Jesus Christ, was he sent for all mankind?

KCDAD · #**431** 4th November 2009, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by GraceSeeker

The statement "unity of this Godhead" tells you that United Methodism understands there to be but one God, even though God is understood to exist in three persons. Now, if these three persons where three separate entities that would indeed by an expression of polythesim, but that is not what we believe; we believe the three persons are but one being. (If it was a simple concept people wouldn't have had the pleasure of arguing about it for nearly 2 millenia.) So, while others may still accuse us of being polythesistic, our own self-understanding is that we are indeed monotheistic.

Terrific post!
Here is the problem with your analysis, however.
Wheras it is true that unity suggests a "oneness", this phrase: "And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons" suggests something completely different. It suggests that like the three branches of our government or the bicameral House of legislators, there are separate "persons" acting in concert.
Any description of God as a "person" is blasphemy and theologically unsound. Of course Jesus was a person. There is the one person that fits that description, however The Holy Spirit is not a "person" either. Spirit is not anthropomorphic, in fact, it is the antithesis of personhood.
Yes, Trinity is a traditional doctrine, however the doctrine would be better served by the use of a word like TRIUNITY instead. Three separate ideas working in concert.

No matter how one stretches his mind, one can not hold an infinite, eternal God in three different "persons" of any kind. Any way you shake it up or sort it out, Jesus and The Holy Spirit are a part of God. (As are you and me, and every thing else created out of that one eternal infinite God.) It is completely unscriptural to suggest that Father, Jesus and The Holy Spirit are the same entity as Jesus refers to the others in third person. That separation alone negates the Trinity doctrine.

KCDAD · #**432** 4th November 2009, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by Carey

If he does not care why then why is the least of these the only why that matters??

Because "why" is not even addressed in the story.

Sheep: What did you do? I FED the hungry, CLOTHED the naked, etc... why? Doesn't matter.

Goats: What did you do? NOTHING, but if we had known it was you...

So... again, the point is WHAT was done, NOT WHY.

GraceSeeker · #**433** 7th November 2009, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by KCDAD

Terrific post!
Here is the problem with your analysis, however.
Wheras it is true that unity suggests a "oneness", this phrase: "And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons" suggests something completely different. It suggests that like the three branches of our government or the bicameral House of legislators, there are separate "persons" acting in concert.
Any description of God as a "person" is blasphemy and theologically unsound. Of course Jesus was a person. There is the one person that fits that description, however The Holy Spirit is not a "person" either. Spirit is not anthropomorphic, in fact, it is the antithesis of personhood.
Yes, Trinity is a traditional doctrine, however the doctrine would be better served by the use of a word like TRIUNITY instead. Three separate ideas working in concert.

No matter how one stretches his mind, one can not hold an infinite, eternal God in three different "persons" of any kind. Any way you shake it up or sort it out, Jesus and The Holy Spirit are a part of God. (As are you and me, and every thing else created out of that one eternal infinite God.) It is completely unscriptural to suggest that Father, Jesus and The Holy Spirit are the same entity as Jesus refers to the others in third person. That separation alone negates the Trinity doctrine.

I'm not trying to correct your understanding of the Trinity. You will believe what you believe. I'm just trying to clarify for those who, on reading your post which may be interpreted by some as asserting something with regard to United Methodist beliefs, what it is that United Methodists actually do believe and where to find those beliefs stated in "official" United Methodist documents.

KCDAD, based on what you have said, I suspect that you would hold the teachings of the United Methodist Church to be unscriptural and blasphemy as we would find yours should you ever come before a committee on ministry seeking ordination in the UM Church. As a citizen of the USA, you are free to believe whatever you want. But please, don't represent your views which are NOT in concert with the doctrines and teachings of United Methodism as if they were. You are clearly NOT Trinitarian in your theology and the United Methodist Church most certainly is.

I wish you well.

KCDAD · #**434** 8th November 2009, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by GraceSeeker

I'm not trying to correct your understanding of the Trinity. You will believe what you believe. I'm just trying to clarify for those who, on reading your post which may be interpreted by some as asserting something with regard to United Methodist beliefs, what it is that United Methodists actually do believe and where to find those beliefs stated in "official" United Methodist documents.

KCDAD, based on what you have said, I suspect that you would hold the teachings of the United Methodist Church to be unscriptural and blasphemy as we would find yours should you ever come before a committee on ministry seeking ordination in the UM Church. As a citizen of the USA, you are free to believe whatever you want. But please, don't represent your views which are NOT in concert with the doctrines and teachings of United Methodism as if they were. You are clearly NOT Trinitarian in your theology and the United Methodist Church most certainly is.

I wish you well.

I do not hold the teachings to blasphemous... that presumes that all of the teachings are one way or the other. I realize some are based on scripture and others are based on whatever makes the congregations and bureaucrats happy.

Please, do not presume to understand what I believe or don't believe.
My beliefs have nothing to do with my understanding of Trinity apologetics. I have opinions and thoughts about it which I have expressed. They are not beliefs. I choose not to believe nonsensical dogma with no basis in experience, reality or nature.

Ordination??? There's a another good subject of which ALL Methodists should be aware. What happened to priesthood of all believers? When did ministry become an occupation, with vacation pay, retirement, free housing, tax exemptions and income levels in the upper 10% of the population? (So much for emulating Jesus, the suffering servant. It is probably tough to get good ministers at minimum wage or less, though I'd wager. I wonder why that is?)

Can you explain why The United Methodist Church FORBIDS non-ordained members from presiding over the Communion table?

Can you explain the UMC's doctrinal position on what happens after someone dies? (and why does many ministers say that the loved one is "with God now" or "in a better place")

Can you explain why some UM churches allow same sex marriages and others don't? (Is it ok or not?)

Can you explain why some UM churches support our government initiating foreign wars and others don't? (Or why some "celebrate" Juy 4th with hymns to America) Are we a church of national borders? Do we really want God to bless America any more than any other nation?

Can you explain why some churches forbid women from being elders and other have women bishops? Who were the Deaconesses? (Well, we could quote Paul on that subject...)

Or even more basically, why The Methodist Church joined with the United Brethren to begin with? Why are there several "brands" of Methodists... Wesleyans, Free, African Episcopal; The Salvation Army is an offshoot of Methodism (Not for political or financial reasons, I'm sure)

BTW... I was offered a diaconal ordination in UMC not more than 10 years ago and turned it down.

Please don't act like there is anything "united" about The United Methodist Church or any other denomination of Christianity.

Oh yeah... the last place I would turn for confirmation about my calling or my faith is a bureaucracy of church administrators.

GraceSeeker · #**435** 8th November 2009, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by KCDAD

I do not hold the teachings to blasphemous... that presumes that all of the teachings are one way or the other. I realize some are based on scripture and others are based on whatever makes the congregations and bureaucrats happy.

Well, now you are just disagreeing with yourself: As the UMC does hold to the description of God as one in three persons and you hold that

Originally Posted by KCDAD

Any description of God as a "person" is blasphemy and theologically unsound.

It seemed reasonable to conclude that you would therefore hold UMC teachings (not all of them, but at least this one) to be blasphemous and theologically unsound.

Please, do not presume to understand what I believe or don't believe. My beliefs have nothing to do with my understanding of Trinity apologetics. I have opinions and thoughts about it which I have expressed. They are not beliefs. I choose not to believe nonsensical dogma with no basis in experience, reality or nature.

Well, I call lack of belief its own form of belief -- a belief that something is not. I don't presume to understand your beliefs at all. I'm just responding to what you yourself have posted. If you don't want people to respond, it makes me wonder why you might post on a forum of this nature. That is, of course, up to you to determine. But I can tell you right now, if I see a person make statements which might give others an impression about the United Methodist Church which I happen to know are not actually consistent with the beliefs, teachings, or practices of the United Methodist Church I will respond to it.

Likewise, if I see that someone has a question about the United Methodist Church that I am able to help address, I am happy to do that. You appear to have a series of them. Since they are about United Methodism and this particular thread is on a different topic, if you are genuinely interested in any of those things which you asked to have explained, I'm going to encourage you to ask your questions in the "Wesley's Parish" section of CF.

Now, let us let this thread return to it's original question: Jesus Christ, was he sent for all mankind? I would suggest YES. Apart from the grace of God we are all lost, but it is also true that the Son of Man [i.e., Jesus] came to seek and to save what was lost.

Montalban · #**436** 9th November 2009, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by anatolian

Hello.We muslims believe he was sent to the sons of Israel not for all mankind.This doesnt mean the one who follows Him in real does a wrong job but this is God's plan for He sent Muhammed-aleyhissalam-to all mankind.Which proofs do christians have to claim that Jesus was sent to entire humanity and not only to the israelites?

There's a number of reasons. One would be where Jesus sends his followers out to the world with the Good News

And by comparison Islam forces people to learn Arabic - apparently the language al-Lah speaks

KCDAD · #**437** 9th November 2009, 11:07 AM

GraceSeeker;Well, now you are just disagreeing with yourself: As the UMC does hold to the description of God as one in three persons and you hold that
It seemed reasonable to conclude that you would therefore hold UMC teachings (not all of them, but at least this one) to be blasphemous and theologically unsound.

Yes, this doctrine is unscriptural, irrational, not valid in experience or nature and ONLY fits the "traditional" criteria of John Wesley. 1 out of 4 is not very good. It subjugates God almighty to physical and finite concepts... yes, I would say that is blasphemous.

Well, I call lack of belief its own form of belief

You can call a canary an oak tree if you wish.

-- a belief that something is not.

Wow. And you have a graduate degree...?
"Someone who makes an assertion represents himself as believing what he says"... right? (from Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective by Donald Davidson)
A belief is an assertion, not an argument. "The former is an opinion with no rational supporting evidence, while the latter is an opinion supported by reasonable evidence." (from Assertion or Argument, by Jason Dulle)
Why don't you make an argument for what you claim the UMC believes? Instead of quoting a Methodist publication, why not argue the source of that assertion. (The Bible, for instance)

I don't presume to understand your beliefs at all. I'm just responding to what you yourself have posted. If you don't want people to respond, it makes me wonder why you might post on a forum of this nature. That is, of course, up to you to determine. But I can tell you right now, if I see a person make statements which might give others an impression about the United Methodist Church which I happen to know are not actually consistent with the beliefs, teachings, or practices of the United Methodist Church I will respond to it.

Again you are suggesting that there is a uniformity of beliefs in The United Methodist Church . Quoting a publication doesn't demonstrate anything other than Pharisaical Legalism. ("It says we believe this so we do!")

Likewise, if I see that someone has a question about the United Methodist Church that I am able to help address, I am happy to do that. You appear to have a series of them. Since they are about United Methodism and this particular thread is on a different topic, if you are genuinely interested in any of those things which you asked to have explained, I'm going to encourage you to ask your questions in the "Wesley's Parish" section of CF.

How about you just go ahead and answer them there and I'll go look for them?

Now, let us let this thread return to it's original question: Jesus Christ, was he sent for all mankind? I would suggest YES. Apart from the grace of God we are all lost, but it is also true that the Son of Man [i.e., Jesus] came to seek and to save what was lost.

Thank you for the meaningless platitudes.

Apart from the grace of God we do not exist... if that is what you mean by lost, ok, I'll concur. If you are talking about sin... now you are straying away from the teachings of Jesus again. Jesus proclaimed to everyone he encountered one thing... what was it? "Your sins are forgiven." (Not will be, can be, or should be... ARE. He also never said "I forgive your sins". Hmmmmmm I wonder why....)

Can you explain that phrase "save what was lost"? What did Jesus save? What is different today in the world because of Jesus' life or death? (Is there still disease? Is there still suffering? Is there still loneliness, hunger, war, slavery, oppression, cruelty, death, sorrow, misery... what exactly is different because of God's fleshly presence on this earth and his death?

Here is the truth about METHODISM: it is a not a system of beliefs about God. It is movement to minister to the world. Wesley never intended to create this bureaucracy. He wanted to change peoples' lives. William Booth was a true Weslyan Methodist... look what happened to him.

maybe you should come to my Sunday School class or adult discussion group some time...

Christos Anesti · #**438** 9th November 2009, 11:18 AM

Any description of God as a "person" is blasphemy and theologically unsound.

Couldn't it be possible that you understand the word person (which is generally used in translation for the Greek Hypostasis ) in a manner different then that of the Nicene Fathers? Modern understandings of "person" often don't agree with the patristic use of the term. At least thats what I've noticed.

KCDAD · #**439** 9th November 2009, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Montalban

There's a number of reasons. One would be where Jesus sends his followers out to the world with the Good News

And by comparison Islam forces people to learn Arabic - apparently the language al-Lah speaks

Do you understand why Muslims require Arabic to be learned? So that they can read their holiest and most sacred writings in the original language written. And English speakers???? "Oh read any old translations... The Holy Spirit will tell you what it means".
Haven't you ever wondered why Jews and Muslims require their children to learn the language of the scriptures and Christians don't???
Doesn't it just amaze you that Christians, for the most part, have no idea what their sacred writings say? (except for those out of context verses memorized)

KCDAD · #**440** 9th November 2009, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Christos Anesti

Couldn't it be possible that you understand the word person (which is generally used in translation for the Greek Hypostasis ) in a manner different then that of the Nicene Fathers? Modern understandings of "person" often don't agree with the patristic use of the term. At least thats what I've noticed.

Perhaps.
hy·pos·ta·sis (h

-p

s

t

-s

s)n. pl. hy·pos·ta·ses (-s

z

) 1. Philosophy The substance, essence, or underlying reality.
2. Christianity a. Any of the persons of the Trinity.
b. The essential person of Jesus in which his human and divine natures are united.

3. Something that has been hypostatized.
4. a. A settling of solid particles in a fluid.
b. Something that settles to the bottom of a fluid; sediment.

5. Medicine The settling of blood in the lower part of an organ or the body as a result of decreased blood flow.
6. Genetics A condition in which the action of one gene conceals or suppresses the action of another gene that is not its allele but that affects the same part or biochemical process in an organism.

Isn't the Greek word Hupostasis?

[Greek hupostasis : hupo-, hypo- + stasis, a standing; see st

- in Indo-European roots.]
UNDER-STANDING?