|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 4 Jul 14:59
Ref: Paralex
Date: Mon 18 Jun 21:16
<<<You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain>>>
I'm referring here to the 'Forum Rules' thread in the Admin Forum.
There's an issue here that's not about forum rules, so I've put it on Topics forum.
The issue is this:
When people take the name of Jesus or Christ in vain, they are not taking God's name in vain.
'The Lord your God' is in the Old Testament. It's in the Hebrew books and the God they were referring to was the Creator, which they called JAHWEH.
As far as I'm aware, devotees of JAHWEH do not believe in Jesus as God. That was an idea that developed later, and was formalised at the Council of Nicea.
Hence, the quote from the Bible about taking the Lord's name in vain is not applicable to the name of Jesus or Christ.
Clearly YOU, Paralex, believe in the Nicean creed, but it defines a different God to the one in the OT.
Post Edited (Wed 04 Jul 15:20)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MikeyLeonard
Date: Wed 4 Jul 15:10
Jeeez. . . .100+ posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 4 Jul 15:14
More surely!
π
Post Edited (Wed 04 Jul 15:19)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: widtink
Date: Wed 4 Jul 15:23
I'm a self confessed atheist... Can I take the Lords name in vain???
Just wondering cos I wouldn't want my eternal soul to suff.... Hang on... I'm an atheist... Can I take the Lords name in vain???
Repeat & fade π
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Wed 4 Jul 15:48
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Wed 4 Jul 15:49
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 4 Jul 15:50
What?
Post Edited (Wed 04 Jul 15:55)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Wed 4 Jul 15:57
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Wed 4 Jul 16:35
Quote:
widtink, Wed 4 Jul 15:23
I'm a self confessed atheist... Can I take the Lords name in vain???
Just wondering cos I wouldn't want my eternal soul to suff.... Hang on... I'm an atheist... Can I take the Lords name in vain???
Repeat & fade π
Apparently confession is good for the soul. Maybe you are on the start of a journey on the right track π
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 5 Jul 16:23
'Good, we're on the right track. Just as well we brought our parachutes.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dave67
Date: Fri 6 Jul 21:05
Even the mighty Brazil dumped Jesus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sat 7 Jul 12:37
Quote:
dave67, Fri 6 Jul 21:05
Even the mighty Brazil dumped Jesus
They had to replace him as they couldn't get him onto a cross.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dave67
Date: Sat 7 Jul 14:52
Lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: petrie_pants
Date: Sat 7 Jul 21:38
'Jesus', or whoever played him, was a charlatan, a con man, who managed to create a cult for himself which I'm sure even he never expected would gather the level of gullibility it has.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sat 7 Jul 23:01
Or maybe other folk created the cult, just like the cult of FAISSIANITY.
Or FAISSINSANITY.
π
Post Edited (Sat 07 Jul 23:05)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sat 7 Jul 23:37
Quote:
petrie_pants, Sat 7 Jul 21:38
'Jesus', or whoever played him, was a charlatan, a con man, who managed to create a cult for himself which I'm sure even he never expected would gather the level of gullibility it has.
Yep he chose to be lashed with whips and broken glass then nailed to a cross just so folk would like him. The 12 disciples gave up good jobs to tell everyone and were all tortured for the privilege. Thousands of eye witness followers were martyred and fed to the lions because they just fancied dieing horrible deaths to perpetuate a madmans lies and rampant egotism. Paul, the most ardent persecutor converts to the faith and also dies a horrible death for his troubles. None of them gained in a material way whatsoever. No power no wealth.
Just the truth which they witnessed and were prepared to give up everything and die for.
Now how many millions have Dawkins and Hitchins gleaned from their opinions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 7 Jul 23:47
PP...Curing the blind,lepers,paralyses,bleeding,dropsy,withered hand,deaf mute,exorcisms,control over nature and Resurrection of the dead.
That is why after 2000 years folks still marvel at his works.Con man and Charlatans aren't so fortunate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: petrie_pants
Date: Sun 8 Jul 00:14
Quote:
richie5401, Sat 7 Jul 23:47
PP...Curing the blind,lepers,paralyses,bleeding,dropsy,withered hand,deaf mute,exorcisms,control over nature and Resurrection of the dead.
That is why after 2000 years folks still marvel at his works.Con man and Charlatans aren't so fortunate.
None of the things in your first paragraph ever happened, the same as no big bad wolf ever turned up to blow a pigs house down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 8 Jul 00:17
So on the basis of none of those things happening,the apostles risked life and limb spreading his words and deeds.
Or did none of the apostles exist either?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 8 Jul 00:31
Ref: PARrot
Date: Sat 7 Jul 23:37:
I can see why you would feel miffed at what Petrie posted Parrot, but I hope you've calmed down now.
You're mistaken if you think Dawkins or Darwin etc are representative of all who have secular (/non-religious) views. It just isn't the case and it would be wrong to characterise 'seculars' as being Dawkins (or etc) devotees.
I don't think Jesus chose to be tortured and crucified so as to be liked. I think he chose it because he believed it would fulfill certain Biblical prophesies, and if so, the rewards for himself and others would be immense. In any case, the bravery of he and the Christian martyrs is worthy of great respect.
I've thought hard about Christian martyrs, but are they really so different to, for example, the Buddhist monk who burned himself to death (1963), or other Buddhist monks who killed themselves in other shocking ways ?
I think the martyrdom argument you make would carry more weight if not for what seems to me a plain, sad, fact that people are capable of believing ABSOLUTELY anything - some of them to the degree that they will choose martyrdom.
Post Edited (Sun 08 Jul 00:42)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sun 8 Jul 03:21
Quote:
onandupthepars, Sun 8 Jul 00:31
Ref: PARrot
Date: Sat 7 Jul 23:37:
I can see why you would feel miffed at what Petrie posted Parrot, but I hope you've calmed down now.
Not miffed at all my friend. Just pointing out the facts and how ill thought out the OP was. I can assure you my BP didn't rise a jot.
You're mistaken if you think Dawkins or Darwin etc are representative of all who have secular (/non-religious) views. It just isn't the case and it would be wrong to characterise 'seculars' as being Dawkins (or etc) devotees.
I dont think so. They are good examples of benefiting from lies conjecture misrepresentation and misinterpretation as opposed to suffering for the truth.
I don't think Jesus chose to be tortured and crucified so as to be liked. I think he chose it because he believed it would fulfill certain Biblical prophesies, and if so, the rewards for himself and others would be immense. In any case, the bravery of he and the Christian martyrs is worthy of great respect.
He did choose to be tortured. It was his whole purpose. To take the punishment for us all. He willingly paid the price for us. There is no need for penance or purgatory. "It is done".
I've thought hard about Christian martyrs, but are they really so different to, for example, the Buddhist monk who burned himself to death (1963), or other Buddhist monks who killed themselves in other shocking ways ?
Yes they are different but you need to work put why for yourself.
I think the martyrdom argument you make would carry more weight if not for what seems to me a plain, sad, fact that people are capable of believing ABSOLUTELY anything - some of them to the degree that they will choose martyrdom.
How many of them as individuals fulfil hundreds of prophesies all at once then choose to suffer and are seen by thousands to be alive after they saw him die. Of course you can say they were all deluded liars and brainwashed simpletons. That's the choice we make. Were they such, or were the honest people who witnessed miracles and followed the one who they saw perform them.
I think you would get something from studying the prophesies Jesus life fulfilled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AlfonzoBonzo
Date: Sun 8 Jul 09:02
Correct. Jesus isnβt God. Jesus was supposedly a person whilst no one really knows what God was. If anything, heβd be a concept of goodness and that goodness represented the Christian faith, as it was meant to be.
Just like, Iβm a son of Scotland, Scotland isnβt my dad or therefore a person
Show us yer.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sun 8 Jul 09:17
Kinda like an egg is one thing. But it is a yoke a white and an embryo. God is a spiritual entity composed of The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The greatest of these is The Father. The part that became flesh and came to us physically was The Son and the part which binds, leads, protects and empowers the Church is the Holy Spirit. Nobody fully can comprehend exactly what God is but Jesus is not the Father or the Spirit, The Spirit is not Jesus or the Father and The Father is not The Jesus or the Spirit. The whole lot together is God.
In the beginning was the word. JESUS. The word was with God and the word WAS God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 8 Jul 10:55
Well Parrot,
You clearly can't imagine how you come across as self-righteous, i.e. 'having or characterized by a certainty that one is totally correct or morally superior.'
But let's have some more humble pie. Yum yum - more please.
OK. You say you were giving facts, but it isn't a fact that Jesus chose to be nailed to a cross 'just so'' (/in order that) 'folk would like him.' Of course it's sarcasm. Can't see any point in that, Parrot my old friend? You do like your heavy sarcasm.
<<< Just the truth which they witnessed and were prepared to give up everything and die for. >>>
Is this a fact? Seems to me it's an opinion, or belief, not a fact. I already gave my view on beliefs, so I won't repeat that.
Hey why not just go around bashing everyone over the head with a Bible, that should do the trick. Get one of those old Victorian family Bibles, they're nice and heavy.
Yes I will agree with you that Jesus chose to be tortured. But he wasn't doing it just to save everyone else. If what he believed was true, he would have been the Messiah, 'the promised deliverer of the Jewish nation prophesied in the Hebrew Bible.' Something worth being tortured for, far more valuable than power or wealth.
<<<Yes they are different but you need to work out why for yourself.>>
Hey! How tall are you? 150 feet? Can you even see me way down here?
Sorry Parrot, you're actually not doing God's work. You're just being overbearing. Nevertheless, I'll shake hands with you if you'll help me finish off the last bit of this lovely pie. Honest. Remember how you once offered to meet me for a drink? Think of me as you did then and that's how I'll think of you. I've said my (cod)piece and I'm not your enemy. I know your religion is of the utmost importance to you, just get off that high horse! It does you and your religion no credit.π
Post Edited (Sun 08 Jul 12:20)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 8 Jul 11:20
There IS some good stuff in the Bible, for example:
'Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear... Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, ...'
(Ephesians 4:29-32 ESV)
Of course that was Paul, not Jesus, but it's all supposed to be God's word isn't it?
Post Edited (Sun 08 Jul 13:35)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sun 8 Jul 17:06
Quote:
onandupthepars, Sun 8 Jul 10:55
Well Parrot,
You clearly can't imagine how you come across as self-righteous, i.e. 'having or characterized by a certainty that one is totally correct or morally superior.'
But let's have some more humble pie. Yum yum - more please.
OK. You say you were giving facts, but it isn't a fact that Jesus chose to be nailed to a cross 'just so'' (/in order that) 'folk would like him.' Of course it's sarcasm. Can't see any point in that, Parrot my old friend? You do like your heavy sarcasm.
<<< Just the truth which they witnessed and were prepared to give up everything and die for. >>>
Is this a fact? Seems to me it's an opinion, or belief, not a fact. I already gave my view on beliefs, so I won't repeat that.
Hey why not just go around bashing everyone over the head with a Bible, that should do the trick. Get one of those old Victorian family Bibles, they're nice and heavy.
Yes I will agree with you that Jesus chose to be tortured. But he wasn't doing it just to save everyone else. If what he believed was true, he would have been the Messiah, 'the promised deliverer of the Jewish nation prophesied in the Hebrew Bible.' Something worth being tortured for, far more valuable than power or wealth.
<<<Yes they are different but you need to work out why for yourself.>>
Hey! How tall are you? 150 feet? Can you even see me way down here?
Sorry Parrot, you're actually not doing God's work. You're just being overbearing. Nevertheless, I'll shake hands with you if you'll help me finish off the last bit of this lovely pie. Honest. Remember how you once offered to meet me for a drink? Think of me as you did then and that's how I'll think of you. I've said my (cod)piece and I'm not your enemy. I know your religion is of the utmost importance to you, just get off that high horse! It does you and your religion no credit.π
All I did was answer your questions and suggest you look in a certain direction. Beats me why you have taken offence or decided to get abusive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 8 Jul 19:36
Ach, we're both gettin' bothered about nothin'. But I wasn't really any more bothered than you. Maybe I misinterpreted you a bit, but it sounded to me like - what I said. I did add a smiley. 'Abusive'? No - you can't accuse me of that for using proper words instead o' swearing.
Anyway I'm happy to stand by what I said and I guess you are.
I've had a look at some of the prophecies. It's hard to understand them and, as you'd expect, I am sceptical.
As you know, the Jewish view is different to the Christian view:
'Judaism has never accepted any of the claimed fulfillments of prophecy that Christianity attributes to Jesus.'*
Judaism doesn't appeal to me much more than Christianity, but it means there's an awful lot of folk who have studied the prophecies in great depth and their conclusion is different to yours, so that makes me even more reluctant to get into all that. I mean there's not even a concensus among people that use the same Bible. And Jesus himself was a Jew. I wonder what version he had? I'm just thinking aloud.
But if you like, Parrot, you could tell me why you believe your denomination has the right answers in regard to the prophecies.
*(source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism%27s_view_of_Jesus)
Post Edited (Sun 08 Jul 19:45)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 8 Jul 19:41
He had the old testament,which he quoted around 80 times and called it the "word of God".The Old testament in many places predicts the events of the new testament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 8 Jul 20:04
Hi Rich,
From what I can gather by googling, I think his OT was probably pretty much the same as ours, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Post Edited (Sun 08 Jul 20:06)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 8 Jul 20:14
Yep,they were dated around 250 BC-70 AD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Mon 9 Jul 07:39
That's right Rich, some were written after Jesus died, so we can't assume his OT was the same, but it's something to go on until we know better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Mon 9 Jul 07:57
Hi Parrot,
I hope you won't take any of this as being offensive or hyper-critical.
One reason why I said you're not doing God's work is because you blanked Rasta when he posted,
<<<Bird eats apple from snake we all die...was it not?>>> (on the Just a Thought thread, Fri 6 July 20:57).
How easy it would have been for you to tell him about the fruit. Instead, all he got from you was 'No'.
Put it this way, what would you think if you were under a misconception and I knew it and all I said to you was 'No', as if to say - I'm not gonna bother telling you - find out for yourself.
Aren't Christians encouraged to be helpful and informative about their religion?
I would appreciate it if you could tell me where these ideas come from (in your post on the Just a thought thread, Sun 8 Jul 03:29):
<<< It wasn't a fruit at all.
It was "The Fruit"
As in the fruit of your labour.
The Bible talks about The Fruit of the spirit. What comes from accepting
and receiving the spirit. >>>
As you know, they're not explict in Genesis 3. so in which part of the Bible will I find them, or which denomination's interpretation?
While I'm at it I may as well tell you that something that miffed me was your dismissive remark regarding Buddhist martyrs. (This thread, Sat 7 Jul 23:37:) The Buddhism bit means nothing to me, but as people, they are as worthy of respect as any Christian martyr.
Post Edited (Mon 09 Jul 09:36)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Mon 9 Jul 12:09
The oldest manuscript was dated 150 BC,OAUTP.The old testament was written between 1400 BC-400 BC.Manuscript 4QMMT(the oldest) stated"We have written to you so that you should understand the Book of Moses and the Books of the Prophets and David"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Wed 11 Jul 10:32
Quote:
onandupthepars, Mon 9 Jul 07:57
Hi Parrot,
I hope you won't take any of this as being offensive or hyper-critical.
One reason why I said you're not doing God's work is because you blanked Rasta when he posted,
<<<Bird eats apple from snake we all die...was it not?>>> (on the Just a Thought thread, Fri 6 July 20:57).
How easy it would have been for you to tell him about the fruit. Instead, all he got from you was 'No'.
Yet he didn't complain. Rasta does his own research and I was interested in his response once he checked it out....if he checked it out.
Also I'm sitting in Vancouver airport after spending a few weeks with family in the Yukon wilderness and very little internet access so my available time to respond was limited.
Put it this way, what would you think if you were under a misconception and I knew it and all I said to you was 'No', as if to say - I'm not gonna bother telling you - find out for yourself.
You aren't Rasta.
Aren't Christians encouraged to be helpful and informative about their religion?
It isn't our commission to save the world. We were told to go into the world and tell all who will listen. So I do Gods work by telling those who will listen....who actually want to know, and have a bit banter with those who are on the wind up. I take a fair bit more than I give too. All in good spirit, if you pardon the pun.
I would appreciate it if you could tell me where these ideas come from (in your post on the Just a thought thread, Sun 8 Jul 03:29):
<<< It wasn't a fruit at all.
It was "The Fruit"
As in the fruit of your labour.
The Bible talks about The Fruit of the spirit. What comes from accepting
and receiving the spirit. >>>
As you know, they're not explict in Genesis 3. so in which part of the Bible will I find them, or which denomination's interpretation?
I dont belong to any denomination, nor do I believe any denomination has a monopoly on truth. I commented on my personal interpretation. Feel free to study the scriptures and do likewise. Your interpretation of such matters isn't important. All that matters is that you love God with all your heart mind and soul, and love your neighbour as yourself. Luke 10: 25-28. Feel free to continue reading π
While I'm at it I may as well tell you that something that miffed me was your dismissive remark regarding Buddhist martyrs. (This thread, Sat 7 Jul 23:37:) The Buddhism bit means nothing to me, but as people, they are as worthy of respect as any Christian martyr.
Wasn't my intent to be dismissive. No time for an in depth answer. Simply meant its up to you whether you think they are the same. I dont, but you are right. If anyone makes the ultimate sacrifice for their beliefs they command equal respect, unless they take others with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Wed 11 Jul 15:32
I actually grabbed a bible at my old maw's house and had a gander...it says specifically that an apple was eaten.
Why? Don't know don't care.
There are so many versions of the bible no one Christian can be following the same story min!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Fri 13 Jul 00:15
Thanks for the smiley, Parrot
And for this:
<<< If anyone makes the ultimate sacrifice for their beliefs they command equal respect, unless they take others with them. >>>
The quote you've referred to from Luke contains the conditions a person must fulfill to get eternal life. Worth pointing that out to anyone hoping to get it!
Given our latest signing, this is how I feel right now: (A video that's had 163 million views - even more popular than Faiss!)
https://youtu.be/yURRmWtbTbo?t=14
Post Edited (Fri 13 Jul 00:21)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Fri 13 Jul 01:44
Quote:
richie5401, Wed 11 Jul 15:51
Which Bible version was it?
Nearly every Bible known to man is on this page and as far as i can tell they all say "Fruit of the tree"
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=NKJV
No version of the bible describes it as an apple.
I think the confusion arose with the Latin word for evil and the Greek word for Apple being almost the same.
The only place where the fruit is described in in the Jewish texts The Book of Enoch. Where the tree is said to be like a Tamarind. This tree produces large pod like fruit.
A few Christian sects follow the book of Enoch but most reject it as being divinely inspired.
What ancient texts were deemed to be divinely inspired was decided at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.
They also had a vote there of the divinity of Christ himself. Now you would expect that if he was indeed the son of God the vote would be unanimous but it was passed by a very slim margin.
These people are the ones who decided what books are in the bible as we know it and which were rejected. Yet they couldn't totally get behind Jesus being Devine.
Other ancient texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi documents pretty much blow Christianity as we know it out the water.
I highly recommend anyone interested in religion to familiarise themselves with these texts. Many believe them to be more accurate than the bible simply because the were not altered to fit a Roman agenda. They were not manipulated at every translation like the bible from Hebrew to Greek to Latin but remained in their original languages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Fri 13 Jul 03:11
Good post sif.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Fri 13 Jul 12:40
History is spot on SIF.However,Biblical interpretation isn't based on intellectual curiosity or reason,it based on a relationship of faith.
Our perception of Bible truth is by nature of implicit vision granted by the Holy spirit and the amazing part about that illumination is it commends itself as being the true interpreter to everyone who is in the light.
When we encounter the Bible,it states revelation facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Fri 13 Jul 12:57
Quote:
richie5401, Fri 13 Jul 12:40
History is spot on SIF.However,Biblical interpretation isn't based on intellectual curiosity or reason,it based on a relationship of faith.
Our perception of Bible truth is by nature of implicit vision granted by the Holy spirit and the amazing part about that illumination is it commends itself as being the true interpreter to everyone who is in the light.
When we encounter the Bible,it states revelation facts.
I can safely say that I did not understand anything in that post other than the 1st paragraph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Fri 13 Jul 13:06
It basically means as Jesus put it."Unless a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God"
When you receive the Holy spirit from above, you enter a different domain of facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Fri 13 Jul 17:54
Quote:
richie5401, Fri 13 Jul 13:06
It basically means as Jesus put it."Unless a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God"
When you receive the Holy spirit from above, you enter a different domain of facts.
Still jibberish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Fri 13 Jul 20:18
Quote:
moviescot, Fri 13 Jul 17:54
Quote:
richie5401, Fri 13 Jul 13:06
It basically means as Jesus put it."Unless a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God"
When you receive the Holy spirit from above, you enter a different domain of facts.
Still jibberish.
Which proves the point lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Fri 13 Jul 20:56
Quote:
richie5401, Fri 13 Jul 13:06
It basically means as Jesus put it."Unless a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God"
When you receive the Holy spirit from above, you enter a different domain of facts.
A different domain of facts?
I've received DMT....the God molecule...does that mean I have the right to alternative facts?
Have I been closer to God than you?
Am I God?
Should you be kneeling?
What dimension are you kneeling in?
And at the end of it all,when only you and I remain because as your God I bid it so....
Do you think your God will prevail...or I...your creator..the source of your every existence?
Dig?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Fri 13 Jul 21:52
Quote:
PARrot, Fri 13 Jul 20:18
Quote:
moviescot, Fri 13 Jul 17:54
Quote:
richie5401, Fri 13 Jul 13:06
It basically means as Jesus put it."Unless a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God"
When you receive the Holy spirit from above, you enter a different domain of facts.
Still jibberish.
Which proves the point lol.
Eh? What?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Fri 13 Jul 22:56
We are talking two different things Rasta,one is drug induced perception and the other is being spiritually re-born.
The only way to experience God?"I am the way"(John 14:6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sat 14 Jul 06:51
Quote:
richie5401, Fri 13 Jul 22:56
We are talking two different things Rasta,one is drug induced perception and the other is being spiritually re-born.
The only way to experience God?"I am the way"(John 14:6)
DMT is in everything....your God doesn't half leave stuff lying about eh?
You know early Christians laced their wine with hallucinogens.....you know that...right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 14 Jul 11:44
As with all drugs side effects include etc etc.
Sure they did.They ignored Ephesians 5:18.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sun 15 Jul 01:56
<<Kinda like an egg is one thing. But it is a yoke a white and an embryo. God is a spiritual entity composed of The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The greatest of these is The Father. The part that became flesh and came to us physically was The Son and the part which binds, leads, protects and empowers the Church is the Holy Spirit. Nobody fully can comprehend exactly what God is but Jesus is not the Father or the Spirit, The Spirit is not Jesus or the Father and The Father is not The Jesus or the Spirit. The whole lot together is God...>>
I have studiously avoided these debates up to now and profess no faith. However, I would like to make an observation.
This Father, Son and Holy Spirit thing has always troubled people's understanding, but I watched a Bill Mayer show once (a devout atheist) have this explained to him in such a gobsmackingly simple way that even he was lost for words to counter the argument. The explanation was: think of water - cool it and it becomes ice, heat it and it becomes vapour. Essentially the same, but essentially different entities.
Voila!
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sun 15 Jul 07:03
You got it.
To get back to the original question.
Jesus died because he himself said he was God.
In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was God.
When Moses asked "God" his name the reply was, I am who I am. Tell them "I am" sent you.
When Jesus was questioned by the Jews, they asked him, " You are not yet 50 years old and have you seen Abraham?" Jesus replied, " Truly truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
This was why they crucified him for blasphemy.
He knew exactly what he was saying and what the result would be.
Post Edited (Sun 15 Jul 07:07)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sun 15 Jul 07:31
...and if you want more controversy. Most Christians think The Father is the God of the old testament and Jesus the God of the new testament. Broadly speaking.
But the concept of a Father God..."Abba Father" (literally Daddy), was taught to us by Jesus in the new testament. In the old testament we just got God. However there are loads of references to, and several appearances of Jesus in the old testament.
Enjoy researching that.
Post Edited (Sun 15 Jul 07:54)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 15 Jul 16:14
REf: OzPar
Date: Sun 15 Jul 01:56
It kinda sounds good but I'm just wondering. The analogy of water in three different states: solid (ice), liquid, and vapour. But they couldn't exist in the same place, under the same conditions at the same time. So I don't quite get the analogy. Unless we're to think of the trinity as something that's only one of those states at any one time, and keeps changing from one form to another? And what would happen then - would two of them cease to exist for the time that the third one exists?
So that analogy doesn't work for me.
Post Edited (Sun 15 Jul 16:44)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sun 15 Jul 19:41
Good point. Stick to the egg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 15 Jul 21:49
Ref: PARrot
Date: Sun 15 Jul 19:41
<<< Good point. Stick to the egg. >>>
The egg.
(Ref Parrot Sun 8 Jul 09:17:) Yolk + white + embryo.
A bird's egg?
Embryo means it's fertilised.
But to my mind there's another equally important part: the shell.
So the Holy Trinity, is like a fertilised bird's egg without a shell?
Somehow I think there must be more to it.
π
Post Edited (Sun 15 Jul 22:06)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sun 15 Jul 22:06
Its just an analogy. It doesn't mean anything other than showing one thing can be more than one thing. You could probably think of a better analogy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Mon 16 Jul 02:55
<<But they couldn't exist in the same place, under the same conditions at the same time.>>
I don't know the Bible inside out, TBH, but does it ever refer to the Trinity as being in the same place at any one time? If not, then I believe the analogy stands the test. If it does, then fair enough.
Post Edited (Mon 16 Jul 05:09)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Mon 16 Jul 03:28
It refers to the Father and the Word being in the same place at once, and also said his spirit hovered over the waters. The Spirit was referred to as He in the NT as opposed to it Hence the 3rd personage and the trinity doctrine.
Jesus talks to the Father so I would say all exist at once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Mon 16 Jul 05:07
Ah, okay PARrot, then it doesn't work. I shall retreat quietly in shame and embarrassment and leave the floor to others.
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Mon 16 Jul 05:34
Quote:
OzPar, Mon 16 Jul 05:07
Ah, okay PARrot, then it doesn't work. I shall retreat quietly in shame and embarrassment and leave the floor to others.
:)
Was a decent enough analogy.
Neither analogies are scriptural but both help to understand the concept that separate entities can constitute a single entity. Neither is perfect but they do the job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Tue 17 Jul 15:48
ref: PARrot
Date: Mon 16 Jul 05:34
Hi Parrot,
You say both analogies <<< help to understand the concept that separate entities can constitute a single entity. >>>
You mean a single thing can be made up of more than one thing?
Is there anything that isn't?
I don't think that needs an analogy to explain it. In fact, the analogies just make what is clear when said in plain English into something pseudo-mystical.
But here is something truly mystical:'In the beginning was the word'. 'The word' is interpreted by Christians as Jesus. Jesus is said to have been there at the beginning and therefore is as old as the father. Then how can he be a son? They'd be more like twins.
The mystical part for me is not Jesus supposedly being as old as the father. It is how people believe it.
Post Edited (Thu 19 Jul 14:34)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 19 Jul 16:37
I am wondering if part of the reason the Bible is confusing and mystical to some is that it wasn't written for the general public to read. I imagine that when the words were written, they weren't open to interpretation. There was one standard interpretation that the authors knew.
I imagine its authors might have been part of a priesthood which studied it, thought about it, prayed about it, chanted, fasted etc - in other words thought about and focused on little else.
I was wondering if there's a parallel with other obsessives and that maybe obsession can lead to visions and revelations or what are taken as such.
An example of such an obsessive might be an author who, living and breathing the work of writing a novel, hears voices and experiences events as if she or he is there.
So thousands of years of shared obsessions and devout practice (and it was going on for thousands of years in spoken form before a word was written) lead to Holy Books being produced that are, to some, miraculous.
Post Edited (Thu 19 Jul 17:00)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Fri 20 Jul 13:56
Henry the Eighth believed he was Godβs chosen, as did all monarchs before and some time after.
He got rid of the then established church, stole their lands and money, destroyed their monasteries, replaced it with his own church, produced the first Bible in English, and chopped the heads off those who denied his authority.
Up till then the Bible was in Latin, unreadable to the common folk, so you could say he was sort of progressive in that respect. All to suit his own agenda though.
Hilary Mantel tells the tale well. Great read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
