Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

a reply to: JUhrman

The answer is within.

Unfortunately, that's the last place most people think to look.

P.S. to Answer : the message of the Bible was often misunderstood but not always. The three Abrahamic religions have rich mystical traditions and I often met Christians (or people from other religions) who would totally understand me and it was obvious they had a similar experience, after or before following the advice of Jesus.

It's uncommon but hopefully not rare. It's just very personal and not often shared.

Also Jesus was definitely not the first hippie

This is as old as the first glimpses of consciousness.

a reply to: TzarChasm

did no one pray directly to jesus?

Nope...

there are a few instances where his followers worshipped him... but they didn't ever pray to him...

Personally I believe those instances were added to the story to promote him being God in the flesh...

Likely never actually happened because Jesus would have told them not to worship him but only his Father...

But who knows... Worshipping the Son of God gives glory to the Father...

that is a theme he taught through out the gospels... Glorify the son which glorifies the Father of the son

a reply to: JUhrman

Agreed. Mystics get it, non-mystics don't. Generally speaking.

The reason is simple. Only mystical experience can give you the perspective needed to discern the esoteric meaning inside exoteric religion.

Logic alone can't give you that perspective, and neither can theology. They are stuck on the surface meaning. So their understanding is myopic and can't see past the borders of their own culture.

👣

originally posted by: JUhrman

Also Jesus was definitely not the first hippie

This is as old as the first glimpses of consciousness.

Certainly not but it's a statement that helps modern folks relate to the points I try to make about Jesus.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Correction: The opposite USED to be true, but then science came along and showed that oral retellings AREN'T trustworthy. You can't trump science with ancient beliefs.

I'm pretty sure the science you are thinking of is based on modern studies, which cannot evaluate the accuracy of retellings in a culture where that was a major method of transmission. It may be the case that they are less trustworthy, but comparing apples to oranges is bad science.

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: JUhrman

Agreed. Mystics get it, non-mystics don't. Generally speaking.

The reason is simple. Only mystical experience can give you the perspective needed to discern the esoteric meaning inside exoteric religion.

Logic alone can't give you that perspective, and neither can theology. They are stuck on the surface meaning. So their understanding is myopic and can't see past the borders of their own culture.

👣

Unfortunately, those who have used religion as a method of control have purposefully misled their followers to believe that mysticism is evil.

It's difficult to maintain a power structure when people see how completely unnecessary the structure is.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Take into account the fact that he wasn't ever actually called any of those titles until waaaaaay after the fact...

So prophecy fulfilled. Isaiah didn't say it would be when He was alive. I think most of the disciples realized He was God in the flesh after the resurrection. Certainly His half-brothers James and Jude did, they weren't followers until the resurrection.

the bible itself is not Trinitarian

It's all through the Bible, it's subtle in the OT and overt in the New. "Elohim" is a plural Hebrew word for the title "El" (god). But when it is used in the OT to refer to the true God it always appears in a singular context, when it refers to false gods it appears in a plural sentence construct.

It's a grammatical error in the Hebrew. It would be similar to me saying in English:

"I went to the Ford dealer today and bought myself one bright red new trucks."

Elohim is used in the OT in other contexts where it is pretty definitely *not* referring to God, so I'd be a little careful on leaning on that as Trinitarian proof.

I always thought that whole "I and my father are one," bit was pretty unambiguous, but what do I know? (John also lays it out pretty clearly in John 5:18)

a reply to: Answer

It happened but hopefully it's not a norm. Mystical experiences in the Church are part of its history, and the Sufis are usually highly regarded among moderate Muslims.

Most of the issues with demonizations come from internal religious schizms, like we have today inside all big religions, rather than to specifically target mystics.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

That is simply not correct... As I've said a few times in this thread...

the Jews believe any association of God with man is blasphemy because it makes someone equal to God

john was a jew... so he maintains that belief and its not correct...

Calling himself the son of God does not mean he was equal to God...

I'll refer you to Psalm 82 which Jesus quotes... YE are gods... Does that mean everyone he was talking speaking of was also equal to God?

Of course not... Its a mistake the jewish people believe, and still believe to this day

and its not true

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: StalkerSolent

That is simply not correct... As I've said a few times in this thread...

the Jews believe any association of God with man is blasphemy because it makes someone equal to God

john was a jew... so he maintains that belief and its not correct...

Calling himself the son of God does not mean he was equal to God...

I'll refer you to Psalm 82 which Jesus quotes... YE are gods... Does that mean everyone he was talking speaking of was also equal to God?

Of course not... Its a mistake the jewish people believe, and still believe to this day

and its not true

What's not correct? Psalm 82 was a perfect example of the usage of "elohim" in the plural sense to refer to something clearly not God Himself.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

the verse in John which says "he called himself the son of God making himself equal to God"


Is NOT correct...

Why would Jesus make himself equal with God... Then in the same book only a few passages later say specifically I am not equal to God...

Calling himself the son of God does not make him equal to God...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: StalkerSolent

the verse in John which says "he called himself the son of God making himself equal to God"


Is NOT correct...

Why would Jesus make himself equal with God... Then in the same book only a few passages later say specifically I am not equal to God...

Calling himself the son of God does not make him equal to God...

What do you mean it is not correct? You can't just unsay what the text says. You can disagree with what it says, but it is fairly clear in John that Jesus is being called equal with God.

I'm not entirely certain which verse you're saying shows Jesus being unequal to God, but those sorts of "qualitatively equal but with a different role to play" situations exist all the time in real life. I'm equal to my boss inasmuch as I am a human being, but he gets to tell me what to do (and also gets paid more.) So I don't see why a somewhat similar situation is impossible in what John is trying to convey. Obviously that's a somewhat poor analogy, but I think it conveys my point.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

John 10:29

My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

John 13:16

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

John 14:28

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.


Im not unsaying anything ... IF that is even possible...

This is Judaic belief vs. what Jesus actually said...

HE said he was the son of God, but He is not equal to the Father... it simple logic that most people don't even realise

One can not be equal to, and not equal to something...

The jews have this belief that anything Associated with God is the same as being equal to God... they don't even type the word God because they consider it blasphemous...

Im not saying they don't believe it to be true... Im saying this belief is wrong...

And this is likely how they ended up making Jesus God.... through this false belief Jesus can only be equal to God, which makes him God in the flesh... or he is a blasphemer... and the early church which consisted mostly of jewish people would not ever consider the messiah a blasphemer... so logically if he could not blaspheme... He must be God instead


Neither of which are true.... He wasn't blaspheming... and he isn't God

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: StalkerSolent

John 10:29

My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

John 13:16

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

John 14:28

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.


Im not unsaying anything ... IF that is even possible...

This is Judaic belief vs. what Jesus actually said...

HE said he was the son of God, but He is not equal to the Father... it simple logic that most people don't even realise

One can not be equal to, and not equal to something...

The jews have this belief that anything Associated with God is the same as being equal to God... they don't even type the word God because they consider it blasphemous...

Im not saying they don't believe it to be true... Im saying this belief is wrong...

And this is likely how they ended up making Jesus God.... through this false belief Jesus can only be equal to God, which makes him God in the flesh... or he is a blasphemer... and the early church which consisted mostly of jewish people would not ever consider the messiah a blasphemer... so logically if he could not blaspheme... He must be God instead


Neither of which are true.... He wasn't blaspheming... and he isn't God

Except the references you gave are referring to "greatness" not equality.
And, as I already pointed out, it is possible to be equal to someone yet be their inferior. (Think of your boss, or your superior officer, if you're in the military.)

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Then you are ignorant to the scanning electron microscope Carston Theidie used to arrive at his date of 7Q5. Your ignorance of his conclusions and methodology are not a deceptive statement on my part. That's just plain rude.

Holy hell.

ig·no·rant
ˈiɡnərənt/
adjective
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"
synonyms: uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, benighted; More
antonyms: educated
lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
"they were ignorant of astronomy"

Please explain how scanning 7Q5 with an electron microscope helps anyone arrive at a date.

Let me warn you before hand that I look up people's claims so I already did my homework.

Oh well, I may as well let you in on something. That very instance where 7Q5 was scanned with an electron microscope is the reason it was identified as part of the Book of Jeremiah.

So there are two things really. One will be to explain how an electron microscope is used to date papyrus and two will be since you like the results from the electron microscope why do you disagree with the conclusion from them and still insist that it is part of the NT.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Except the references you gave are referring to "greatness" not equality.
And, as I already pointed out, it is possible to be equal to someone yet be their inferior. (Think of your boss, or your superior officer, if you're in the military.)

As I've said... one can not be greater then and equal to something...

IF you're in the military... You are not equal to your superior...

that doesn't even make sense...

sure equal as human beings... but that is not the same as Jesus referring to himself as not equal to his Father

originally posted by: Akragon
As I've said... one can not be greater then and equal to something...

IF you're in the military... You are not equal to your superior...

that doesn't even make sense...

sure equal as human beings... but that is not the same as Jesus referring to himself as not equal to his Father

How do you know?

I get the distinct impression that Jesus is claiming that He is qualitatively equal to God, but the relationship between Him and God is such that God instructs Him in what to say and do...as I distinctly recall Him saying at other points. Which makes sense if you view Jesus as fully human during the incarnation: he's elected to be restricted in certain ways by a human body, so obviously God is "greater" from the melting-faces-and-creating-worlds point of view.

And I haven't even committed myself to serious study of the matter, I don't know Hebrew, and don't have a good grasp on the various historical writings on the Trinity, this is just off the top of my head, so please don't confuse me with an expert on the issue! I do suspect that if humans were trying to describe something spiritual outside their normal plane of existence, they might very well sound contradictory. (Like Lovecraft's non-Euclidian geometry, if you're into cosmic horror.)

a reply to: StalkerSolent

How do you know?

long story... years of study... I usually just say I know what I know... believe me or don't it matters not to me

I get the distinct impression that Jesus is claiming that He is qualitatively equal to God, but the relationship between Him and God is such that God instructs Him in what to say and do...as I distinctly recall Him saying at other points. Which makes sense if you view Jesus as fully human during the incarnation: he's elected to be restricted in certain ways by a human body, so obviously God is "greater" from the melting-faces-and-creating-worlds point of view.

Well IF you read the gospels you will find that Jesus never makes himself equal to God... He attributes everything to God, everything from where he got his power to where the glory goes...

Even when Jesus said "I and my Father are one"... this is not a proclamation of him being God... Though that is exactly what Christians will tell you... He is speaking of his essence... Just as he said "the Father is in me"

There is no equality when relating Jesus and God.... its simply not there in any of his words... though again, Christians love to read into what he said...

And I haven't even committed myself to serious study of the matter, I don't know Hebrew, and don't have a good grasp on the various historical writings on the Trinity, this is just off the top of my head, so please don't confuse me with an expert on the issue!

That is not my intention...

It takes a lot of reading to understand the trinity, but the best way is just to read the words of Jesus...

Or anything in the NT really, but best go straight to the source in the gospels...

and of course there will be Christians pushing the trinity on you at every turn... so its very complicated to get past the bulk of people claiming it to be true

a reply to: Grimpachi

I was never using "ignorant" in the general sense, like assuming you were stupid. I used it in the particular sense about what Thiedie proposed in his book.

lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.

So that wasn't me trying to offend, it meant you didn't know what he had discovered. And you even admitted that, you said you did a bit of research.