Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Total Power]

Christianity goes close ...Multiple witnesses of someone’s actions that no one disputes until much much later ...takes a fair bit of unpicking.
( witness v faith )

Koran .. God told me to write it .. no witnesses it is pure faith based.

Wrong, multiple people saw Mohammed split the moon (apparently). Multiple Witness' including several kings in that region.

Not saying i believe it, just letting you know how ridiculous your witness theory is.

 

[Total Power]

over the top

You have finally shown your ugly face! it was just a matter of time. You realise several earliest denominations of Christianity didnt recognise Jesus as God? even now many smaller Christian sects dont. Go tell them they are not Christians based on your belief system.

As i said spirituality is not a popularity contest, 'mainstream' belief, carries no meaning at all, it means you are a follower of organized religion, nothing more.

 

[Vdubs]

You have finally shown your ugly face! it was just a matter of time. You realise several earliest denominations of Christianity didnt recognise Jesus as God? even now many smaller Christian sects dont. Go tell them they are not Christians based on your belief system.

As i said spirituality is not a popularity contest, 'mainstream' belief, carries no meaning at all, it means you are a follower of organized religion, nothing more.

Nevertheless,
Before trying to understand the doctrine of the Trinity, it's vital to realise why it's important.

Its purpose is not to provide factual knowledge of God's hidden nature of the sort that describes a dog as "having 4 legs, fur, barks, bites, domesticated by humankind etc".

The doctrine of the Trinity has other functions:

• it brings humanity face to face with the mystery of God
• it helps humanity recognise the God they meet in the Bible, in history and in their own lives
• it helps humanity understand God's complexity, otherness and mystery
• it helps humanity worship God
• it steers humanity away from wrong ideas of God, such as:
  • a patriarchal/hierarchical God
  • a God who can be logically understood
• it is the foundation of much Christian worship and liturgy
• it helps humanity understand its own nature as made in the image of God
• it provides a model for human relationships, both as individuals and in community

So, for example, one might be inspired by the doctrine of the Trinity to come up with an understanding of human relationships that was something like this...

• Human beings are made in the image of God
• God is a community of persons in a mutual loving relationship
• Therefore the essence of humanity is to be found in human relationships with others, with God, and with God's creation
• These relationships are filled with transforming power
• For human beings to live truly in the image of God, these relationships must be mutual, generous and just
• These relationships must acknowledge and value difference as well as sameness
• These relationships must accept as well as give

That's one way in which contemplating the Trinity might provide useful information for a Christian as to how they should try to live their life.

 

[Total Power]

Nevertheless,
Before trying to understand the doctrine of the Trinity, it's vital to realise why it's important.

Its purpose is not to provide factual knowledge of God's hidden nature of the sort that describes a dog as "having 4 legs, fur, barks, bites, domesticated by humankind etc".

The doctrine of the Trinity has other functions:

• it brings humanity face to face with the mystery of God
• it helps humanity recognise the God they meet in the Bible, in history and in their own lives
• it helps humanity understand God's complexity, otherness and mystery
• it helps humanity worship God
• it steers humanity away from wrong ideas of God, such as:
  • a patriarchal/hierarchical God
  • a God who can be logically understood
• it is the foundation of much Christian worship and liturgy
• it helps humanity understand its own nature as made in the image of God
• it provides a model for human relationships, both as individuals and in community

So, for example, one might be inspired by the doctrine of the Trinity to come up with an understanding of human relationships that was something like this...

• Human beings are made in the image of God
• God is a community of persons in a mutual loving relationship
• Therefore the essence of humanity is to be found in human relationships with others, with God, and with God's creation
• These relationships are filled with transforming power
• For human beings to live truly in the image of God, these relationships must be mutual, generous and just
• These relationships must acknowledge and value difference as well as sameness
• These relationships must accept as well as give

That's one way in which contemplating the Trinity might provide useful information for a Christian as to how they should try to live their life.

Are you deliberately being obtuse? i am not asking 'what you believe in', i am saying there are several nontrinitarian denominations/churches/sects of Christianity. Granted what you believe in mainstream but it doesn't mean those other sects are wrong. You have taken the same position as Fundamentalists Muslims where Sunni and Shia schools dominate in Islam and anyone dare to disagree with them are not Muslims by default. Please try to accommodate all views and not just those you approve of. The early churches prior to Constantine were of a similar position

But lets talk about the Trinity. The Athanasian Creed, on which trinitarianism is based, was fabricated hundreds of years after Jesus death and came into vogue in the 4th century AD when Emperor Constantine, an unbaptized pagan, threw his weight behind it for political reasons. After decades of controvery and lots of bloodshed , Trinity was made official around 380 AD by the council of constantinople.And there were no 12 apostles to contradict it.You simply cannot deny the fact that Trinity exists due to the influence of Roman catholicism. What you believe in is simply political and have no basis in the Bible, early Christian sects were hunted down and persecuted if they didn't believe in trinity.

Jesus himself said the Father is greater than the son, this itself proves Trinity doesn't come from the bible. In Matthew Jesus goes on and says "Why you calling me good, only the god is good". Outside of John, almost no other Gospel supports the trinitarian view. The references in Bible claiming 'father, son as One' got nothing to do with the literal sense of it. The bible says a husband and wife become “one flesh” but nobody suspects that marriage transforms a couple of humans into an incomprehensible binity. (Mark 10:8) Unity of mind and purpose is a common theme in life.

I prefer to rely on what the actual Bible says rather then second guessers. The Bible says Jesus said the Father was greater then him, the Father was waiting for him, etc

If the trinity stuff had any legs, it would have been expressed in the Bible.

When I said the early church, I meant when the apostles were still around. Not referring to the heretics who came later.

You can scratch your head all you want, but your view is simply political and not nothing to do with the Bible. Basing your hypothesis on that one Gospel (John) which i discussed in the previous post as why that's not reliable, is simply a terrible position to take. Just because "most people believe" is a terrible position to take, history shows consensus is wrong, vast majority of the time. As i said, it's not a popularity contest, you will struggle to find evidence that Jesus is god, even within the bible and even within John.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I subscribe to the view nowadays that Christianity is the merging of two (or at least two) different religions.

Firstly the Essene branch of Judaism. These were a sect who rejected the sacrifice of animals as unclean and regarded the whole Jerusalem temple scene corrupt. They were otherwise strictly observant Jews who followed all the other rules. They believed in two messiahs, one religious and one kingly. The religious messiah would establish a new covenant with Yahweh which included a new alternative sacrament to sacrifice for the atonement of sin. That new sacrament was baptism, after genuine repentance. Their Jesus figure is this first messiah. The first messiah was necessary before the coming of the second messiah, who would establish the Kingdom of God on Earth.

Then you got another religion which was a Jewish version of a mystery cult with a dying and rising saviour god. There were lots of different groups, but the general theme is that the Earth was created by an inferior god and was imperfect. Humans were trapped in suffering, and after death their souls went to the underworld. Their core belief was that there was a higher level god than the creator who was trying to save them from the imperfect creation, by sending a divine being to the underworld to defeat the god of the underworld and release the souls trapped there. There is always some kind of passion narrative, because the god figure has to die to enter the underworld, so he can defeat them and then escape. Their sacrament was the holy meal of bread and wine. Their aim was salvation of the soul in the afterlife. They were not monotheistic.

Christianity arose from the merger of these two groups, The equating of the dying and rising saviour god with the first messiah of the Essene system. After this none of it fits very well, and there was huge debate about which bits to chop out and which bits to incorporate, since a lot of their other beliefs are mutually exclusive. The Trinity doctrine is just one example of a patch-up of how to make the dying and rising saviour god fit into the framework of having strictly only one god.

 

[LFTWNG11]

Nevertheless,
Before trying to understand the doctrine of the Trinity, it's vital to realise why it's important.

Its purpose is not to provide factual knowledge of God's hidden nature of the sort that describes a dog as "having 4 legs, fur, barks, bites, domesticated by humankind etc".

The doctrine of the Trinity has other functions:

• it brings humanity face to face with the mystery of God
• it helps humanity recognise the God they meet in the Bible, in history and in their own lives
• it helps humanity understand God's complexity, otherness and mystery
• it helps humanity worship God
• it steers humanity away from wrong ideas of God, such as:
  • a patriarchal/hierarchical God
  • a God who can be logically understood
• it is the foundation of much Christian worship and liturgy
• it helps humanity understand its own nature as made in the image of God
• it provides a model for human relationships, both as individuals and in community

So, for example, one might be inspired by the doctrine of the Trinity to come up with an understanding of human relationships that was something like this...

• Human beings are made in the image of God
• God is a community of persons in a mutual loving relationship
• Therefore the essence of humanity is to be found in human relationships with others, with God, and with God's creation
• These relationships are filled with transforming power
• For human beings to live truly in the image of God, these relationships must be mutual, generous and just
• These relationships must acknowledge and value difference as well as sameness
• These relationships must accept as well as give

That's one way in which contemplating the Trinity might provide useful information for a Christian as to how they should try to live their life.

When facts refute a typical Christian apologetic position, why is it status quo for Christians to go the preaching route?

 

[Gethelred]

I subscribe to the view nowadays that Christianity is the merging of two (or at least two) different religions.

Firstly the Essene branch of Judaism. These were a sect who rejected the sacrifice of animals as unclean and regarded the whole Jerusalem temple scene corrupt. They were otherwise strictly observant Jews who followed all the other rules. They believed in two messiahs, one religious and one kingly. The religious messiah would establish a new covenant with Yahweh which included a new alternative sacrament to sacrifice for the atonement of sin. That new sacrament was baptism, after genuine repentance. Their Jesus figure is this first messiah. The first messiah was necessary before the coming of the second messiah, who would establish the Kingdom of God on Earth.

Then you got another religion which was a Jewish version of a mystery cult with a dying and rising saviour god. There were lots of different groups, but the general theme is that the Earth was created by an inferior god and was imperfect. Humans were trapped in suffering, and after death their souls went to the underworld. Their core belief was that there was a higher level god than the creator who was trying to save them from the imperfect creation, by sending a divine being to the underworld to defeat the god of the underworld and release the souls trapped there. There is always some kind of passion narrative, because the god figure has to die to enter the underworld, so he can defeat them and then escape. Their sacrament was the holy meal of bread and wine. Their aim was salvation of the soul in the afterlife. They were not monotheistic.

Christianity arose from the merger of these two groups, The equating of the dying and rising saviour god with the first messiah of the Essene system. After this none of it fits very well, and there was huge debate about which bits to chop out and which bits to incorporate, since a lot of their other beliefs are mutually exclusive. The Trinity doctrine is just one example of a patch-up of how to make the dying and rising saviour god fit into the framework of having strictly only one god.

From where do you get this hypothesis? It's new to me, but I'll confess to not having looked deeply into the historicity of Jesus or the early church.

 

[Admiral Byng]

From where do you get this hypothesis? It's new to me, but I'll confess to not having looked deeply into the historicity of Jesus or the early church.

I have been reading on this topic for ages. This is my working model. But I am no scholar on it, so I can't recall all the names of books and authors I have read, and quote them like Roy does. It is a very simplified view of course, the fuller picture would fill a whole book. There are lots of scholars who publish work in this field, but not a single one of them agrees whole-heartedly with the next. If you read up on mystery religions, and read up on the Essens as far as we know what they believed, you begin to see two distinct echos of their ideas being incorporated into Christianity. It was probably not done deliberately but slowly evolved over time. Also read up on Gnosticism and Marcionism, which were popular for a time but later rejected as heresy because they couldn't be fit in.

 

[Total Power]

Christianity arose from the merger of these two groups, The equating of the dying and rising saviour god with the first messiah of the Essene system. After this none of it fits very well, and there was huge debate about which bits to chop out and which bits to incorporate, since a lot of their other beliefs are mutually exclusive. The Trinity doctrine is just one example of a patch-up of how to make the dying and rising saviour god fit into the framework of having strictly only one god.

The resurrection myth is not unique to Christianity, it's a myth, just like virgin myth, which is also not unique to Christianity. These are symbols that are used for generations and should not be taken literally despite mainstream christians in this thread banging on about how this is unique to Christianity, it isnt.

Dying-and-rising god - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[chelseacarlton]

I think that says more about you than it does about me

No, it says that the case for your belief is very shallow, it merely exists within a tiny set of parameters that you’ve rarely challenged and hope to never have those beliefs challenged beyond the pulpit.
Sure, you can amuse yourself online in forums like these, you can convince yourself that you are indeed challenging your path, but without ever realising, you only do it to strengthen that belief, cognitive dissonance is your friend, not jesus of Nazareth or Bethlehem.

 

[PhatBoy]

No, it says that the case for your belief is very shallow, it merely exists within a tiny set of parameters that you’ve rarely challenged and hope to never have those ybeliefs challenged beyond the pulpit.
Sure, you can amuse yourself online in forums like these, you can convince yourself that you are indeed challenging your path, but without ever realising, you only do it to strengthen that belief, cognitive dissonance is your friend, not jesus of Nazareth or Bethlehem.

Ok buddy

 

[indoistriku]

The resurrection myth is not unique to Christianity, it's a myth, just like virgin myth, which is also not unique to Christianity. These are symbols that are used for generations and should not be taken literally despite mainstream christians in this thread banging on about how this is unique to Christianity, it isnt.

Dying-and-rising god - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Except that Christianity proffers these claims to the world as historically falsifiable. Our entire religion is based upon the historically disprovable claim that Jesus rose from the dead - a claim which, if proven a lie, would destroy the foundation of the Christian religion.

Christ rose from the dead. Witnesses testify to this fact. The world hates Christ and if given the opportunity, would readily disprove this fact if it was at all possible. But that fact remains, and it remains unchallenged - the tomb is empty and the world is justified.

I'm catching up on this discussion, and so I'm unread on the entire context of what is being said, but I hope that you're not perpetuating the lie that Christianity is based upon ancient pagan religions. That lie has been disproven time and again.

 

[Total Power]

Except that Christianity proffers these claims to the world as historically falsifiable. Our entire religion is based upon the historically disprovable claim that Jesus rose from the dead - a claim which, if proven a lie, would destroy the foundation of the Christian religion.

Christ rose from the dead. Witnesses testify to this fact. The world hates Christ and if given the opportunity, would readily disprove this fact if it was at all possible. But that fact remains, and it remains unchallenged - the tomb is empty and the world is justified.

I'm catching up on this discussion, and so I'm unread on the entire context of what is being said, but I hope that you're not perpetuating the lie that Christianity is based upon ancient pagan religions. That lie has been disproven time and again.

This has been done to death by Roylion, the claim has is always going to be historically disprovable about zombies rising from the tomb and going to a town, just like it's impossible to historically disprove Mohammed split the moon, please have a read on the earlier pages in this thread.

 

[Total Power]

Well, then, how about we read what the Bible says on the persons of the Trinity?

1. There is only one true God. “To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord Himself is God; there is none other beside Him.” [Deuteronomy 4:35] See also Deuteronomy 6:4,25; 43:10; 1 Timothy 2:5 2.

2. The Father is God. “Yet for us there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things.” [1 Corinthians 8:6] See also St John 17:1-3; 2 Corinthians 1:3; Philippians 2:11; Colossians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:2 3.

3. Jesus Christ, the Son, is God. “...looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” [Titus 2:13] See also Isaiah 9:6; St John 1:1; 5:18; 20:28; Romans 9:5;2 Peter 1:1 4.

4. The Holy Spirit is a person, is eternal, is God. “Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?... You have not lied to men but to God.'” [Acts 5:3,4] See also St Matthew 3:16-17; St John 16:13; Hebrews 9:14

There are several otherr passages, too. Sure, you can take verses out of context to make it appear as if the doctrine of the Trinity isn't Biblical - but a close (or even a casual) reading of the Bible will show that to be wrong. There is an order of relationship in the Trinity - which Jesus is talking about in your quoted verse. Taking that one verse out of context doesn't disprove what the Bible teaches, and what the Christian church, across multiple denomination and epochs has believe.

A perfect copy paste from a christian fundamentalist website! nothing you posted above is in dispute which anything i posted, if at all you have proven that there are multiple gods. If you are going to copy paste do state your source orelse it's called plagiarism.

 

[Vdubs]

This has been done to death by Roylion, the claim has is always going to be historically disprovable about zombies rising from the tomb and going to a town, just like it's impossible to historically disprove Mohammed split the moon, please have a read on the earlier pages in this thread.

He has his wikipedia articles at his fingertips, and dredges them up at will. Great contributor to this thread, but he is not original, and is not an oracle, even though you rely on him so much for backup.
Check out the Bible itself.
2 chapters in particular address the issue he refuses to accept, SIN.
Ezekiel 18 Old Testament
Romans 2 New Testament

 

[Total Power]

He has his wikipedia articles at his fingertips, and dredges them up at will. Great contributor to this thread, but he is not original, and is not an oracle, even though you rely on him so much for backup.
Check out the Bible itself.
2 chapters in particular address the issue he refuses to accept, SIN.
Ezekiel 18 Old Testament
Romans 2 New Testament

I rely on evidence and facts, you rely on faith,hence the difference. The persons post you liked above copy pasted the replies from a Christian fundie site, without even reading the verses

There's nothing wrong quoting historical sources, Bible is not a book of history and historically and scientifically resurraction is not sustainable at all. Matthew 27:53 says that Jesus wasn't the only person to have been resurrected. supposedly a bunch of people got out of their graves and wandered the streets of jjerusalem, but despite this fantastic event there is no evidence of it. Not a single person wrote down that they saw dead people/zombies wander the streets of Jerusalem. So the whole story of the resurrection not only goes against what we know about human physiology, but it also requires that no one wrote about it outside of the authors who wrote the gospels long after the events supposedly took place.

One person having a vision is unremarkable (hello Mohammed), people have visions all the time, and the society in which Paul lived was very superstitious. The historical evidence still isn't looking good for a resurrection.

 

[Vdubs]

I rely on evidence and facts, you rely on faith,hence the difference. The persons post you liked above copy pasted the replies from a Christian fundie site, without even reading the verses

There's nothing wrong quoting historical sources, Bible is not a book of history and historically and scientifically resurraction is not sustainable at all. Matthew 27:53 says that Jesus wasn't the only person to have been resurrected. supposedly a bunch of people got out of their graves and wandered the streets of jjerusalem, but despite this fantastic event there is no evidence of it. Not a single person wrote down that they saw dead people/zombies wander the streets of Jerusalem. So the whole story of the resurrection not only goes against what we know about human physiology, but it also requires that no one wrote about it outside of the authors who wrote the gospels long after the events supposedly took place.

One person having a vision is unremarkable (hello Mohammed), people have visions all the time, and the society in which Paul lived was very superstitious. The historical evidence still isn't looking good for a resurrection.

Please comment on the 2 chapters.

It speaks to a lot of the issues that have been rubbished on this thread.

And regarding the "liked" posts, there is nothing wrong with quoting actual scripture, when your guru quotes his wikipedia science and history verbatim to your delight.

 

[Total Power]

Please comment on the 2 chapters.
It speaks to a lot of the issues that have been rubbished on this thread.

You quote the OT when it suits you however when we quote the OT then it's dismissed as it's not related to Christianity/Jesus? i am more than happy to comment on your stuff if you would start being consistent in your argument.

The OT states there are multiple gods, what are your thoughts on that?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

The OT states there are multiple gods, what are your thoughts on that?

It's usually a fight to death. The winning God inherits the losing God's abilities.

 

[Vdubs]

You quote the OT when it suits you however when we quote the OT then it's dismissed as it's not related to Christianity/Jesus? i am more than happy to comment on your stuff if you would start being consistent in your argument.

The OT states there are multiple gods, what are your thoughts on that?

not so- you guys quote out of context and pick on outrageous verses in isolation and ask us to explain how "your God" could allow this or that.
But the whole concept of SIN, which is what has separated all men from God, and will continue to do so, is rebuked by you lot as immaterial, trite or unsubstantiated- yet here it is in black and white. The very concept of sin, and what can be done about it.

Don't forget, our God is your God is the only God.

 

[Colonial]

our God is your God is the only God.

Which god?

 

[Total Power]

not so- you guys quote out of context and pick on outrageous verses in isolation and ask us to explain how "your God" could allow this or that.
But the whole concept of SIN, which is what has separated all men from God, and will continue to do so, is rebuked by you lot as immaterial, trite or unsubstantiated- yet here it is in black and white. The very concept of sin, and what can be done about it.

Don't forget, our God is your God is the only God.

You are wrong, in many ways, Ezekiel 18:20 clearly states the one who shall sin is going to die, his sin should not be borne by anyone else which basically destroys your idea of dying for someone elses sin. Nowhere in the Torah does it say anything about human sacrifice as being an atonement. The Torah is very clear that human sacrifice is forbidden. Also, I’m assuming you’re basing this in Leviticus 17:11. Nowhere does it say there that human blood is what’s an atonement. You need proper context for Ezekiel, i assume you haven't read much of Torah?

I am not taking any verse out of context at all, i have a problem with your position in general, which is hypocritical to say the least. The problem: supernatural things happen in other religions. Why do you dismiss their supernatural things but accept yours? They all have equal claims as yours: something that happens which is contrary to everything we know about reality, sometimes an eyewitness, always the event is written by a believer or set of believers. Why reject all supernatural events of other religions but Christianity?

 

[Total Power]

Which god?

The god he believes in. Jesus, all other gods are false gods

 

[Colonial]

The god he believes in. Jesus, all other gods are false gods

But Jesus was a human man (he wasn’t white either, despite the paintings) who was executed and buried. No evidence to say he was a god. None provided either.

 

[Total Power]

But Jesus was a human man (he wasn’t white either, despite the paintings) who was executed and buried. No evidence to say he was a god. None provided either.

But but there are eyewitness' watching em rise and go to town with his mates. I am legend is based on that lol.

Seriously this is 2020 and people still believe in an anecdotal evidence, written decades after the incident that dead can rise and go to town. Muslims believe Mohammed split the moon, there is no excuse for stupidity and gullibility.