It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

page: 12
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent




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 said that exact thing.





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.




posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

So when Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest ever born of a woman was He saying either that every other human was less than human or that John was superhuman? Throughout the Bible all the members of the Trinity glorify one another in different parts. You have the Father glorifying the Son, the Son glorifying the Father, the Son glorifying the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit glorifying the Son.




edit on 28-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
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...


Sure, I agree with you there, more or less.

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...

Seems to me you're reading into it just as much...
Anyway, how could one claim to have the same essence as God and not be God? That's like saying "I have the essence of a human being, but I'm not *actually* a human being."




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


Well, the Bible has a funny habit of pushing the Trinity on you...the "Father, Son, Holy Ghost" formula appears more than once, and John's opening "The Word was God...the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" makes it pretty clear that the Gospels are pushing the Incarnation.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

So when Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest over born of a woman was He saying either that every other human was less than human or that John was superhuman? Throughout the Bible all the members of the Trinity glorify one another in different parts. You have the Father glorifying the Son, the Son glorifying the Father, the Son glorifying the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit glorifying the Son.



Well no... in the OT you have people that haven't got a clue who God is...

In the NT you have people that are still confused... but they're at least learning what Love is about by the example set by the Son of God....


SO if john was the Greatest ever born of a female that simply means he has done better then anyone before him... its pretty simple really... no need to attribute silliness to a simple statement




posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: StalkerSolent




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 said that exact thing.





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.




Ah, thanks for pointing that out! My bad.
I think there's some merit to the idea that God may have been speaking to other heavenly beings in Genesis, but I'd agree that the OT is scattered with Trinitarian imagery. It's just subtle.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

So you are glossing over the post and will not back up any of your claims.


So far you have made a lot of claims and haven't backed up any. In fact, when called out on one claim you double down with another and now when called out on that you completely avoid answering.


I am not used o dealing with this level of obfuscation or outright dishonesty so I stepped away for a while. While away thinking about what had occurred I realized there has been a pattern emerge with some Christians. It seems the same ones who claim they know to know who and who wasn't a Christian historically by their deeds are the same ones who repeatedly either by design or accident pump false information into the public. I am wondering if that is a prerequisite trait of a true Christian in their eyes.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent


Anyway, how could one claim to have the same essence as God and not be God? That's like saying "I have the essence of a human being, but I'm not *actually* a human being


God is beyond anything that our limited human minds can comprehend...

Jesus can have the essence of God and not be God in the flesh...

And you are not just a human being, even though that may be what you believe... you are body and spirit...

the body can not function without the spirit... but the spirit functions without the body


Well, the Bible has a funny habit of pushing the Trinity on you...the "Father, Son, Holy Ghost" formula appears more than once, and John's opening "The Word was God...the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" makes it pretty clear that the Gospels are pushing the Incarnation.


the bible does yes... it was compiled by a Trinitarian church.... Jesus words do not...

And the Trinitarian formula only appears in two passages... one is a known fraud... the other is extremely suspicious... and also more then likely an addition to the text made by Trinitarians trying to push that teaching....


edit on 28-1-2015 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


the fact is whether you want to call it a singularity or whatever, where did IT COME FROM.....and how did it get to be there?

It came from a black hole and the resulting 'singularity' of another universe.

Check Bill Bryson's book "A Short History of Nearly Everything".



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


Matthew, Peter, and John were His direct disciples

Maybe.

But, the 'gospels' attributed to them were not WRITTEN BY THEM. This is well established fact. The 'Gospels' included in the Bible as per Constantine were NOT WRITTEN BY THOSE ACTUAL PEOPLE.

Sorry.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


So when Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest ever born of a woman was He saying either that every other human was less than human or that John was superhuman?

He was saying that John the Baptist was an evolved soul, the reincarnation of Elijah, who CAME BACK TO HELP.

Just like you might do one day. An advanced soul from time to time CHOOSES to come back.
In the ethereal realm, once sufficiently 'liberated', a soul can CHOOSE to go directly to Godhead "reunion", or, COME BACK and try to help. As "someone else", but with the same soul.

Example:
Jesus - how many cycles had he been through?
John the Baptist - "
Ghandi - "
Buddha - "
Mother Teresa - "
Krishna - "
Me - "
You - "
Beethoven -
Einstein -

YOU don't KNOW how many. That's the thing when one opens their mind to reincarnation. It all seems to start making sense.

edit on 1/28/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




He was saying that John the Baptist was an evolved soul, the reincarnation of Elijah, who CAME BACK TO HELP.


No, John had the anointing and power of Elijah. If John was some reincarnation of Elijah then it would have been Moses and John the Baptist who appeared on the mount of transfiguration. It wasn't, it was Moses and Elijah.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NOTurTypical


Matthew, Peter, and John were His direct disciples

Maybe.

But, the 'gospels' attributed to them were not WRITTEN BY THEM. This is well established fact. The 'Gospels' included in the Bible as per Constantine were NOT WRITTEN BY THOSE ACTUAL PEOPLE.

Sorry.



Now I know for a fact you don't know what you're talking about. The Council at Nicaea had nothing to do with what books made the bible and which ones didn't. Nicaea addressed the Arian heresy, appointed some bishops, and set a date to celebrate Easter. In fact, Justin Martyr was already supporting the 27 books we have today more than 100 years before Nicaea.





Misconceptions:

A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all.[66] The development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.[67]


First Council of Nicaea ~ Wiki


edit on 28-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




He was saying that John the Baptist was an evolved soul, the reincarnation of Elijah, who CAME BACK TO HELP.


No, John had the anointing and power of Elijah. If John was some reincarnation of Elijah then it would have been Moses and John the Baptist who appeared on the mount of transfiguration. It wasn't, it was Moses and Elijah.



Not IF John was Elijah first... which he was...

The outward appearance is only a shell... his true self was Elijah...

Jesus confirmed this fact.... He said specifically John IS Elijah... He didn't say he was in the spirit of him...

he said that IS him... And John himself didn't even know it




posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: StalkerSolent




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 said that exact thing.





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.




Ah, thanks for pointing that out! My bad.
I think there's some merit to the idea that God may have been speaking to other heavenly beings in Genesis, but I'd agree that the OT is scattered with Trinitarian imagery. It's just subtle.


No problem. I don't think God could have been speaking to the angels, they could not crate with Him. They themselves are created beings. And likewise would not have His image. Only man is made in the image of God.

"Let US make man in OUR image". But you are correct, the OT is littered with subtle hints to the theology proper of God, in the NT is quite overt. My teo favorite OT appearances of the Son of God is with Abraham and Sarah when He came with two angels and spoke with them, then the angels went off to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. And the other is when the Son meets Joshua outside of Jerhico with the flaming sword. You can tell it's deity because he demands Joshua remove his shoes because he is standing on "holy ground".



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


Now I know for a fact you don't know what you're talking about...

Erm, yes, I do.

The Council at Nicaea had nothing to do with what books made the bible and which ones didn't.

Okay, in ONE WAY, you're right. Yes, Constantine's Council of Nicea was about the Arian heresy. I understand that.
My bad.

But as for the books included in the bible: www.biblica.com...

The prophets' writings were also not brought together in a single form until about 200 BC. The remaining Old Testament books were adopted as canonical even later. The Old Testament list was probably not finally fixed much before the birth of Christ. The Jewish people were widely scattered by this time and they really needed to know which books were the authoritative Word of God because so many other writings claiming divine authority were floating around. With the fixing of the canon they became a people of one Book, and this Book kept them together.

Nor is there a single date when we can say that the canon of the New Testament was decided. In the first and second centuries after Christ, many, many writings and epistles were circulating among the Christians. Some of the churches were using books and letters in their services that were definitely spurious. Gradually the need to have a definite list of the inspired Scriptures became apparent. Heretical movements were rising, each one choosing its own selected Scriptures, including such documents as the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas.

Gradually it became clear which works were truly genuine and which mixed truth with fantasy. By the end of the fourth century the canon was definitively settled and accepted. In this process Christians recognize the providence of God in providing us with his written revelation of himself and his purpose with the universe.


Booya. "Arian heresy" or not - the Council of Nicea was part of a process that had been going on for many CENTURIES.


edit on 1/28/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon





SO if john was the Greatest ever born of a female that simply means he has done better then anyone before him...


Yeah, but saying "greater than" is not saying "less than/not equal to", as per the example when Jesus said John was the greatest born of man. He was still a man, as were all the other humans born before John.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




Yes, Constantine's Council of Nicea was about the Arian heresy. I understand that. My bad.


No problem, and I don't know of a single exact date myself either. But I believe the first recorded person to affirm the same 27 we have today was Justin Martyr in the late 2nd century. Most of the first part of the 2nd century the letters were still being passed around from church to church and what not.

But the scholarly consensus is that the attributed authors are the ones who we attribute them to today, with the exception of the book of Hebrews.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well thanks for reinforcing what I've been saying... and ruining one of your creeds in the process...

as I've said numerous times in this thread and many other threads of the same topic...

One can not be greater then and equal to at the same time... Jesus was not equal to God...

According to your creed Jesus was equal to God... except he actually wasn't at all...

He wasn't God its as simple as that... and the more Christians argue about it the more obvious it becomes as everyone reads the argument... it falls into the illogical, and eventually becomes nonsense...

Then the Christian arguing gets defensive and starts with the insults...

I know you better then that so I know you won't do that... but that is the usual trend


edit on 28-1-2015 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

So, you're picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to accept and which parts not to, and then accusing Christians of doing the same?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
a reply to: Akragon

So, you're picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to accept and which parts not to, and then accusing Christians of doing the same?


I have never once used the idea that one must accept all of it or none of it... that line is a silly tool of manipulation Christians use when they have no argument....

All or NONE... is a non-argument...

theres 66 books in the protestant bible... and a few more in the Catholic one... it was compiled over many years...

ITs not ONE book... so theres no reason why I am forced to accept Christianity's "ALL or NONE" irrationality




new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join