|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 7, 2023 23:30:37 GMT
There is no doubt that scripture, in reflecting the societies of the time is deeply patriarchal, right down to commanding women not being allowed to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:12). Not an issue of course to those social conservatives who form the bedrock of so many of the churches. It is good to see that some in the church at least feel uncomfortable about it all.
|
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Jul 8, 2023 14:37:31 GMT
In Dogma, God is female.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 8, 2023 19:13:34 GMT
Are women allowed to be archbishops? Is the archbishop planning to get a sex change operation to be a woman? Guess he better shut up then.
'Oh wah wah, eartly fathers are so bad it pains us to address God as Our Father'. Grow TF up.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 8, 2023 20:06:32 GMT
Are women allowed to be archbishops? Is the archbishop planning to get a sex change operation to be a woman? Guess he better shut up then. 'Oh wah wah, eartly fathers are so bad it pains us to address God as Our Father'. Grow TF up. It wasn't that long ago that the ordination of women was the subject of heated debate. Now the ordination of women to ministerial or priestly office is an increasingly common practice among some contemporary major religious groups. As churches drag themselves into the twentieth century it seems inevitable that a female archbishop will come. I guess that's what comes of not following everything the Bible says...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2023 10:29:41 GMT
God transcends gender and is pure spirit. Neither male nor female.
|
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Jul 9, 2023 20:18:29 GMT
We need some hermaphrodites in the clergy.
|
|
sailor
New Member
Retired sailor who loves Jesus....
@sailor
Posts: 8
Likes: 2
|
Post by sailor on Jul 10, 2023 16:04:49 GMT
There is no doubt that scripture, in reflecting the societies of the time is deeply patriarchal, right down to commanding women not being allowed to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:12). Not an issue of course to those social conservatives who form the bedrock of so many of the churches. It is good to see that some in the church at least feel uncomfortable about it all. Because the archbishop knows better than Jesus...
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 10, 2023 20:47:34 GMT
There is no doubt that scripture, in reflecting the societies of the time is deeply patriarchal, right down to commanding women not being allowed to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:12). Not an issue of course to those social conservatives who form the bedrock of so many of the churches. It is good to see that some in the church at least feel uncomfortable about it all. Because the archbishop knows better than Jesus... Jesus was the product of the same patriarchal society as the rest of the crew who wrote the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jul 10, 2023 23:06:59 GMT
I am not even a beliver, but that is just stupid.
|
|
sailor
New Member
Retired sailor who loves Jesus....
@sailor
Posts: 8
Likes: 2
|
Post by sailor on Jul 27, 2023 15:34:16 GMT
Because the archbishop knows better than Jesus... Jesus was the product of the same patriarchal society as the rest of the crew who wrote the Bible. Jesus was God in the flesh and the Father is just that... The Father.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2023 16:51:50 GMT
Jesus was the product of the same patriarchal society as the rest of the crew who wrote the Bible. Jesus was God in the flesh and the Father is just that... The Father. And Mother... He/she is pure spirit, and transcends gender.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 27, 2023 19:40:56 GMT
Jesus was God in the flesh and the Father is just that... The Father. And Mother... He/she is pure spirit, and transcends gender. God Is not addressed as Mother Mary is Our Mother.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 27, 2023 19:50:55 GMT
Jesus was the product of the same patriarchal society as the rest of the crew who wrote the Bible. Jesus was God in the flesh and the Father is just that... The Father. If Jesus was God in the flesh how come the Bible tells us that 'no one can see God'? ( Exodus 33:20; John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:14–16; 1 John 4:12). And what are we to make of the places where Jesus talks to, er God EG Luke 11 "One day Jesus was in a place talking with God. When he had finished, one of his disciples said to him, `Lord, teach us to talk with God as John taught his disciples.' Jesus said, `When you talk with God, say, "Our Father in heaven... " Did he have a glove puppet? But hey, it is your religion and you are naturally free to believe as you want. But don't take my word for it thedeenshow.com/90-verses-that-say-jesus-is-not-god-nor-the-literal-son-of-god/
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jul 28, 2023 0:48:52 GMT
Jesus was God in the flesh and the Father is just that... The Father. If Jesus was God in the flesh how come the Bible tells us that 'no one can see God'? ( Exodus 33:20; John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:14–16; 1 John 4:12). And what are we to make of the places where Jesus talks to, er God EG Luke 11 "One day Jesus was in a place talking with God. When he had finished, one of his disciples said to him, `Lord, teach us to talk with God as John taught his disciples.' Jesus said, `When you talk with God, say, "Our Father in heaven... " Did he have a glove puppet? But hey, it is your religion and you are naturally free to believe as you want. But don't take my word for it thedeenshow.com/90-verses-that-say-jesus-is-not-god-nor-the-literal-son-of-god/I did explain this to you already. No one can see God the Father, a spirit being, in His full glory. When the Bible speaks about seeing God “face to face” or “his back” it’s using anthropomorphisms. In Luke 11 Jesus(God the Son) is praying to God the father who is a distinct Person. God is one in essence, 3 in person. Btw thanks for the link. Of course if Christians want to fully understand their own scriptures they should seek out Islamic polemic sites.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 28, 2023 20:02:28 GMT
I did explain this to you already. No one can see God the Father, a spirit being, in His full glory. When the Bible speaks about seeing God “face to face” or “his back” it’s using anthropomorphisms. And I reminded you then that, whether anthropomorphisms are used or not is not germane to the idea of contradiction: i.e. the point still is that the Bible says that God cannot be seen and also describes occasions when He apparently was. A contradiction perfectly encapsulated in Exodus where we read Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend. (Exodus 33:11) But He said, “ You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” (Exodus 33:20) Apologists have used other apologetics other than yours to explain this btw, an example which can be found at firmisrael.org/learn/no-man-can-see-my-face-and-live/ Believers really need to get their special exegesis singing the same tune. The doctrine of the Trinity, to which you refer, appears to be logically inconsistent and even when explained by those who represent has not not a idea supported by all Christians. The logical problem is that according to Christian orthodoxy God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but the Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Holy Spirit the Son. Not surprising this confusion: after all. a committee (otherwise known as the Council of Nicea,325) came up with it. The late Bishop Pike certainly thought so when he suggested that the Trinity was “a sort of committee god” only superimposed upon Scripture from later Christian thinkers who were highly influenced by Greek philosophy. Meanwhile the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the books that constitute the New Testament while references to God always uses singular pronouns. Two passages may appear to support the concept ( Matthew 28:19,1 John 5:7–8) at least one and probably both are quite late interpolations An example of the awkwardness engendered is when we learn that Jesus didn’t know the day or hour of his return, though his Father did know it (Mark 13.32). He cannot have two minds, one that knew something and another that did not know something, unless we now want to make the absurd claim that mind and person are not correlated. So if Jesus was God, he did know everything and lied about not knowing the day of his return…but if Jesus lied then he cannot be God, for God cannot lie (Titus 1.2) The conclusion is that Jesus did not know everything, because he wasn’t God. And so on. But back in the world of this recent exchange we are still left in Luke 11 with Jesus effectively talking to Himself. As if an 'essence of one in three' would not know what it was thinking. The suggestion that Christians don't really or fully understand their scriptures, where you presumably do sounds like a Scotsman. In the case of the Trinity however, for those who think about it logically, one can well believe it
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jul 29, 2023 12:41:49 GMT
I did explain this to you already. No one can see God the Father, a spirit being, in His full glory. When the Bible speaks about seeing God “face to face” or “his back” it’s using anthropomorphisms. And I reminded you then that, whether anthropomorphisms are used or not is not germane to the idea of contradiction: i.e. the point still is that the Bible says that God cannot be seen and also describes occasions when He apparently was. And I reminded you that this isn’t the problem that you think it is if you take these passages in the biblical and cultural context that they were intended and if you understand the trinity. I believe that when the Bible teaches that God cannot be seen it’s referring specifically to the Father. In John 1 we read that there is “God” and there is the “Word”. And this “Word is also God. Then when proceeding to verse 14 we discover that this Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us. Verse 18 says “No one has seen God at any time”. Jesus verified this in John 6:46 “not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God”. Since the Word is obviously referring to Jesus, that means God is referring to the Father. So if the OT says people were seeing the almighty God, yet the Father cannot be seen by anyone at any time then it wasn’t the Father that was being seen it was the Word(Jesus Christ) pre-incarnation ie Christophanies. This is also supported by other passages. Again as I explained to you previously “speaking to God face to face” can be an idiom understood as “intimately” or simply “being in the presence of God” Seeing God’s “face, back & hand” are not literal but metaphors that could be speaking of his glory, Goodness and protection. Once again He was saying to Moses you as a mere mortal cannot see my face ie my full glory and live. The doctrine of the Trinity, to which you refer, appears to be logically inconsistent and even when explained by those who represent has not not an idea supported by all Christians. [/quote] I do not believe it is logically inconsistent. Within the one being that is God consists 3 co-equal & co-eternal Persons. Namely the father, the son and the Holy Spirit. A being is what makes something what it is, a person is what makes someone who they are. So it’s 1 what & 3 who’s. It would only be a logical contradiction if we posited that God is one being and three beings at the same time. Or even one person and three persons. They are 3 distinct Persons yes. How is that a contradiction? The council of Nicaea was called by Constantine mainly to address the Arian heresy that the Father & Jesus were of different substance. The orthodox view was always that they were of the same substance. Arias simply wanted to turn Jesus into a created being. The Nicean creed was formed to confirm the prevailing orthodox view. That was it. The rest of the meeting was to deal with issues like which day Easter was to be celebrated, denouncing Gnosticism, canon laws etc. Whoever Bishop Pike is he’s wrong. The Christian orthodox view believed in the divinity of Christ from the beginning. There’s also no evidence that Greek paganism was added in to the mix. The OT does use plural pronouns in reference to God though. The trinity concept is clearly taught in the NT, even more so when taken in conjunction with the OT. Matt 28:19 is a good example supporting the trinity idea which even contradicts your claim about references to God in the NT always use singular pronouns. Btw Matt 28:19 is in all the oldest manuscripts. Jesus did know the hour. In the Koine Greek the passage you’re referring to isn’t necessarily talking about intellect but a declarative property. Basically Jesus is saying that it’s the Father’s prerogative to declare the hour, not the Son’s. No no I believe Jesus was omniscient and no he certainly wasn’t a liar. “And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts?” Mark 2:8 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)” John 6:64 “Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”” John 16:30 Again I feel you’re being a bit obtuse. I literally just explained in my previous post that the Father and the Son are two distinct Persons who share the one divine essence. And here you are again insisting that Jesus was “effectively talking to Himself”.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 29, 2023 20:58:38 GMT
And I reminded you then that, whether anthropomorphisms are used or not is not germane to the idea of contradiction: i.e. the point still is that the Bible says that God cannot be seen and also describes occasions when He apparently was. And I reminded you that this isn’t the problem that you think it is if you take these passages in the biblical and cultural context that they were intended and if you understand the trinity. I believe that when the Bible teaches that God cannot be seen it’s referring specifically to the Father... So if the OT says people were seeing the almighty God, yet the Father cannot be seen by anyone at any time then it wasn’t the Father that was being seen it was the Word(Jesus Christ) You are welcome to your creative exegesis. But the plain fact is, if any part of God out of the purported three can be seen, then no matter how one cuts it with special pleading, the Bible still insists elsewhere it anyhow cannot be so. Glad to be of help. "Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend. (Exodus 33:11)" This works until one pauses and reflects that words are careful to specify "just as man speaks to his friend" - a clear reference to how one normally goes about conversation. I don't know about your relationships, but I do not often speak to my friends' 'presence' only. But I enjoyed the creative exegesis ,thanks. Or it could just be another of those very common OT anthropomorphisms, the possibility of which are contradicted elsewhere, right? And what makes you so sure that some writers of the OT did not believe that the Almighty could be literally seen on rare and famous occasions by the select? These were not sophisticated peoples and many were uneducated (one reason why the Bible is estimated 43% rather bald narrative and only 24% poetical discourse.) You just seem to be assuming peasants understanding a sustained metaphor, to suit your arguments. The stories and laws it contains were communicated orally, through prose and poetry, written by a number of people over many centuries - none of this fertile ground for transcendental metaphors. A further point you have overlooked is this, and makes your equivocating "could be" above, sensible: In Exodus, we agree we read both "But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” (Exodus 33:20) while later "the LORD speaks to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend." or shows his His rear out in the rocks. It is unlikely that all these verses cannot be talking about the same "face" i.e. speaking only of his "glory, Goodness and protection" as you gloss it. In one case, even with your interpretation, Moses does see God thusly, while we also learn it cannot be. That is, if being able to see God 's 'face' cannot be done and be able to live, one of these verses cannot be a metaphor or the verses are still in opposition. Finally, there is this which ought to be obvious: how would one go about seeing this "glory, Goodness and protection" at all? (And why would a metaphor kill the faithful, "no one can see me and live", come to that?) Things break down when taken in narrative context. It appears even you have problems with the logic eg: "The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons" www.cru.org/us/en/train-and-grow/spiritual-growth/core-christian-beliefs/understanding-the-trinity.html#:~:text=The%20doctrine%20of%20the%20Trinity%20means%20that%20there%20is%20one,essence%20and%20three%20in%20person. More precisely: the original Nicene Creed was first adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and in 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople, another 'committee'. (The amended form is also referred to as the Nicene Creed). Scholars have sometimes argued that the Nicene Creed was just the local creed of Caesarea (an important centre of Early Christianity) recited in the council by Eusebius of Caesarea. More recent scholarship has not been convinced by their arguments. The large number of secondary divergences from the text of the creed quoted by Eusebius make it unlikely that it was used just as a starting point by those who drafted the conciliar creed. [Kelly, J.N.D. (1963). "Early Christian Creeds".] Their initial text was probably a local creed from a Syro-Palestinian source into which they inserted phrases to define the Nicene theology and come up with an agreed text. In other words it was more than rubber stamping. The main point here, no matter how one interprets history is that the Trinity was not thought up and finalised by one man (notably not Jesus) which might explain confusing logic. James Pike was an American Episcopal bishop, As said before it is your religion and you are naturally fully entitled o disagree with your fellow Christians on how it ought to be interpreted which is something of grand tradition among the devoutly-challenged. Watching the squabbles between the faithful, which are as eternal it would seem as the god you claim for, is part of the fun of being an atheist. As usual other Christians can easily be found who disagree. And there is no 'we' or 'them' in Matt 28:19, probably since: Isn't creative exegesis wonderful? www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/does-matthew-28-verse-19-prove-the-trinity And even we accept such rare occurrences, such as when God, er, ever talks of Himself in the plural, one is still left with the inconvenient fact that nearly every mention of your deity in scripture is with a singular pronoun. You'd think they would have got it right most times... And yet he did not know the time of his return, apparently. For reasons already outlined, this is odd, especially as it is claimed elsewhere that He apparently knew everything. “Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”” John 16:30 Thank you for providing yet another contradiction. Perhaps Jesus really knew the day of His return and just forgot? It seems weird that God does not know all that God knows, when knowing everything is er, part of his essence. Or that Jesus, being separate in person but of God or something needs to ask for knowledge from that which He is a part. But of such knots are Trinity made.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 9, 2023 4:13:49 GMT
The archbishop of York has suggested that opening words of the Lord’s Prayer, recited by Christians all over the world for 2,000 years, may be “problematic” because of their patriarchal association. Correction: Recited by Catholics. The archbishop (whatever that is) needs a smaller brush.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 9, 2023 10:51:27 GMT
The archbishop of York has suggested that opening words of the Lord’s Prayer, recited by Christians all over the world for 2,000 years, may be “problematic” because of their patriarchal association. Correction: Recited by Catholics. The archbishop (whatever that is) needs a smaller brush. www.churchofengland.org/our-faith/what-we-believe/lords-prayer I am not a Catholic but I recited it in religious services when younger countless times. Archbishop, in the Christian church, a bishop who, in addition to his ordinary episcopal authority in his own diocese, usually has jurisdiction (but no superiority of order) over the other bishops of a province Glad to help.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 9, 2023 20:41:09 GMT
Correction: Recited by Catholics. The archbishop (whatever that is) needs a smaller brush. www.churchofengland.org/our-faith/what-we-believe/lords-prayer I am not a Catholic but I recited it in religious services when younger countless times. Archbishop, in the Christian church, a bishop who, in addition to his ordinary episcopal authority in his own diocese, usually has jurisdiction (but no superiority of order) over the other bishops of a province Glad to help. Thanks!
|
|