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.

 

Some Questions for Christians (and others)

page: 10
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Sorry I have to echo Miriam, you make no sense.

I have heard the old "It's a mystery, the human mind can't comprehend" way to many times.

It's no mystery at all, Jesus Christ is the created son of the Almighty God, they have always been separate entities. They are united as one in thought and purpose.
It really is that simple.

Miriam has done a fantastic job trying to show you.
We could continue to quote scriptures, but I don't think it would help you, you actually want it to be complicated.




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Sorry I have to echo Miriam, you make no sense.

I have heard the old "It's a mystery, the human mind can't comprehend" way to many times.

It's no mystery at all, Jesus Christ is the created son of the Almighty God, they have always been separate entities. They are united as one in thought and purpose.
It really is that simple.

Miriam has done a fantastic job trying to show you.
We could continue to quote scriptures, but I don't think it would help you, you actually want it to be complicated.


I would just like to clarify the notion of the term mystery if I may.This does not mean a truth that we cannot know anything about, But a truth that we cannot know everything about.To say that its no mystery at all would mean that you know everything there is to know about God. A wholly comprehensible God would be no God and no use. The reason you seem to think it is so simple is because maybe you are simple. The truth is is that it is not that simple. Jesus is not the created son of God. He is Gods only begotten son.
Begotten means to procreate or generate to cause or produce as an effect
Create means to cause to come into being
God did not cause Jesus to come into being
Jesus was begotten eternally
Jesus is the creator.
Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


"Sir, I have given you an argument.
I am not obliged to give you an understanding"
Doctor Samuel Johnson, 1784



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   
The Trinity according to Nicea was overthrown and for something like a hundred and fifty years the positions of Bishop were held by Arians. Eventually, the followers of the "orthodox" Trinity, who were recruited from the non-Christian pagan religions, were able, through politics and open warfare, to regain the ascendancy that they enjoyed under the protection of the old pagan Emperor Constantine.
The so-called orthodox view of the trinity is based on a pseudo-philosophical premise that "For God to be God, he must follow an unwritten law that God does not change, therefore, God can not be a father because that would be implying that at one time he was not a father, and Jesus can not be a son, for the same reason."
"Orthodox" Trinitarianism is the religion of "Status Quo", which is exactly what Jesus came to end. Look at what he was confronted with. "how is it that a man must be born again?" "I have followed that law since I was a young child" "Our father is Abraham and we were never slaves."
"Everything always being as it has been in the past" is directly refuted in the Bible as a bad way of thinking. Jesus felt fear in the night in the garden of olive trees as he contemplated his soon-to-happen arrest because he realized that it was possible for him to fail. Jesus had lived his life walking in faith in God and was rewarded for it by having what he had faith in happen, even to the point of healing the sick and raising the dead. Despite fake gospels that say otherwise, Jesus did not go around doing weird miracles as a child. When he read the prophecy about the power he was about to manifest to the world, in the synagogue, the people said they knew him and his family, so how could this be.
What he proclaimed was the power of transformation, such as an apparently ordinary person becoming the messenger of God. When he said that if you believe in me, you will not see death, what did he mean? He was talking about the power of transformation. Jesus was transformed himself and, ultimately through death, he became what we should become, which is transformed beings of a spiritual nature, like he said, like the angels.
So my conclusion is that the status quo Trinity dogma is anti-Christian in its nature.


[edit on 1-5-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
The Trinity according to Nicea was overthrown and for something like a hundred and fifty years the positions of Bishop were held by Arians.


This is inaccurate history.

The Emperor Constantius (337-360) moved over to the Arian side.
The Emperor Julian, who suceeded him, was a Pagan.
The Nicene settlement was reaffirmed in AD381 at the Council of Constantinople, under the chairmanship of the Emperor Theodosius.

This period of time does not make 150 years.

Even when Arianism was ascendant (and that ascendancy was just as political as that of their opponents), The Nicene party remained strong among the bishops, especially with the so-called "Cappadocian Fathers", viz Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa.

Historical arguments must be based on good history, not on bad history.

What's this, reinforcements?
"Come the three corners of the world in arms
And we shall shock them". ("King John",William Shakespeare)

Or, in the equally famous words of Maggie Thatcher-
"I'm enjoying this, I'm enjoying this!"






[edit on 1-5-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

I meant a later time. I will give you the dates when I can put my hand on the right book.
Here is a quote from Ahenasius denying Jesus' free will:

. . .For the Father is unalterable, and unchangable, and is always in the same state and always the same; but if, as they hold, the Son is alterable, and not always the same, but ever of a changing nature, how can such a one be in the Father's image, not having the likeness of His unalterableness? how can he be the Father at all, if His moral choice is indeterminate? Nay, perhaps, as being alterable, and advancing daily, He is not perfect yet. But away with such madness of the Arians, and let the Truth shine out, and show that they are beside themselves. . .

He goes on and on but I think you can get the picture of what the author of the "orthodoxy" was all about.


[edit on 1-5-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

I meant a later time. I will give you the dates when I can put my hand on the right book.
Here is a quote from Ahenasius denying Jesus' free will:

. . .For the Father is unalterable, and unchangable, and is always in the same state and always the same; but if, as they hold, the Son is alterable, and not always the same, but ever of a changing nature, how can such a one be in the the Father's image, not having the likeness of His unalterableness? how can he be the Father at all, if His moral choice is indeterminate? Nay, perhaps, as being alterable, and advancing daily, He is not perfect yet. But away with such madness of the Arians, and let the Truth shine out, and show that they are beside themselves. . .

He goes on and on but I think you can get the picture of what the author of the "orthodoxy" was all about.


No that's not denying "free-will".

That's simply saying that, as God, he has God's will.

God's will, as you must know, is unchangeable.
That does not amount to denying free-will to God. It simply means that he only needs to choose once.

If the Son is deemed to be God, then yes, naturally, he would have the same kind of will. And also, of course, would be making the same choice.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


So, when the devil came to Jesus in the wilderness, to tempt him, there was no choice for Jesus to make?
Before creation, the pre-incarnate Jesus, in council with the godhead, decided what would be, and that it went forward, and Jesus may have been an automaton, or robot, or any other sort of analogy to a mindless being, at this point?
You can think that if you want but whatever religion you hold, I would not call it Christianity. Maybe The Religion of Rome, and Gods on Earth, as it has always been.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


So, when the devil came to Jesus in the wilderness, to tempt him, there was no choice for Jesus to make?
Before creation, the pre-incarnate Jesus, in council with the godhead, decided what would be, and that it went forward, and Jesus may have been an automaton, or robot, or any other sort of analogy to a mindless being, at this point?


No, not "mindless". That would be the Monothelite heresy, which I do not hold. The teaching is that the Son, as Man, is fully human, with a human will; and that as God, he is fully divine with a divine will. The understanding is that the two wills are in agreement, but nobody pretends to understand how this actually operates.

In some early Greek theologians there was the suggestion that the Logos was the "HEGEMONIKON", or "governing principle" of the two wills, but this gets beyond the resources of my immediate library.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   
According to Arius, "de facto the Son was innmutable, but that his immutability was the affect of volition, and not by nature."
Which goes against the argument of Athenasius, that Jesus could not have failed.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
According to Arius, "de facto the Son was innmutable, but that his immutability was the affect of volition, and not by nature."
Which goes against the argument of Athenasius, that Jesus could not have failed.


Yes, I think it is common ground between us that Arius and Athanasius disagreed with each other.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

. . .That would be the Monothelite heresy,. . ."
I had to look that up.
I think both views, monothelitesm, and dyothelitism, kind of miss the point.
The young Jesus went to Jerusalem for a festival and decided for some reason to stay, while his parents left. He was doing the work of his Father. Well, why did he stop whatever he was doing, and consent to discontinue that? Did he not, from then on, do God's work? He had to go along with being a human being, which involves things like going along with your parent's wishes, when they make them known to you.
The same sort of concept would have been in action when he was older, that as the wishes of God were made known to him, he had the opportunity to comply. The fact that he did comply would have put him in harmony with God, but it would have been "occasional", meaning each occasion is not connected, as if it was generated by some sort of law of cause and effect, that because of a previous choice, the next one would be inevitably in a sort of ordered homogenization. Each choice would be discrete in nature, necessitating a constant seeking after the will of God, just like we have to do.
This sort of idea of this blending of moments seems to me to detract from the purpose of having Jesus exist in the first place. The early Christians were not called Christians, but it was a label applied to them as a form of derision. They were the Followers of the Way. What could possibly be "The Way"? It would have to be what Jesus tried to teach them, which was to form a connection to God. If Jesus was God by nature, he would know nothing of the process we have to learn and exercise, and he would not have been able to teach his disciples anything.


[edit on 1-5-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
If Jesus was God by nature, he would know nothing of the process we have to learn and exercise, and he would not been able to teach his disciples anything.


This is true, as far as it goes.

Of course, the teaching is that Jesus was ALSO Man, by nature, and, in that capacity, he had to learn along with the rest of us. We believe that his humanity is full, complete, and undiminished, alongside his divinity.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


I would like to give some quotations of what the Bible has to say about divinity:

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son

For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form, and you have been filled in him,

and thus to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.

Through these things he has bestowed on us his precious and most magnificent promises, so that by means of what was promised you may become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the worldly corruption that is produced by evil desire.

Little children, let no one deceive you: The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as Jesus is righteous.

Everyone who has been fathered by God does not practice sin, because God’s seed resides in him, and thus he is not able to sin, because he has been fathered by God.

We are to become like Jesus. Kind of hard to do if he is actually God. Revelation says there will be a throne for God and the Lamb and we shall worship at it, as saints in the world to come. Worthy is the lamb, the saints cried out, as they threw down their crowns, because he is, who did all the will of God, even to the death, for righteousness sake.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60

We are to become like Jesus. Kind of hard to do if he is actually God.


Our way of putting it is that we are to become like Jesus, become like Christ, and even, in a sense, "bound up" with him; Paul is always talking about being "in Christ", of being part of a "body" in which Christ is the head. And through being bound up with Christ, we are bound up with God, because Christ is God. If Christ was not God, he could not be our route to God, and all the other benefits which you describe (i.e. being "partakers of the divine nature")

And, incidentally, "becoming like" Jesus is not something we can do very successfully by our own efforts. It is possible only by the power of the Spirit; "God sent forth his Son..so that we may receive adoption as sons. And...God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts"- Galatians ch4 vv5-6. The Spirit is the Spirit of God, of course; it can be called "the Spirit of the Son "only because the Son is also God.



[edit on 1-5-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
As an ardent student of the bible for 24 years I can assure you there are many complicated theological points in the bible hard to grasp they are not simple. Just read the book of Revelation.
The God & Son relationship is not one of them IF you have God's Holy Spirit to help you understand it. If you don't you will NEVER get it, and you always be blinded by trinity based dogma.
It is critical we get it right as this scripture bring out...

John 4: 23&24

A time will come, however, indeed it is already here, when the true (genuine) worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth (reality); for the Father is seeking just such people as these as His worshipers. 24God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being) and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (reality).


I am sorry you cannot grasp that the Father is the grand architect of the universe, but the son is the actual builder of it, by using God's holy spirit.

So your quote about understanding, is a boomerang, it comes back to you not understanding.





[edit on 1-5-2010 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Just read the book of Revelation.


I am currently working through Revelation in a series of threads. The next one (if I may be allowed a brief plug) will be appearing tomorrow afternoon, on the subject of the Fifth Seal of ch6. The series began with "Silence in Heaven", relating to ch8 v1, and this one will be the fourth.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



I am sorry you cannot grasp that the Father is the grand architect of the universe, but the son is the actual builder of it, by using God's holy spirit.


This makes absolutely no sense at all. First of all Why would God need anything less than himself to design and or create anything

Psalms 86:10 For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Mark 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

God is the builder.
Hebrews 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Furthermore you quoted,
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

How can Gods holy spirit be used When God himself is a spirit. How can a spirit have a spirit?
What were you studying for 20 some on years?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 





How can Gods holy spirit be used When God himself is a spirit. How can a spirit have a spirit?


Holy Spirit = Power or Force
It is not a person or even a conscious entity.
It's use is seen throughout the bible, 10 Plagues on Egypt, Samson's power, the ability for people to suddenly speak many languages in the 1st century.

I suggest you read the book of Acts to better understand "Holy Spirit"

Here are just few scriptures

Acts 7:55

But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.


This scripture all by itself defeats the Trinity.

Acts 2:1-4

1On the day of Pentecost all the believers were meeting together in one place.
2Suddenly, there was a sound from heaven like the roaring of a mighty windstorm, and it filled the house where they were sitting.
3Then, what looked like flames or tongues of fire appeared and settled on each of them.
4And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability.


Acts 13:52

And the believers were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.


In every case you could exchange these phrases with "filled with God's power or force" they did this with his help.

John 14:26

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and remind you of everything that I have told you.

The Holy Spirit also helps us to learn bible truths, and reminds us of important details of those same truths



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


The only problem with that is that often scripture refers to the Holy Spirit as a person, not a thing. If the Word of God is, in fact, divinely inspired and God breathed, then I would be forced to believe there was a reason God referred to the Holy Spirit in this was, as opposed to Him goofing when He communicated His Word.

Some scriptural examples (all emphasis mine):

Luke 3:22

and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."


If the Holy Spirit is just a force, why would it descend on Christ in bodily form?

John 14:26:

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.


Acts 5:32

We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."


Acts 13:2:

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."


Acts 28:25:

They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet:


Romans 5:5

And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.


Ephesians 4:30

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.


2 Timothy 1:14

Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.


Hebrews 10:15

The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:


That God and the Holy Spirit are one is made clear in the very book you were speaking of, too. In Acts 5, Ananias lied about how much he sold his place for, and died after Peter declared he had lied to the Holy Spirit. Later, Peter says Ananias lied not to man but to God. In Matthew 28:19, Christ also makes an odd statement, telling the Apostles "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," So either all three are one, or each has a name. If it's the second choice, it still means the Holy Spirit is more than just a force, but He in fact has a name.

There are many other actions, especially in the book of Acts, where the Holy Spirit performs actions that individuals perform, not mere forces.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join