Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: NOTurTypical

There are still people who seem to posses paranormal abilities to this day. Does it means they are god in the flesh too?

Heck, so did the apostles! But that was after the ascension and the Holy Spirit was sent to indwell a believer. So again, it wasn't Peter raising the dead, it was the Holy Spirit residing in Peter. Peter was only the temple.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Same could be said with Jesus.

More than that would be a personal opinion, not something straight from the mouth of Jesus.

a reply to: Akragon

the problem with that is that he attributed all his power to his Father... and did nothing of himself...

You need to re-read that verse. He said He only does the will of His Father and not His own. And even further, He chose to operate as a man, and did His miracles by the power of the 3rd member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. To be technical.

a reply to: JUhrman

Same could be said with Jesus.

We already know that the Holy Spirit was sent by the Father and indwelled Him at His baptism. The Son incarnated in the flesh, but He was still flesh. He did this so He could take upon Himself our sins and die. An immortal being cannot "die" any other way.

Remember the Christian position is that He was fully God, AND fully Man. Everything He did He did by the power of the Holy Spirit and not His own power, except for forgiving sins. He always had that authority as God.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Nah... Being a jew he would have known better then to call a man God...

That's why they were nearly all murdered by the Jews. Christianity was blasphemy to them.

And we aren't talking about Victorian culture, we are talking about 1st century Jewish culture. For a Jew to call someone "the Lord" (definite article specific), it was calling that person YHWH of the OT.

I disagree...

Lord is still subservient to God...

AND there is even a subservient version of god in the OT... Matthew and all of his followers KNEW specifically that he was not calling himself God in the flesh... that was a much latter embellishment...

So your argument falls flat rather quickly

wait are you saying jesus never claimed to be god in the flesh, or led anyone to believe such?

That is exactly what im saying...

John Claimed he was God in the flesh... Jesus only refered to himself to be the son of God... which was and always has been subservient to God.... Even has he said in his own words... The Father is greater then I

For various reasons the later groups that would become "Christian" started claiming he was God, but Jesus did not ever make that claim

And Before all you Christians start using the old "he said I AM" claim... HE was saying he was the "essence" of God... Not God in the flesh

i see a lot of splitting hairs going on here. there is no practical difference between jesus and god, and that point was consistently made by himself and those he spoke to throughout the bible. everything else is semantics.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

the problem with that is that he attributed all his power to his Father... and did nothing of himself...

You need to re-read that verse. He said He only does the will of His Father and not His own. And even further, He chose to operate as a man, and did His miracles by the power of the 3rd member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. To be technical.

NO my friend, YOU should re-read the gospels without the Trinitarian bias...

See the problem with that is there was no trinity when Jesus was around... That was a concept made up by the early church long after he was dead...

You're making the same mistake the jews do... Claiming to be the son of God does not make him equal to God....

John 5

And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:


All things attributed to his Father.... Who IS the one and only true God...

And NOT YHWH... by the way

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Not sure if you're aware, but the word "theory" has a very different meaning in science than it does in a colloquial sense.

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

And from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

The Big Bang theory is on the same level as germ theory, circuit theory, atomic theory, heliocentric theory... are all of these "just theories" as well?

a reply to: Akragon

NO my friend, YOU should re-read the gospels without the Trinitarian bias

So like maybe the Greek translation of Westcott and Hort? They mangled the Textus Receptus.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Nah... Being a jew he would have known better then to call a man God...

That's why they were nearly all murdered by the Jews. Christianity was blasphemy to them.

And we aren't talking about Victorian culture, we are talking about 1st century Jewish culture. For a Jew to call someone "the Lord" (definite article specific), it was calling that person YHWH of the OT.

I disagree...

Lord is still subservient to God...

AND there is even a subservient version of god in the OT... Matthew and all of his followers KNEW specifically that he was not calling himself God in the flesh... that was a much latter embellishment...

So your argument falls flat rather quickly

wait are you saying jesus never claimed to be god in the flesh, or led anyone to believe such?

That is exactly what im saying...

John Claimed he was God in the flesh... Jesus only refered to himself to be the son of God... which was and always has been subservient to God.... Even has he said in his own words... The Father is greater then I

For various reasons the later groups that would become "Christian" started claiming he was God, but Jesus did not ever make that claim

And Before all you Christians start using the old "he said I AM" claim... HE was saying he was the "essence" of God... Not God in the flesh

i see a lot of splitting hairs going on here. there is no practical difference between jesus and god, and that point was consistently made by himself and those he spoke to throughout the bible. everything else is semantics.

Oh but there is a vast difference....

Jesus did not know of a trinity... that is a Christian concept....

HE was raised a Jew... An though he wasn't a very good practicing Jew... HE knew of ONE God, not three in one....

All throughout the gospels he attributes everything to the Father... Nothing of himself...

Jesus worshipped the Father.... Prayed to the Father... Spoke to the Father...

Its obvious when one isn't blinded by Church teaching...

One can not come to the Trinitarian conclusion by reading the gospels without the church

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

NO my friend, YOU should re-read the gospels without the Trinitarian bias

So like maybe the Greek translation of Westcott and Hort? They mangled the Textus Receptus.

Whatever floats your boat brother...

a reply to: Akragon

What do you do with Isaiah 9:6 then?

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Mystics of all faiths also say that mankind is the divine in flesh, like all life. Fully divine and yet fully incarnated. The divine paradox.

The problem of most of the early Christians was that they couldn't understand the meaning of that message. It can only be understood when experienced personally. What you call receiving the holy spirit, which is nothing more than awakening what was always dormant.

I won't blame religious people to prefer to use their own known terms to describe this. I just wish they could see the universality of the divine experience, beyond cultural traditions, like all the people of all beliefs who personally experienced the divine and see anyone from any religion or philosophy as another facet of the same diamond. As another expression of the same divine will.

a reply to: Akragon

Whatever floats your boat brother..

They even admitted to being heretics. And they were occultists.

But hey, they did do a translation that was anti-trinitarian.

a reply to: JUhrman

What you call receiving the holy spirit, which is nothing more than awakening what was always dormant.

Jesus said He was a gift from the Father only to those who asked. And Jesus said He would be sent after His ascension. The implication there is that He was never sent to mankind before that.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Nah... Being a jew he would have known better then to call a man God...

That's why they were nearly all murdered by the Jews. Christianity was blasphemy to them.

And we aren't talking about Victorian culture, we are talking about 1st century Jewish culture. For a Jew to call someone "the Lord" (definite article specific), it was calling that person YHWH of the OT.

I disagree...

Lord is still subservient to God...

AND there is even a subservient version of god in the OT... Matthew and all of his followers KNEW specifically that he was not calling himself God in the flesh... that was a much latter embellishment...

So your argument falls flat rather quickly

wait are you saying jesus never claimed to be god in the flesh, or led anyone to believe such?

That is exactly what im saying...

John Claimed he was God in the flesh... Jesus only refered to himself to be the son of God... which was and always has been subservient to God.... Even has he said in his own words... The Father is greater then I

For various reasons the later groups that would become "Christian" started claiming he was God, but Jesus did not ever make that claim

And Before all you Christians start using the old "he said I AM" claim... HE was saying he was the "essence" of God... Not God in the flesh

i see a lot of splitting hairs going on here. there is no practical difference between jesus and god, and that point was consistently made by himself and those he spoke to throughout the bible. everything else is semantics.

Oh but there is a vast difference....

Jesus did not know of a trinity... that is a Christian concept....

HE was raised a Jew... An though he wasn't a very good practicing Jew... HE knew of ONE God, not three in one....

All throughout the gospels he attributes everything to the Father... Nothing of himself...

Jesus worshipped the Father.... Prayed to the Father... Spoke to the Father...

Its obvious when one isn't blinded by Church teaching...

One can not come to the Trinitarian conclusion by reading the gospels without the church

did no one pray directly to jesus?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I don't see how that's implied. He was talking to specific people.

a reply to: Akragon

Jesus did not know of a trinity...

NONSENSE! He prayed to His Father (#1), and He said anyone who committed blasphemy of the Holy Spirit would never be forgiven (#2).

You can only commit blasphemy against God.

That's two persons of the Godhead Jesus acknowledged as existing. The Trinity was present at His baptism, where the Father was present calling from heaven and the Holy Spirit.

a reply to: TzarChasm

did no one pray directly to jesus?

No, they could just speak to Him face to face. But interesting to note, Jesus never rebuked anyone for worshiping Him. Even after telling satan in the wilderness that it was a sin for man to worship anyone other than God,

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

What do you do with Isaiah 9:6 then?

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

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

They even admitted to being heretics. And they were occultists.

But hey, they did do a translation that was anti-trinitarian.

Well I suppose that would be their problem wouldn't it...

the bible itself is not Trinitarian... Theres two passages in the entire book that one could consider Trinitarian... Both were inserted after the fact... 1john5;7 which is a well known forgery, and the last bit of Mathew... which is blatantly obvious to anyone who knows the gospels..... Eusebius uses that passage several times in his writing... and amazingly enough he uses it as follows... go out and baptise IN MY NAME... Not the Trinitarian formula

The word Trinity does not exist within said book... and the only way to come to such a conclusion is to cut and paste verses from here and there and sow them together...

Interestingly enough I just wrote a thread on that very same subject... Copy and Paste?

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I don't see how that's implied. He was talking to specific people.

You said He was teaching that the Holy Spirit is in everyone. That's not at all what He taught, He specifically said He would sent the Holy Spirit after He ascended. And if that was the first time the Holy Spirit was sent to indwell men then all men who were before Him being sent didn't have Him indwelling them.