• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Does the TRINITY doctrine CONCUR with John 17:3?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by edpobre, Aug 18, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,075
    Christian
    >>I am sorry you ffel that accepting the Bible's original autographs is considered worship. It isn't, but you refuse to be told otherwise.

    I'm sorry you believe genocide to be God breathed too. It isn't, but you refuse to be told otherwise.

    >>Just know that I do consider it inspired by God, and I do not worship it.

    It's one thing to honor the teachings of Jesus. It's another entirely to suggest Joshua running around commiting acts of genocide against his enemies was God inspired. It's your unwillingness to explain what "inspired" means exactly that I find rather difficult to swallow.

    >>Maybe I am just the exceptiojn to the rule.. but there it is.

    And maybe you are just naive too.

    M>If you believe this book to be flawless, then indeed you must accept that you are bible worshiping as well.

    >>Only in your mind, dude. I can accept is as inspired and not worship it.

    Anyone who holds a book up and claims it to be the inerrant word of God is upleveling this "book" to the godhood. It's bible worship. No book can or ever will be "perfect".

    >>Just becasue you can't firgure out how doesn't mean i can't..

    You won't even come up with a testable definition of "inspired" in the first place! How you can define "inspired" here so that you can clearly demonstrate Joshua was inspired when hacking children to death, whereas Hilter was not inspired for gassing them to death. Why is that? Can you?

    >>it just means you don't understand.

    I don't understand because you won't even define what "inspired" means. How can it be insprired to hack children to death house by house by bloody house?

    >>Og and indeed I DO NOT accept I am Bible worshipping. Nuff said. I am really getting tired of you claiming I say or beleive things I don't.

    Fine.

    M>but you are saying two things here which contradict one another.

    >>Based upon your perception. They do not contradict..

    Yes they certainly do. If you refuse to consider that killing children isn't God inspired, I'd say you've left your sanity checked at the church door.

    >>you just think they do.

    I KNOW they do.

    >>Noting i can do about that. You could ignore what you think and accept what I say, and trust what I say, but you don't.

    Ditto. Why don't you?

    M>You hold the bible to be infallible, and yet claim this is not bible worship.

    >>Becasue it isn't Bible worship.

    What is it then that suggest that killing babies is God inspired?

    M>I don't see how you rationalize that contradiction.

    >>That's probably becasue I do not see the contradiction. You have made it up in your head.

    That's bs. If you won't look honestly at the text and consider it's source (HUMANS), there is little more I can say. You have now elevated all the unknown authors to divine status without even explaining what inspiration really is in any testable way.

    M>Just another guy with another opinion, just like you.

    >>Exactly.. just aonthe guy with an opinion. I have said what I said. you don't agree.. fine.. keep it to yourself then.

    Fine, but I'm not the one suggesting baby killers are "divinely inspired".

    M>You've elevated a book to the status of "perfection" and claim that's not bible worship.

    >>Yep.. sure do. Deal with it. I claim it infallible, and that claim, I do not do for the sake of the Bible, but for the sake of who inspired it.

    You may wan't to believe those baby killers were inspired for going house to house slaughtering innocent people, but I surely do not. I do nothing for their sakes. Their guilt is all recorded in gruesome detail.

    >>If any worship is going on, I am worshipping God, who inspired the thing, not the thing it self. Just drop it Michael.

    Fine I'll just drop the subject, and ignore the rest of your comments about this in this thread. You can however worship God and still not believe Joshua was inspired for hacking children to death.

    M>Why will you not believe Jesus himself when he says we can all achieve this same union with God?

    >>Again.. I repest myself for the blind.. I do beleive it.. I do not beleive it as you beleive it.

    You choose to believe an invention of the church over the direct quotes from Jesus himself as I see it.

    M>Fortunately he provides on(e) in John 17

    >:D oes not! Oh, and my God can beat up your god!

    :) No doubt. Your's seems rather violent. :(

    M>John also makes it abundantly clear that he believes Jesus to be the son of God, not God.

    >>Actually John makes it clear that both are true. Heh, go figure.. John, a beleiver in the Trinity. Whoa!

    No, he doesn't do that. In fact John (disciple) goes out of his way to explain in great detail how Jesus explained his relationship with God. Some of the best stuff on this subject is recorded in John. We ought to look for some areas in similarity here sooner or later though rather than rehash this in thread after thread.

    M>You seem to accept only *PART* of his message whereas I'm accepting the *WHOLE* thing.

    >>You are worng about that.. but whatever.. I can say the same thing to you.

    Well, indeed, we've reached that point of "opinion" and "interpretation". I choose to follow what Jesus said, and believe we are all capable of union with God and with him and that we are all one in God.

    M>You *WILL NOT* give me a definition of what constitutes "divine inspiration" in any useful was which might allow us to test this theory of yours, and then you claim this is not artificially lifting a book up to the status of godhood.

    >>Not useful to oyu, becasu you do not understand. BUt i di giv you a definition.

    A useful definition here would be one that allows us to clearly see how Joshua hacking innocent children to death is somehow more inspired than say Hitler gassing them wholesale.

    >>Thoruhg inspiration! Please, class, pay attention.

    How about a useful definition to work with here "teach". How can you objectively prove Joshua was inspired?

    M>Through the presense of the Holy Spirit?

    >>No.. through inspiration of God.

    What form would that take if not through the Holy Spirit?

    M>The Holy Spirit insists to me that God is love.

    >>Me to. He also insists God is other things as well.. but Love is one of them.

    Sure, and God has a wonderful sense of humor. God assures me though that killing your neighbors children is no way to solve a religious dispute.

    M>John agrees with me.

    >>That's up for debate all over this board.

    John did say God is Love, and that the spirit of truth was love. You can't hide from that fact.

    M>Genocide is not a loving act.

    >>Tis true.

    Then why was Joshua doing it to his neighbors children?

    M>How do you explain this?

    >>Explain what That God is more than Love, and able to commit an act that is not about love, but about somehting else, like Justice?

    How can killing an infant for their parents crimes be considered justice?

    M>He called the Holy Spirit the only begotten son of God in fact.

    >>ROFL! Dude.. whatever... He did not... and FYI.. the SOn of God was Jesus, not the Holy Spirit. I also assumed you knew I beleved that... guess not.

    I didn't see you post much useful the last time I brought the John 3 thread back up. Jesus was refering to the Holy Spirit throughout his dialog with Nicodemus.

    M>Jesus *doesn't* say this however.

    >:D oes to! (Does not. Does to. My God can beat up your god.)

    The real God doesn't beat things up for the fun of it.

    M>Jesus said that we could achieve this same union with God that he enjoys.

    >>Ok Class.. together now.. "That Union is not Godhood."

    And I did not claim that it was. It is unity "with" the Godhood.

    M>To deny this is to deny his teachings. I won't do that. Whatever status you elevate Jesus to based on "union with" God, you must allow for all beings to achieve this state. That is what Jesus said.

    >>Great then.. I elivate the union to a fellowship with God, which we all can have.. and that, does not in-validate the Trinity. YAY!

    Like I said all along, it's not the trinity doctrine I have a tough time with, it's the claims of exclusivity that Jesus teaches against.

    M>It gets to the heart of what the relationship between ouselves and God is really all about.

    >>This coming form someone who thinks God is a woman.

    I've stated repeatedly that I'm sex "neutral". I just think it's sexist to keep refering to God as a "he".

    >And, yes it is about relationship! That what the "oneness" is about... sheesh. Having a relationship with God does not make us God, it did not make Jesus God. Jesus was already God.

    That would be your opinion, but this isn't what Jesus claimed. He claimed to be the *SON* of the ONE TRUE God. I'm not making it up, I'm reading it the red lettering parts of the Gospels.

    M>We all seem to agree it involves the presense of the Holy Spirit, but you seem to believe that the Holy Spirit can descend upon it's own source.

    >>Again.. I never siad this. The Holy Spirit doid not acsend from the Son to the Son... He ascended form the Father to the Son.

    You keep separating these "individuals" whenever you see fit and putting them together with bubble gum and bailing wire when it suits you too. :) What was Jesus afraid of, and who did he pray to the night before his death?

    M>I do *NOT* deny that. What are you trying to suggest?

    >>You do to. You claim that Jesus is not the Word,

    No, I didn't really say that. I said he was UNIFIED WITH THE WORD. You keep twisting my meaning around to suit yourself too I see.

    >>and thuse claim that teh Word did not come as Flesh.

    No, I didn't make that claim at all. I said that Jesus was unified with God through the presense of the Holy Spirit. That's what I said. In that way, he is indeed the "Word" made flesh.

    >>Since John teaches that the Word is Jesus, you then imply that Jesus (The Word that existed before time) did not come in the Flesh, but rather that Jesus bacem it after some period of time.

    Actually, the bible insinuates that itself by suggesting that the Holy Spirit descended upon him AFTER baptism.

    >>What am I suggesting? That your teachings and theology are in the Spirit of the Anti-Christ. You are a false prophet, know it or not.

    Well, I think it's a tad insulting to be compared to the Anti-Christ for following Christs teachings.

    Would you please show me where I ever claimed to be a "prophet" of any kind?

    M>You however are trying to go a step further and suggest that Jesus was also "divine" in the sense of "being" God. This isn't what Jesus said though, nor is it in alignment with his own experience of fear the night before his death.

    >>Yes I am. Yes He was. Yes He did. Yes it is.

    Why does Jesus feel fear? What does God have to fear, or is this one of those transformer routines again where you rip the trilogy apart when it suits you?

    M>And depending on how you choose to interpret that statement, I can accept these things.

    >>I don't ijnterprate them.. I accept them for what they say. I think Johnmeant what he wrote, and wrote what he meant.

    You accept what the church told you he meant, nothing more. Jesus himself is quite clear their is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. I don't know how he could have made it any clearer in fact.

    M>Are we talking about John the disciple here, or John the Baptist however?

    >>The writer of the book of John! come on.. stay in the game.

    Patronizing too I see. John the disciple is referencing John the baptist at times. You seem to be intermixing their statements at will.

    M>Jesus IMO resided in the consciousness of the Holy Spirit pretty much his whole life. I have no idea if he lived a "perfect" life (as in never made a mistake), nor do I care. It is an irrelevant point. I can even accept a very human and "flawed" Messiah. It really doesn't matter to me. His teachings are what matter to me.

    >>Nice dodge.. heh.

    No, I thought I was quite honest about my feelings here. For you faith to work, Jesus had to be perfect, a book has to be perfect, and a religion has to be perfect. My faith requires none of these things to remain whole. I suggest you consider what I'm saying here. I can fully accept Jesus as a real human man, capable of making human mistakes, and still know him to be the Messiah. Can you?

    M>The Holy Spirit is *OF* God, as sunlight is from a sun. A plant absorbs sunlight, but it does not become a sun. If you were to contain a sample of sunlight in some way, the sample would still not be the sun itself.

    >>Two things here Michael 1, The Holy Spirit id ont the Word. 2. The Holy Spirit is not of God.. The Holy Spirit is God.

    In your trilogy world, I'm sure that's true. Depending on how you define that precisely, I might even find some middle ground with you. The point however is that Jesus makes a clear and significant distinction between himself and God. I can't deny that fact either.

    M>He most certainly is the physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit for the most part....

    Not!

    So explain his fear again to me? Didn't say the fear was not of God, and could not exist in perfect love? How you come to terms with these statements when looked at together?

    M>The WORD existed before Jesus was born. Jesus existed before Jesus was born.

    >>two things: Jesis is the Word and How could Jesus exist before He was born, unless He was God?

    Jesus the man was created via dna. Jesus the soul is ancient. He says so himself. I see no reason to disbelieve him, and every reason to believe him. All things however are created by the ONE TRUE God to whom Jesus prays and asks for help.

    M>The WORD is not a person. It is the flow of energy through creation, the conscious and directed flow of energy through creation. Jesus was one with this force, emersed in this force.

    >>Sounds like the Anti-Christ to me. Where did you dream up this? It isn't in the Bible...

    It is in the bible, and I'm getting tired of being villianized by you tonight. How about laying of the Anti-Christ comparisons a while, and show a bit of "Christian" tollerance for subtle variations in beliefs. I think the villianizing is more than a little beneath you frankly.

    >>Also, if Jesus is not God in flesh, then why is He worshiped?

    M>I "worship" what he has done for me. He has shown me the way to the Holy Spirit. For this I am *ETERNALLY* grateful.

    >>Yeah.. umm.. that's fine and all.. but answer the question.. If Jesus isn't God, then why is He worshipped?

    Because humans like to do that? Islam does not "worship" Jesus the way you do. Even some christians sects don't "worship" Jesus the way you do. (See ed's sect).

    M>I can love my grandparents and my parents and my brothers and sisters without regard to status and hierarchy.

    >>You lost me... Oh and what do you think about Jesus not rebuking anyone for worshipping Him?

    I'm not altogether clear that Jesus "doesn't" explain it to him. I only got a portion of the conversation to work with. This is a little like me asking why Jesus didn't rebuke the apostles for asking him if the blind man had caused his own blindness as being impossible. You can only get so far with that logic.

    Jesus fortunately didn't leave us with some veiled "non-comment", he explains the relationship in great detail.

    M>I was looking for a quote from Jesus himself refering to God in the first person. A simple "I AM GOD" would work nicely. Other peoples opinions about God don't count. Who wrote Hebrews? Was it even Paul? Paul believed women should not speak in church too. Shall we believe everything he says?

    >>Hm.. well, sorry to Dissapoint you.

    Well, it's sure funny that I can find numberous examples of him refering to God in the third person and you can't find one where he refers to himself in God the first person. How disappointing indeed when looking through the whole of his teachings that you can't find a single instance within his teachings to support you ideas.

    M>Huh? According to the writers of the gospels, God called Jesus his *SON* after baptism.

    >>Ohh that's right.. if scripture does not agree with oyu, it is false.. I forgot.. my bad.

    No, that's the way you play it. It's fine to believe Thomas, but who's going to believe God himself, or Jesus? What do they matter? You'd rather believe in everyone else.

    M>Some of these opinions were inspired. Others were less than inspired.

    >>Well, sorry but I disagree with you. The bble validates itself, thorugh a MIracle of God. You only thnk parts of it are inspired by God becasue if the whole ting was, you know you would go to Hell.

    I have absolutely no fear of the myth the church invented ZC. I know God. I trust God. I do not fear God. If you are so certain it's "inspired", you ought to be able to define "inspiration" in a useful way that we could us to compare Joshua actions with those of Hilter to see conclusively what makes one inspired and the other lost. You've yet to do that now after weeks of me prodding you.

    M>All things attributeable to the Holy Spirit made flesh in the form of the Messiah.

    >>To bad you can't back this up with proof eh?

    Too bad that I can eh? Even within your beloved bible are the seeds of real truth. You can't deny that God refers to Jesus as his SON. You can't deny Jesus felt fear the night before his death. You can't deny that Jesus called God the ONE TRUE God either.

    M>Well guess what, "I am" too. Did you fall over yet?

    >>Nope.. you must not be God.

    Yet according to Jesus, I'm equally capable of achieving union with God in the same way he did. Go figure....

    M>So much for preexistence being a "heresy" eh? Before I was in this body ZC, I AM too. So are you.

    >>Sorry, but you didn't exsit before God created you. Jesus on the other hand wa never created.

    Though I have no memories outside of this lifetime, I know my soul is ancient. This particular incarnation is 41 years old, but my soul is *FAR* older. You are no different.

    >>The writer of the Book john! sheesh. John think s Jesus is God. Sorry, but he does. No amount of "rationalizing will change that.

    You seem to be intermixing the teachings of John the baptist here and John the disciple. Even in John 1, John refers to Jesus as the SON of God. According to the gospels, the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus *AFTER* baptism, and then God himself calls Jesus his beloved Son. Jesus himself calls God the one true God, and prays to this heavenly father the night before his death. Nothing any of you can do will change any of this either.
     
  2. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Anyone who holds a book up and claims it to be the inerrant word of God is upleveling this "book" to the godhood. It's bible worship. No book can or ever will be "perfect"."

    Just a hint micheal, its not bible worship, its saying that it has correct teaching in it..ie christian docterine ;) get it?

    "I've stated repeatedly that I'm sex "neutral". I just think it's sexist to keep refering to God as a "he". "

    The proper noun then is "it". ;) you should then refer to God as an it.

    "Well, it's sure funny that I can find numberous examples of him refering to God in the third person and you can't find one where he refers to himself in God the first person. How disappointing indeed when looking through the whole of his teachings that you can't find a single instance within his teachings to support you ideas."

    Wrong ;) guess you haven't been reading along in the other threads...or in this one for that matter.

    "Too bad that I can eh? Even within your beloved bible are the seeds of real truth. You can't deny that God refers to Jesus as his SON. You can't deny Jesus felt fear the night before his death. You can't deny that Jesus called God the ONE TRUE God either."

    yes. First off son has nothing to do with herity or phyicality..he is also called the lamb of God..does that make him a small hoved furry animal? :lol: of course not, its a symbolic title. Yes God is one God..that meshes with trinity docterine..its not polytheism ya know...:lol:

    "You seem to be intermixing the teachings of John the baptist here and John the disciple. Even in John 1, John refers to Jesus as the SON of God. According to the gospels, the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus *AFTER* baptism, and then God himself calls Jesus his beloved Son. Jesus himself calls God the one true God, and prays to this heavenly father the night before his death. Nothing any of you can do will change any of this either. "

    You obvaiouly skipped chapter 1. John from the get go nails down that Jesus is God then goes on to other things, Micheal. I'm sure he's in heaven thinking..man, I said Jesus was God, I was very clear about it..what are you thinking Micheal? ;)


     
  3. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,075
    Christian
    :)
     
  4. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Okay, you can if you want, I won't be offended. I really think John makes it very clear in chapter 1 about Jesus. That's all I'm saying. Just look at those 2 verses if you don't believe me. In the first John is testifying about the logos and he then in verse 30 says the same thing about Jesus, making it very clear that the logos IS Jesus.
     
  5. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,075
    Christian
    Since we have 4 or 5 threads going on this same subject, I'm going to let this one go. John however refers to Jesus as the *SON* of God, not God. You are convieniently forgetting that part.
     
  6. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    let it go but get a last jab in huh ;) I'm rubbing off on you :lol: or you're rubbing off on me..one of the two :lol:

    Like I said, you misunderstand the title. :) and John does refer to Jesus as God, read John chapter 1.
     
  7. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    No need to be sorry.. I don't beleive Genocide as you describe it was carried out, but then I havre told oyu that before.. so if you didn't listen then, you won't listen now.

    Interesting. I did explain it. But I will yet again...
    Inspiration: "The doctrine that the Bible was written by the influence of God. It is, therefore, without error. It is accurate and authoritatively represents God's teachings (2 Tim. 3:16). As such it is a revelation from God which implies direct knowledge about God, creation, man, salvation, the future, etc. It is an illumination in that it shows us what we could not know apart from it. "

    Satisfied, or do oyu now want me to tell you what revelation means? /sigh You don't accept Inspiration, so you don't have a reference for what it means. I have now given you one. Accept it as the definition and move on.

    Well, this response didn;t really follow in the argument, but I guess another opinion about me is fine. BUt I thin all of us are Naive anyway, about most things.

    Not true.. you just say it is and beleive it in your mind. Take from the person that does beleive it to be all-inspired: I don't raise it to godhood. Period.

    Nope.

    No, but one book was and is ;)

    Ok.. let me clarify here, Michael. While the Bible was inspired, the actipons of those described oin the Bible are not all necessarily inspired. Now, I do beleive that noshua was following the comamnd of God, but as far as inspiration, that lies with the writers and God.

    Yep, that must have been what happened. There is no other possibility... ;) Me and countless others are all insane. Makes you wonder why you would even try to argue with an insane person...

    Show me. Show me know based not upon your experiences or your feelings or your opinion.. show me using.. hmm... science? ;)

    Cause this is our board.. our turf.. not yours... If I came looking for answers on your turf, I would be inclined to trust you, since I came there looking for answers. I can only assume the same of you, but that is obviously not the case, is it?

    Judgement?

    Your opinon.. not widely accepted in this board I might add. I honestly look at the text and consider God as its source.

    Oh, yes.. keep saying more lies about me. They are wuite amusing. And, dear readers, for the record, I don't elevate the writers to Devine status. Although, according to Michael, they can achieve it on their own. ;)

    mm.. ok.. you aren't everyone knows that.. what's your point?

    Never said you couldn't...

    And as I see it, I choose to believe Jesus, over the invention of Michael.

    Non one said He was omni-benevolent.. oh wait.. some one did.. ;)

    Not possible. We look at the same verses.. and my interpretation is based upon the character of God, and lessons GOd taught throughout the Bible, yours are based upon a portion of the Bible and your feelings.

    Me too, just not the way you do ;)

    Umm.. well since The Holy Spirit is God.. I could say through God... but that's pretty much the same thing.. so Holy Spirit is fine too...

    And God assures me of this too, and He also assures me that He is God of judgement. A Jealous God. A Proud God, and Vengeful God, and Caring God, a Merciful God, and Graceful God. An all around Awesome God.


    Doesn't mean John agrees with you.

    God told him too.

    Maybe it wasn't a judgement for their parents.. maybe it was a Judgementn for the entire people.

    Ok.. show me where it say the Holy Spirit is the Son of God. I feel dirty even asking you to do it.

    Then, according to you, what is the Unity consist of? "[Unity] with godhood." What is Unity?

    The Trimnity Doctrine teaches that exclusivity as Jesus as GOd, and not us. BY saying what you jusy said, you express your problem with it that you cliam you don't have.

    Well, at the next femenists meeting in Heaven, I'l bring that up.

    I know that Michael!!!!!!!!!!! Man you are One track minded and your train just de-railed. Jesus did claim to be the Son of God. BUt the "Oneness" wasn't the vehicle that gave Him the status of "Son of God". He had always been the Son of GOd sense befreo time. And, for the record, you ar ethe one that claims Jesus wasn't God and became God.. which just isn't true.

    A.) Jesus was afraid of being apart from the presence of His Father. Jesus was afraid of taking upon the sin of the world, and by dpoing so, cutting off the fellowship He had with His Father. (and actually, I think "araid" is the wring emotion here...)

    B.) He (The SOn) prayed to His Father. Le tme ask you a question: How many times are you going to ask this question? Can you keep some note cards together or someting to remind you of the answers I have already given to the questions you keep repeating?

    I didn;t say you said it, I said you clsim it. You claim it by what you have said. Yous saiud that the Word was the holy Spirit and oyu said that the Word was not a person, but rather the plan and will and promise of God. That pretty much tells me you do not think Jesus is the Word.

    If I ask you a yes or no qestion: Was Jesus, since the beginning of time, is Jesus now, and will Jesus always be the WORD, as written both in John 1:1 and in Genesis 1:1.. would you answer yes or no? Those are your options. Don't give me explinations, just answer yes or no.

    "In that way". "If you look at it form this angle" "Here, confuse your self with opinion and guessing and then come up with an answer." Be more literal, Michael. Did the Word become Flesh? Yes or No?

    Umm.. ok.. insinuates how?

    A false prophet is anyone that claims to have knowldge from GOd that contradicts the Bible. You have done this. You claim to have knowledge form both God, and The Holy Spirit, which contradicts the Bible, and thus contradicts God.

    The same "church" that told me what John meant, and my own studies that tell me what John ,meant also tell me that the is only one God. What's your point? You already know I believe this.

    In your version of the Messiah, how could he pay for your sin if the cost of His death had to cover His?

    First, what would you know of Christian tolerence? Second, I have recently began to realize something.. we (you and I) are at war. It is a spiritual battle. You are the enemy, and thus a villian. You threaten Christianity, you threaten the alvation of those seeking the truth, and you threat (or try to) God. Villianizing you? I haven't ven begun my friend ;) I love you, don't get me wring, but do not love what you do, or the message you have to share. You can leave anytime, Michael, but until you admit defeat, or leave I will always hold you as a threat to the Church and Body of Christ.

    I can't beleive you forgot the question already.. So here it is again: Jesus was worshipped, in the bble, in His presence, and Jesus Did not rebuke them. Why did Jesus Allor Himself to be Worshipped? Why was He worshipped, and why wasn't the worship stopped?

    Why didn't i fall over than?

    OH MY GOODNESS! What piece of Science told oyu this? LOL

    And it all supports the Trinity Doctrine.. how delightful.. ;)
     
  8. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,075
    Christian
    >>No need to be sorry.. I don't beleive Genocide as you describe it was carried out, but then I havre told oyu that before.. so if you didn't listen then, you won't listen now.

    I hear what you are saying, but either you are utterly naive about what happens in war, or you simply *WON'T* embrace the facts described in the bible. They describe the massacre of men women and children in a systematic, house to house fassion. The describe pillaging and looting, and the taking of slaves. I'm not sure what more evidence you might need to see what was going on, and unless you are very young, you should have some idea about what Yogoslavia has been going through, and seen accounts of WW2, and Vietnam, and the killing fields of Cambodia, and can see what went on. War is truely as close to hell as it ever gets. Sanity goes out the window.

    M>It's your unwillingness to explain what "inspired" means exactly that I find rather difficult to swallow.

    >>Interesting. I did explain it. But I will yet again...
    Inspiration: "The doctrine that the Bible was written by the influence of God. It is, therefore, without error. It is accurate and authoritatively represents God's teachings (2 Tim. 3:16). As such it is a revelation from God which implies direct knowledge about God, creation, man, salvation, the future, etc. It is an illumination in that it shows us what we could not know apart from it. "

    >>Satisfied, or do oyu now want me to tell you what revelation means? /sigh You don't accept Inspiration, so you don't have a reference for what it means. I have now given you one. Accept it as the definition and move on.

    No, I am not satisfied at all. How can I be? This is not a useful definition that we might use to test the validity of your theory since by this logic, there can be no way to distinguish the acts of Joshua from those of Hilter. I'm looking for an "objective" way to do that, and a description that allows us to see the clear differences between these two.

    M>And maybe you are just naive too.

    >>Well, this response didn;t really follow in the argument, but I guess another opinion about me is fine. BUt I thin all of us are Naive anyway, about most things.

    True enough. We all have limits to our knowledge. On the other hand it's important to face the realities of war and war crimes if you want to have a meaningful dialog here.

    M>Anyone who holds a book up and claims it to be the inerrant word of God is upleveling this "book" to the godhood.

    >>Not true.. you just say it is and beleive it in your mind. Take from the person that does beleive it to be all-inspired: I don't raise it to godhood. Period.

    Huh? You are elevating a single book to the status of "perfection" without any scientific research whatsoever. This is most certainly bible worship. Call it what you like, but you can't claim it's inerrant and suggest this isn't idol worship in some way shape or form.

    M>It's bible worship.

    >>Nope.

    Yep. Humans wrote it. Humans never do anything "perfectly" on this scale, and this is surely not a flawless document by any stretch of the imagination.

    M>No book can or ever will be "perfect".

    >>No, but one book was and is

    That's an oxymoron again. You said no and yes in the same sentence.

    M>I don't understand because you won't even define what "inspired" means. How can it be insprired to hack children to death house by house by bloody house?

    >>Ok.. let me clarify here, Michael. While the Bible was inspired, the actipons of those described oin the Bible are not all necessarily inspired.

    You mean maybe women can speak in church after all? Where do we separate opinions, like those of Paul concerning the role of women in marriage and church, and fact? How can we tell the difference? How can we test this "inspiration" objectively, or shall we follow Paul's advice and forbid all women from speaking in church?

    >>Now, I do beleive that noshua was following the comamnd of God,

    How do you know that?

    >>but as far as inspiration, that lies with the writers and God.

    How do we test for it though?

    M>If you refuse to consider that killing children isn't God inspired, I'd say you've left your sanity checked at the church door.

    >>Yep, that must have been what happened. There is no other possibility... Me and countless others are all insane.

    If you truely believe that killing children is somehow "inspired", I'd have to say that's actually true to some degree. Of course "sanity" is a relative thing.

    >>Makes you wonder why you would even try to argue with an insane person...

    I wonder that myself a lot. You'd be amazed at some of the people I meet online.

    M>I KNOW they do.

    >>Show me. Show me know based not upon your experiences or your feelings or your opinion.. show me using.. hmm... science?

    What scientific evidence would convince you that war attrocities aren't the same thing as loving your enemy?

    M>Why don't you?

    >>Cause this is our board.. our turf.. not yours...

    Earth is God's turf. We rent. I thought we were talking about belief systems, not "turf". Is there "turf" in cyberspace? If so, that's surely rented too. :)

    >>If I came looking for answers on your turf, I would be inclined to trust you, since I came there looking for answers. I can only assume the same of you, but that is obviously not the case, is it?

    I came here to discuss God. I'm open to new ideas, but old ones like genocide is God inspired aren't all that exciting to me to be honest.

    M>What is it then that suggest that killing babies is God inspired?

    >>Judgement?

    What has an infant done to deserve or warrant "judgement"?

    M>If you won't look honestly at the text and consider it's source (HUMANS),

    >>Your opinon.. not widely accepted in this board I might add. I honestly look at the text and consider God as its source.

    And I do not understand why.

    M>You have now elevated all the unknown authors to divine status without even explaining what inspiration really is in any testable way.

    >>Oh, yes.. keep saying more lies about me. They are wuite amusing. And, dear readers, for the record, I don't elevate the writers to Devine status. Although, according to Michael, they can achieve it on their own.

    First of all, how can you simply *assume* it to be accurate unless you've honestly investigated it? If you cannot offer a definition of "inspiration" that allows us to tell the difference between Joshua's claim of inspiration when killing babies and Hitlers claims of inspiration, how can you honestly investigate the question?

    M>Fine, but I'm not the one suggesting baby killers are "divinely inspired".

    >>mm.. ok.. you aren't everyone knows that.. what's your point?

    My point is that you are making "extra ordinary" claims here. That requires "extra ordinary" evidence too. So far, you've not provided a meaningful method by which we can test this theory of yours. In the mean time, you *ARE* trying to suggest that self professed baby killers were "inspired" when hacking them to death. I fail to understand the logic in that thinking. It certainly doesn't sound rational to me.

    M>You can however worship God and still not believe Joshua was inspired for hacking children to death.

    >>Never said you couldn't...

    Then why do you cling to the notion that he was?

    M>You choose to believe an invention of the church over the direct quotes from Jesus himself as I see it.

    >>And as I see it, I choose to believe Jesus, over the invention of Michael.

    I've invented nothing here. I've been quite thurough, in explaining my beliefs through the direct teachings of Christ himself. I'll take my "interpretation" over the church any day.

    M>No doubt. Your's seems rather violent.

    >>Non one said He was omni-benevolent.. oh wait.. some one did..

    What are the qualities of God in your opinion that would explain his desire to torment souls for the whole of eternity without any hope of redemption?

    M>We ought to look for some areas in similarity here sooner or later though rather than rehash this in thread after thread.

    >>Not possible. We look at the same verses.. and my interpretation is based upon the character of God, and lessons GOd taught throughout the Bible, yours are based upon a portion of the Bible and your feelings.

    They are based upon my experiences with the Holy Spirit. My feelings have little to do with it.

    M>Well, indeed, we've reached that point of "opinion" and "interpretation". I choose to follow what Jesus said, and believe we are all capable of union with God and with him and that we are all one in God.

    >>Me too, just not the way you do

    Well, as I see it, it's not THAT big of a deal to be honest. It's not a good thing though to elevate Jesus to the status of God, if that's not what he was. He did not make that claim. He repeatedly pointed out that all his power came from God, from whom all things came.

    M>What form would that take if not through the Holy Spirit?

    >>Umm.. well since The Holy Spirit is God.. I could say through God... but that's pretty much the same thing.. so Holy Spirit is fine too...

    It seems to me that we both agree that the presense of God through the Holy Spirit is something the Jesus was tapped into. You seem to believe he was also the source of the Holy Spirit, but the bible records this Spirit decended upon him *AFTER* baptism.

    M>God assures me though that killing your neighbors children is no way to solve a religious dispute.

    >>And God assures me of this too,

    And do you think it was really any different in Joshua's day, or was he just a greedy SOB?

    >>and He also assures me that He is God of judgement.

    Judgement is inevitable. Eternal torment is something altogether different.

    >>A Jealous God.

    Yes Jealousy cannot survive perfect love any more that fear can servive in perfect love.

    >>A Proud God, and Vengeful God,

    I have not ever experienced these qualities of God in my meditations. Have you, or are you just blindly trusting a book again?

    >>and Caring God, a Merciful God, and Graceful God. An all around Awesome God.

    These parts I've experienced plenty. If God is merciful, then what is the purpose of eternal torment?

    M>John did say God is Love, and that the spirit of truth was love. You can't hide from that fact.

    >:D oesn't mean John agrees with you.

    I shows you though how highly John valued love, real unconditional, divine love.

    M>Then why was Joshua doing it to his neighbors children?

    >>God told him too.

    And how do you know that? Are you capable of producing a explanation of what inspiration is that can show the difference between Joshuas and Hitlers actions? They both claimed to be inspired by God.

    M>How can killing an infant for their parents crimes be considered justice?

    >>Maybe it wasn't a judgement for their parents.. maybe it was a Judgementn for the entire people.

    And how is that justice? Are we responsible for our neighbors sin as well?

    M>Jesus was refering to the Holy Spirit throughout his dialog with Nicodemus

    >>Ok.. show me where it say the Holy Spirit is the Son of God. I feel dirty even asking you to do it.

    John 3:16. The entire conversation is about being reborn of The Holy Spirit.

    M>And I did not claim that it was. It is unity "with" the Godhood.

    >>Then, according to you, what is the Unity consist of? "[Unity] with godhood." What is Unity?

    Jesus described this when he said that in the end we would know that he is in us, we are in him, and we are all one in God. We are one big family in God. Unity is being at peace with all things.

    M>Like I said all along, it's not the trinity doctrine I have a tough time with, it's the claims of exclusivity that Jesus teaches against.

    >>The Trimnity Doctrine teaches that exclusivity as Jesus as GOd, and not us. BY saying what you jusy said, you express your problem with it that you cliam you don't have.

    Jesus is quite clear in John 14 and 17 that we too can and must achieve this same unity in God the he enjoys to find salvation. He does not claim it to be an "exclusive" unity. I have no doubt that Jesus reprented God well by surrendering his "self" to the "SELF" of God, through the presense of the Holy Spirit. In this way, he was one with God. Jesus said though that we could all be one with God. Whatever status you set aside for Jesus, you must allow other also to achieve. This is what he himself said in John 14 and John 17. In John 14, he actually says other would do greater things, presumably with his help and blessings.

    >>I've stated repeatedly that I'm sex "neutral". I just think it's sexist to keep refering to God as a "he".

    >>Well, at the next femenists meeting in Heaven, I'l bring that up.

    :lol: :) You might even pick up some heavenly babes that way. :)

    M>He claimed to be the *SON* of the ONE TRUE God.

    >>I know that Michael!!!!!!!!!!! Man you are One track minded and your train just de-railed. Jesus did claim to be the Son of God. BUt the "Oneness" wasn't the vehicle that gave Him the status of "Son of God". He had always been the Son of GOd sense befreo time. And, for the record, you ar ethe one that claims Jesus wasn't God and became God.. which just isn't true.

    I've never said Jesus "became" God. I said he became ONE WITH God.

    M>What was Jesus afraid of, and who did he pray to the night before his death?

    A.) Jesus was afraid of being apart from the presence of His Father.

    It seems to me that he was about to go home to where he came from. What is to fear?

    >>Jesus was afraid of taking upon the sin of the world, and by dpoing so, cutting off the fellowship He had with His Father.

    Why would God forsake him for helping a whole planet?

    >>(and actually, I think "araid" is the wring emotion here...)

    Well, you don't normally sweat as though drops of blood in your normal daily routine. Call it what you like.

    B.) He (The SOn) prayed to His Father. Le tme ask you a question: How many times are you going to ask this question?

    How many times are you going to keep answering it the same way?

    >>Can you keep some note cards together or someting to remind you of the answers I have already given to the questions you keep repeating?

    Well, it seems like this conversation has reached the end of the line. You aren't about to accept Jesus speaking about God in the third person, or his explanations that his power came from God, or him calling himself a man.

    I'm not about to ignore them.

    M>No, I didn't really say that. I said he was UNIFIED WITH THE WORD. You keep twisting my meaning around to suit yourself too I see.

    >>I didn;t say you said it, I said you clsim it. You claim it by what you have said. Yous saiud that the Word was the holy Spirit and oyu said that the Word was not a person, but rather the plan and will and promise of God. That pretty much tells me you do not think Jesus is the Word.

    I do not think Jesus is the Holy Spirit, if that's what you mean. I think he was ONE WITH the Holy Spirit, and in that way become the WORD incarnated in flesh by bowing his personal will to the will of God.

    >>If I ask you a yes or no qestion: Was Jesus, since the beginning of time, is Jesus now, and will Jesus always be the WORD, as written both in John 1:1 and in Genesis 1:1.. would you answer yes or no? Those are your options. Don't give me explinations, just answer yes or no.

    Well, the simple answer is yes. There's a little no in there too somewhere however. ;)

    M>In that way, he is indeed the "Word" made flesh.

    >>"In that way". "If you look at it form this angle" "Here, confuse your self with opinion and guessing and then come up with an answer." Be more literal, Michael. Did the Word become Flesh? Yes or No?

    I said yes. The question about this relationship isn't fully answered though by a yes or no answer, and you can't take a yes here and twist it to mean I believe Jesus was God. I don't.

    M>Actually, the bible insinuates that itself by suggesting that the Holy Spirit descended upon him AFTER baptism.

    >>Umm.. ok.. insinuates how?

    Well, if Jesus was always God, and the source of the Holy Spirit to begin with, how could it possible descend upon him, and why do so only *AFTER* baptism?

    M>Well, I think it's a tad insulting to be compared to the Anti-Christ for following Christs teachings. [/quoe]

    >>I call it as I see it.

    Same here, but I'm not comparing you to the antichrist for have a different belief system about the connection between God, Holy Spirit and Jesus. Jesus suggested that we should not judge others. Maybe you ought to listen to his advice.

    M>Would you please show me where I ever claimed to be a "prophet"

    >>A false prophet is anyone that claims to have knowldge from GOd that contradicts the Bible.

    Ah, then Jesus was surely a false prophet and I am most certainly in great company! :) He broke all kinds of Mosiac laws and he contradicted the OT plenty of times on plenty of occasions. I'm in good company with the man that said you have heard that an eye for an eye is the way, but I tell you to love your enemy.

    >> You have done this. You claim to have knowledge form both God, and The Holy Spirit, which contradicts the Bible, and thus contradicts God.

    It contradicts a "religion", in fact *ALL* "religion", but it does not conflict with the Holy Spirit or with God in any way. The first part is unavoidable if I am to follow the teachings of the Holy Spirit Jesus spoke about.

    M>You accept what the church told you he meant, nothing more. Jesus himself is quite clear their is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. I don't know how he could have made it any clearer in fact.

    >>The same "church" that told me what John meant, and my own studies that tell me what John ,meant also tell me that the is only one God. What's your point? You already know I believe this.

    Maybe it's time to give this topic a rest then. Ed and I don't seem real moved by your arguements, and you don't seem all that interested in our explanation either.

    M>I suggest you consider what I'm saying here. I can fully accept Jesus as a real human man, capable of making human mistakes, and still know him to be the Messiah

    >>In your version of the Messiah, how could he pay for your sin if the cost of His death had to cover His?

    I do not believe God tormented Jesus for my sins or for anyones sins. He came here to remove sin by teaching us the truth of unconditional love. I don't believe God killed him to satisfy his thrist for vengence.

    One thing you've never explained is why if Jesus is God did God need to kill himself to forgive others? Isn't this just theatrics? I mean what's God got to lose anyway? What's the big "sacrifice" in that?

    M>The point however is that Jesus makes a clear and significant distinction between himself and God. I can't deny that fact either.

    >:D oes He? I know he makes a clear distinction between Himself and the Father...

    Well, you can play transformers here with Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God. I'm more looking at the mechanism of his connection to God through the presense of the Holy Spirit.

    M>I think the villianizing is more than a little beneath you

    >>First, what would you know of Christian tolerence?

    I know I would never sentence anyone here to eternal torment. Can you say the same?

    >>Second, I have recently began to realize something.. we (you and I) are at war. It is a spiritual battle.

    We are only at "war" in your mind. I wish to take nothing from you but illusion, and give nothing to you but truth as I percieve it along with an explanation as to why I believe it. The fact we have spiritual differences does not automatically make us enemies, or put us at war. You are still stuck in the duality of black and white thinking. I certainly have no such feelings about you.

    >>You are the enemy, and thus a villian. You threaten Christianity, you threaten the alvation of those seeking the truth, and you threat (or try to) God.

    I am no enemy of anyone. I am no villain either. I threaten nothing but illusions of the mind, and "Christianity" is not a one size fit's all religion in case you hadn't noticed. There are plenty of sects within "christianity", many of which disagree with your thinking as well. We have differnces of opinion, nothing more.

    >>Villianizing you? I haven't ven begun my friend I love you, don't get me wring, but do not love what you do, or the message you have to share. You can leave anytime, Michael, but until you admit defeat, or leave I will always hold you as a threat to the Church and Body of Christ.

    As long as you remained closed to truth of unconditional, and closed to new ideas, and new ways of thinking, I cannot help you. As long as you believe that butchering children in cold blood is somehow "divinely inspired", how will I ever convince you of God's love?

    If I'm your enemy for talking about the same kind of unconditional love that Jesus talked about and demonstrated, then who are your friends? If it ultimately turns out that I am telling you the truth, and God is more loving you any of us can possibly imagine, will I still have been your enemy, or a good friend trying to bring you home to God and to truth again?

    1st John 4:6
    We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
    Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
    He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

    M>Because humans like to do that? Islam does not "worship" Jesus the way you do. Even some christians sects don't "worship" Jesus the way you do. (See ed's sect).

    >>I can't beleive you forgot the question already.. So here it is again: Jesus was worshipped, in the bble, in His presence, and Jesus Did not rebuke them. Why did Jesus Allor Himself to be Worshipped? Why was He worshipped, and why wasn't the worship stopped?

    We don't know what Jesus said after Thomas' comment, and by this logic, why didn't Jesus rebuke the apostles for even suggesting he could be one of the prophets reborn?

    M>This particular incarnation is 41 years old, but my soul is *FAR* older.

    >>OH MY GOODNESS! What piece of Science told oyu this? LOL

    God told me this.

    M>Even in John 1, John refers to Jesus as the SON of God. According to the gospels, the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus *AFTER* baptism, and then God himself calls Jesus his beloved Son. Jesus himself calls God the one true God, and prays to this heavenly father the night before his death. Nothing any of you can do will change any of this either.

    >>And it all supports the Trinity Doctrine.. how delightful..

    I don't see how....
     
  9. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I did at one time, now I am just posting becasue you keep responding, to be honest anyway. That's what defense does. ;)

    Yes I can. Heh, there, I just did. Lets turn this aorund: Do you think that the companies and poeple who manufacture idols today, consider them to be perfect, and without flaw? Or do ou think that the idols they make will have minute descrepancies? what dfeins perfection? what defeines idol? Making osmehtign an idol does not make it perfect and making something perfect does not make it an idol.

    Humans and... my point of view also says that Humans , along with God wrote it. Her it is: In your view, the Bible is not inspired, thus, only humans wrote it, and thus it is not perfect, anf thus, elevating it to a perfect status would be idol worship. In my view, God did help humans write though inspiration, and thus, coming form God it wasn;t only cfreated by humans alone, and thus, coming form God is perfect, and isn't an idol, but a reflection of the nature of God.

    Are we arguing the perfection of the bible being or not being an idol form your perception of mine?

    I do not know it, I believe it.

    Define what you mean by test. I can test it thtough the relation ship I have with God. I cannot test it using science like arhceology, etc...

    Then stop.

    Just saying.. oyu wanted to know why.. i am taling you.. you are the offense, we are the defense. BY entering this board and asking questions oyu either assume we have the right answers, or assume we are all wrong and oyu want to change all of our minds.. whihc is it? are you seeking a truth we beleive in or teaching truth we do not?

    Then do not respond to threads about them.

    And I have tried to explained it and failed. Good luck in findign someone else to try...

    They do / did have hope for redemption.

    A simple analogy: If you see your neighbor kill someone, and say or do nothing, then yes you are, both ethically and morally. God judged a people as a people in that case, and as a people thay were wiped out.

    Good question.. why don't you answer iy. Why did the Father forsake Him?

    Everytime

    I don't think the Holy Spirit was the Word I think Jesus was.

    I am not judgeing you. God will do that. I am just making others aware of the false teaching you are spreading on this board.
     
  10. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    MIchael, as i said in this thread, you are spreading a false doctrine and teaching on this board. As an administrator it is clear to me that you are not seeking the truth, but trying to convince others of a lie you accept as truth. The general readers may not like my decision, but I am not hear to please them, only God. I am closin this, and at anytime you claim that you are right, after we give explination to your questions that say the contrary, the topic will most likely be closed. I do not thnk, based upon this conversation, that you are seeking the truth, but preaching a truth you and you alone know to be real, though it is not.
     
  11. MikeMcK

    MikeMcK Well-Known Member

    +625
    Christian
    In Relationship
    US-Republican
    Not if we're talking about a triune God. A triune God by nature, has three (tri) personalities.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...