whether he
believed in god, Jung replied emphatically: 'I do not have to believe. I
know!' Jung's continued faith suggests that a subjective God, mysteriously
identified with the ground of being in the depths of the self, can survive
psychoanalytic science in a way that a more personal, anthropomorphic deity
who can indeed encourage perpetual immaturity may not. p.410
It is impossible for us to meet God in any anthropomorphic way. God is the
Ground of being, so bound up with our own existence that we cannot possibily
talk to him, as though he were simply another person like ourselves. There
are no words or ideas that describe God. ... The myths of revelation
expressed our personbal experience of God. pp 426-7
The idea of a personal God, like one of us writ large, is fraught with
difficulty. If this God is omnipotent, he could have prevented the
Holocaust. If he was unable to stop it, he is impotent and useless; if he
could have stopped it and chose not to, he is a monster. Jews are not the
only people who believe that the Holocaust put an end to conventional
theology. p.431
...when religious ideas cease to be effective they fade away. ... the
American scholar Peter Berger notes that we often have a double standard
when we compare the past with our own time. Where the past is analysed and
made relative, the present is rendered immune to this process and our
current position becomes an absolute: thus 'the New Testament writers are
seen as afflicted with a false consciousness rooted in their time, but the
analyst takes the consciousness of his time as an unmixed intellectual
blessing.' p.432
Those of us who have had a difficult time with religion in the past find it
liberating to be rid of the God who terrorised our childhood. It is
wonderful not to have to cower before a vengeful deity, who threatens us
with eternal damnation if we do not abide by his rules. We have a new
intellectual freedom and can boldly follow upo our own ideas without
pussy-footing gingerly round difficult articles of faith, feeling all the
while a sinking loss of integrity. We imagine that the hideous deity we
have experienced is the authentic God of Jews, Christians and Muslims and do
not always realise that it is merely an unfortunate aberration. p.433
[Paul Buren] ... The Gospel was ' the good news of a free man who has set
other men free.' p.436
[Paul Tillich] ... 'The concept of a 'Personal God' interfering with natural
events, or being 'an independent cause of natural events', makes God a
natural object beside others, an object among others, a being among beings,
maybe the highest, but neveretheless A being. This indeed is not only the
destruction of the physical system but even more the destruction of any
meaningful idea of God.' .... instead we should seek to find a 'God' above
this personal God. p.438
... God who, as Being itself, was nearer to the 'I' than our own ego.
Tillich preferred the definition of God as the Ground of being.
Participation in such a God above 'God' does not alienate us from the world
but immerses us in reality. It returns us to ourselves. Human beings have
to use symbols when they talk about Being-itself: to speak literally or
realistically about it is inaccurate and untrue. ... When Tillich was
speaking to laypeople, he preferred to replace the rather technical term
"Ground of being' with 'ultimate concern'. p. 439
... since the 1970s ... the rise of a type of religiosity that we usually
call 'fundamentalism' in most of the major world religions, including the
three religions of God. A highly political spirituality, it is literal and
intolerant in its vision. .... Christian fundamentalists have little regard
for the loving compassion of Christ. They are swift to condemn the people
they see as the 'enemies of God'. ... this typoe of religiosity is actually
a retreat from God ... a new form of idolatry. This type of beliigerent
righteousness has been a constant temptation to monotheists throughout the
long history of God. it must be rejected as inauthentic. ... They are also
denying a crucial monotheistic theme. Ever since the prophets of Israel
reformed the old pagan cult of Yahweh, the God of monotheists has promoted
the ideal of compassion. ... All too often, conventional believers, who are
not fundamentalist, share their agressive righteousness. They use 'God' to
prop up their own loves and hates, which they attribute to god himself. ...
The God of historical monotheism demands mercy not sacrifice, compassion
rather than decorous liturgy. ... The prophets fulminated against their
contemporaries who thought that temple worship was sufficient. ... Ever
since <Moses brought the tablets of law from mount Sinai, the majority have
preferred the worship of a Golden Calf, a traditionalo, unthreatening image
of a deity they have constructed for themselves, with its consoling, time
honoured rituals. Aaron, the high priest, presided over the manufacture of
the golden effigy. p. 447-450
Yet if feelings are not to degenerate into indulgent, aggressive or
unhealthy emotionalism, they need to be informed by the critical
intelligence. The expreience of God must keep abreast of other current
enthusiasms, including those of the mind. p.452
The idols of fundamentalism are not good substitutes for God; if we are to
create a vibrant new faith for the twenty-first century, we should, perhaps,
ponder the history of God for some lessons and warnings. p.457
psalmsmith
"Mark T" <www...@tdoyoumean.2225> wrote:
> "psalmsmith" wrote:
>
> >> Red is not the WHOLE of white.
> > Correct
> >> Cyan is not the WHOLE of white.
> > Correct
> >> Green is not the WHOLE of white.
> > Correct
> >> There is only One God.
> > Correct
> >> You are the one who has to prove that Jesus is the WHOLE of this One God.
> ...
> > Never said He was
>
> Good! Then you finally admit that Jesus is not the WHOLE One God therefore
> Jesus is not God.
Of course Jesus is God. Jesus is the face of God. How can you look at
the face of God and say, "This is not God." ?
> >> Or are you really worshipping three gods like the three colours?????
> > No.
> >> Red, Cyan and Green are only parts not the WHOLE of white.
> > Exactly, and Yeshua Messiah, is part of God.
>
> Correct. He is PART of God but he is not the SAME as the One God YHWH. The
> Christ / Messiah is YHWH's Messiah / Christ. I am also part of God ... as
> you are a part of God ... for we live and move and have our being in YHWH -
> NOT in YHWH's Messiah / Christ /... just as the bible says.
Just because Jesus is not all of God, does not stop Him from being God.
He is God, because He is all that which God expresses to us, all wrapped
up into a single being, His Word. The same Word that was from the
beginning with God, and which also created the heavens and the earth.
He is, God's expression. He was so before Jesus was born, when He
walked upon the earth, and still today He is alive and expressing God
amongst us.
When we express God, our own face is clouded over with the image of
Jesus, because He is living out His will, today, in the lives of His
church.
But the Spirit will regather again, as He reforms into the creation and
comes again to be King over all. And in His coming, with the
withdrawing of the Spirit unto Himself, those who abide in His Spirit
will become transformed, into eternal beings, and draw more deeply on
the Spirit of God directly from the Father in heaven.
God created the full instance of Himself to pass through the creation,
in order that creation be redeemed lest He die. We can't imagine this,
"God die?" but that /was/ the covenant that God cut with Abraham.
Abraham's seed would be blessed, or else God would die.
So there came a world beyond redemption wherin all blessings were
destructive. God promised the decendants of Noah. God promised
Abraham. No more floods, and that it would be David's seed.
He settled the very existence and redemption of the creation upon His
own shoulders, came, died, rose bodily from the dead, and showed us the
way from time to eternity.
> >> There is only one number 4.
> > Correct
> >> 1 is not the WHOLE of 4.
> > Correct
> >> 2 is not the WHOLE of 4
> > Correct
> >> 3 is not the WHOLE of 4.
> > Correct
> >> There is only One God.
> > Correct
> >> You are the one who has to prove that Jesus is the WHOLE of this One God.
> >
> > Why would I wan to prove something I don't believe?
>
> Good! then you finally admit that Jewsus cannot be the WHOLE One God as
> Jesus is only a part of God. A PART God is not a WHOLE God.
But a part of God is still God.
Components of a whole do not become non-components when they are
removed. Components of a whole can only become non-components if they
are destroyed. You can remove the processor from your PC and it will
remain a computer part. It will not become a non-computer part until
you destroy it with a hammer. If it is not destroyed, it can always be
replaced into the computer and the computer will function again.
Therefore removing the processor from your computer does not render it a
non-computer part.
Jesus Christ is the express image of God, the Father, whom we call God.
For it is the face of God we come face-to-face with in our hearts, whom
we know as Jesus Christ. This is the measure of faith to know that God
Is, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Being that which is the expression of God, a component of God, when
taken to separate examination remains a component of God. He does not
become a non-component of God unless He is destroyed.
Jesus rose from the dead, therefore He was not destroyed.
Jesus Christ remains an active component of God.
Therefore Jesus Christ is God.
psalmsmith
"Griz" <gr...@nosklem.cois.on.ca> wrote:
Everyone will go in the way of their choosing. Therefore the choice of
God should be made more obvious, not less. It is much more difficult to
find Him on an open battlefield. People have to hide their lights so
they don't get bombed.
I say, let each lantern shine as they will. Some are filthy, and others
have no light, but they think that they do. Those who are drawn to
light will likewise become lit, and those who are drawn to darkness will
become likewise darker.
That is not to say, do not provide an answer for the darkness, of course
that is what light does. and it is neither to say, do not provide an
answer for the lights. Prove what is true, and stand for it.
To me, you stand for church-ness and fellowshipping in Christ. I think
you like to provide service to the communion of believers.
Dunno, perhaps you think, 'as long as they keep making my name into mud,
I can't help people find common ground in Christ the way I ought to. It
hurts people to be associated with my name.' just a guess.
Why?
Just do the calling regardless. The more set upon the love of Christ we
are, while still being reviled by all evil, it will reveal the light,
and it will set the chasm.
the chasm. The obvious choice. It will become all the more obvious
when everyone freely speaks their mind.
psalmsmith
In article <4343...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
"Mark T" <www...@tdoyoumean.2225> wrote:
> Is the historical Jesus of Nazareth an INFINITE spirit?
>
> If YES ... then he is God.
>
> If NO ... then he is not God.
The historical Jesus of Nazareth is, was, and reamins today in full
union with the infinite Spirit of God. A union as deep as His DNA, and
deeper still, from Adam, and from the Word that God spoke on that day.
A union that preceeds time itself, when God first expressed Himself in
eternity.
He is, a part of the infinite Spirit that is God. He is God's
expression, God's Word, God's will expressed in the creation.
He IS the Holy Ground upon which we sacrifice ourselves for the sake of
God, and proceed on in love to show our fellow man the way.
He is the only source of life that exists.
And in Him alone is the /whole/ fulness of the Holy Spirit of God.
psalmsmith
In article <4343...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
"Mark T" <www...@tdoyoumean.2225> wrote:
>
> Fundamentalism is 100 yrs of deceipt regarding the bodily resurrection of
> Jesus / resuscutation of Jesus' corpse as a mandatory belief to be a
> Christian.
>
> Fundamentalism's ancestors have been around for 200 years and have spred
> their decepit regarding the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a mandatory
> belief to be a Christian.
Please cite one Christ-professing body of work *in antiquity*, that
describes the physical resurrection as an irrelevant doctrine to the
knowledge of God.
Prior not only to the 200 years, but from sources and unicals anywhere
from 800 to 1800 years old. There is a LOT of material in that
date-range. I'm sure you will find something we can chew on.
Griz
Griz said:
>> And he [the devil] is our enemy.
Well said Psalmsmith. I'm not sure if you were aware when you wrote this,
but there were several significant insights in it for me.
Letting one's light shine on a battlefield will draw enemy fire and even
bombs. But I've found that as we remain in our proper place in Christ, no
harm can come to us. Some of the bomb blasts may sting -- but they work to
expose those parts of us that are still existing outside of Christ. Since
Christ died in our place, it is good that we should let Him live through us.
By accepting the gift of His Son, He has purchased us back from death with
His blood -- so the life He has saved is freely given back to Him as a song
of worship.
(Have you heard the new Casting Crowns song, "Let My Life-Song Be to You"?!
That is the very heart of worship!)
Being associated with me on the NG's can be hazardous, and I do see that
many are hurt simply by responding kindly to me. I thank you especially for
the wisdom "Just do the calling regardless!".
It is definitely something to meditate upon.
Many thanks!
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Mark T
>> >> Red is not the WHOLE of white.
>> > Correct
>> >> Cyan is not the WHOLE of white.
>> > Correct
>> >> Green is not the WHOLE of white.
>> > Correct
>> >> There is only One God.
>> > Correct
>> >> You are the one who has to prove that Jesus is the WHOLE of this One
>> >> God.
>> ...
>> > Never said He was
>>
>> Good! Then you finally admit that Jesus is not the WHOLE One God
>> therefore
>> Jesus is not God.
>
> Of course Jesus is God.
But you just said that Jesus was PART of a divisible God not WHOLE ONE
God!!!!
>> >> Or are you really worshipping three gods like the three colours?????
>> > No.
>> >> Red, Cyan and Green are only parts not the WHOLE of white.
>> > Exactly, and Yeshua Messiah, is part of God.
>>
>> Correct. He is PART of God but he is not the SAME as the One God YHWH.
>> The
>> Christ / Messiah is YHWH's Messiah / Christ. I am also part of God ...
>> as
>> you are a part of God ... for we live and move and have our being in
>> YHWH -
>> NOT in YHWH's Messiah / Christ /... just as the bible says.
>
> Just because Jesus is not all of God, does not stop Him from being God.
See ... you said it again!!!! Jesus is PART God not WHOLE God.
There is only ONE God. That God is a WHOLE God.
Why do you follow a PART God?????
>> >> There is only one number 4.
>> > Correct
>> >> 1 is not the WHOLE of 4.
>> > Correct
>> >> 2 is not the WHOLE of 4
>> > Correct
>> >> 3 is not the WHOLE of 4.
>> > Correct
>> >> There is only One God.
>> > Correct
>> >> You are the one who has to prove that Jesus is the WHOLE of this One
>> >> God.
>> >
>> > Why would I wan to prove something I don't believe?
>>
>> Good! then you finally admit that Jewsus cannot be the WHOLE One God as
>> Jesus is only a part of God. A PART God is not a WHOLE God.
>
> But a part of God is still God.
NO ... a PART God is not a WHOLE ONE God!
There is onl;y ONE God. who is not doivided up into parts ... as the Jews
say "GOD IS ONE" (Indivisible).
Why do you divide the ONE WHOLE God up into PARTS?????
> Components of a whole do not become non-components when they are
> removed.
Components are not the WHOLE!
> Jesus rose from the dead, therefore He was not destroyed.
> Jesus Christ remains an active component of God.
> Therefore Jesus Christ is God.
Prove it using your God given mind!
> Jesus rose from the dead
Ascension into heaven is the same thing as resurrection. Resurrection does
not mean resuscitation of Jesus' corpse.
If Jesus' corpse was resuscitated, which way did he fly through the sky.
modern telescopes should be abnle to track him out there in space.
> Jesus Christ remains an active component of God.
So does everyone. In God we live and move and have our being. Acts 17:28.
> Therefore Jesus Christ is God.
Jesus is YHWH's Messiah / Christ.
Christ / Messiah does not mean God.
If Messiah / Christ meant God then Jesus would be YHWH's YHWH!!!!!
YHWH is infinite spirit.
Is the historical Jesus of Nazareth an INFINITE spirit?
If YES ... then he is God.
If NO ... then he is not God.
Try to prove your answer with rational discussion not rabid fundamentalist
bullshit dogma..
Mark T
>> Is the historical Jesus of Nazareth an INFINITE spirit?
>>
>> If YES ... then he is God.
>>
>> If NO ... then he is not God.
>
> The historical Jesus of Nazareth is, was, and reamins today in full
> union with the infinite Spirit of God.
You haven't answered the question.
> He is, a part of the infinite Spirit that is God.
If Jesus is PART of a divisible God then Jesus is not WHOLE ONE GOD.
YHWH is WHOLE ONE GOD ... as the Jews say "God is one" (Indivisible)
If Jesus of Nazareth is not WHOLE ONE GOD (Indivisible) then Jesus of
Nazareth is not God.
Is the historical Jesus of Nazareth an INFINITE spirit?
If YES ... then he is God.
If NO ... then he is not God.
Prove your answer by using your God-given mind.
Mark T
>> Fundamentalism is 100 yrs of deceipt regarding the bodily resurrection of
>> Jesus / resuscutation of Jesus' corpse as a mandatory belief to be a
>> Christian.
>>
>> Fundamentalism's ancestors have been around for 200 years and have spred
>> their decepit regarding the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a mandatory
>> belief to be a Christian.
Oops! That should read
"Fundamentalism's ancestors have been around for 2000 years"
> Please cite one Christ-professing body of work *in antiquity*, that
> describes the physical resurrection as an irrelevant doctrine to the
> knowledge of God.
EASY!!!!!!!
Please explain!!!!!