|
Post by clusium on May 23, 2019 23:49:52 GMT
He Is God, but, not His Father. Read @nedkelly 's & mslo79 's earlier posts. You equate God with His Creation. God Is WHOLLY different than everything in the material universe, hence, He Is 3 Divine Persons, Existing In the One True God. God Is also everywhere, which means, He Is right in the very same room as you are, right now, and He Is right here in the very same room as I am, right now. That is not possible, for created beings, but, is for God, & likewise, He can Be 3 Divine Persons in the One Godhead. OK. See my other thread about why did God NEED Jesus ( and I still don't understand ANY need for the other dude and his sanctifying business. ..butt his father is God and Ned said Jesus is purely human. It would be good if you Catholics could get your story straight, since apparently your lives depends upon it! Already saw your other thread. Saw no reason to post there, as there was this one here. Whether you see need for the Holy Spirit or not doesn't matter, Goz. He's there, & in fact, although He Is the Third Person Of the Trinity, He Is the First Person Of the Trinity to be mentioned in the Holy Bible (Genesis chapter 1, verse 2). Jesus Has a Dual Nature: One Human & One Divine.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 24, 2019 1:54:07 GMT
No, you didn't, as I didn't ask you "who mainline protestants were". I suggested you'd do well to define that term more precisely, as there are substantial groups of protestants who don't accept the Trinity, in response to your assertion that they virtually all do. My question concerned the very real differences these various Xtian sects have regarding theological points concerning it. If the nature of Jesus is as plain as his followers assert, why should there be all these differing interpretations? You failed to answer or even address this, as I suspect you can't--as many Xtians can't--give a satisfactory response. And I did define who the mainline Protestants were: Anglican (Episcopalian) Presbyeterian, Lutheran, etc. And I explicitly stated that that was not what I was asking you. This was what I was asking you: If the nature of Jesus is as plain as his followers assert, why should there be all these differing interpretations among varying sects?
Plainly, you cannot answer this, so you attempt to keep giving me the runaround about how you answered a question that wasn't asked in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 24, 2019 1:55:18 GMT
You've given a nonsense response that no thinking individual is going to--or is bound to accept--as an answer. My response was not nonsensical. Your response was not only nonsensical, it barely counted as a response.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 24, 2019 1:56:04 GMT
Explain why you find this a good analogy. Start with the fact that you're attempting to define a non-material divinity via comparison to physical chemical compositions. If you can bend logic sufficiently to come up with a response that's in any way coherent to that, it should be entertaining to read at the very least. It is precisely because God Is a non-material Entity, that a physical composition has to be used as an example. She asked how 3 can be 1, so I used H2O as an example of something that is 3 in 1. What???
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 24, 2019 3:35:27 GMT
And I did define who the mainline Protestants were: Anglican (Episcopalian) Presbyeterian, Lutheran, etc. And I explicitly stated that that was not what I was asking you. This was what I was asking you: If the nature of Jesus is as plain as his followers assert, why should there be all these differing interpretations among varying sects?
Plainly, you cannot answer this, so you attempt to keep giving me the runaround about how you answered a question that wasn't asked in the first place. For the same reason Jews claim disagreements in their own beliefs. There is a Jewish saying: When 2 Jews debate, there are 3 opinions. Protestants criticize the Catholic Church's old rule about not allowing the average person to read the Bible for his/herself. It wasn't so much that the Church did not allow the average person to read the Bible for him/herself, as the person was not allowed to come to their own personal interpretations. It was the same with the Orthodox Church. The fact that there are now thousands & thousands of Protestant & post Protestant sects today, only proves the Catholic & Orthodox Churches were right.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 24, 2019 3:36:09 GMT
My response was not nonsensical. Your response was not only nonsensical, it barely counted as a response. Nope.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 24, 2019 3:36:44 GMT
It is precisely because God Is a non-material Entity, that a physical composition has to be used as an example. She asked how 3 can be 1, so I used H2O as an example of something that is 3 in 1. What??? What do you mean what?
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 24, 2019 5:38:44 GMT
Was the intent of this thread to reveal the failings of the concept of The Trinity? There really is no way to adequately explain how it is valid, as you have seen in this thread. I grew up in a non-Trinitarian Christian sect. Of course simply for not accepting the concept of The Trinity the Mormons are called non-Christians by many in the Trinitarian sects. I had a pastor who once admitted to me that The Trinity dosn't really make sense, he said that it is just a construct to explain what humans are unable to comprehend. I don't think humans can really grasp something that is infinite. In my opinion The Trinity concept emerged after the time of Jesus and the Apostles. Christian leadership started to accept Jesus as divine, but they wished to still be monotheistic. The Trinity was an attempt to have both ideas at the same time. The concept of the Mormon Godhead attempts to do the same thing, but has three gods that are separate personages. Their critics claim they are polytheists, and when they are honest they will essentially admit this is true. Their tenuous way of still claiming to be monotheists is to place The Father higher than Jesus or the Holy Ghost. But if Trinitarians are honest they will admit that they are really polytheists as well, no matter how they attempt to cut it. Listen to them at Christmas and Easter they sound like the Father and the Son are totally separate. Press them on the nature of God and they attempt analogies that don't work at all. Compared to Muslims and Jews, Christians really struggle to get a grasp on the nature of their God. Interesting point though, there are actually infinite gods in Mormonism. However if Jesus and Satan are brothers, at some point Christ was less than a god. Or Satan is a god as well. The idea of the possibility of infinite gods has been falling out of favor the last few years with the Mormon leadership. I think it might disappear completely with time. No longer is there a focus upon Mormons attaining godhood in eternity, but of individuals becoming more like God. The existence of gods other than The Father (and a goddess mother) before the creation of Earth does not seem to be a concept that is speculated anymore. Yes, you point out an inconsistency in Mormon beliefs. Satan has never been considered a god but is considered the brother of Jesus. But Mormons also think that you, I, and everyone else are also the siblings of both of them and we are not gods. So when did Jesus become a god? Mormons believe he created the Earth. Wouldn't he need to be a god to accomplish this? They tend to equivocate by saying it was done through the power and authority of The Father. They tend to teach that Jesus was born as The Messiah and the Son of God, but not so much a god in his own right when walking the Earth. But they accept the resurrected Christ as "God the Son"...
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 24, 2019 5:47:47 GMT
Was the intent of this thread to reveal the failings of the concept of The Trinity? There really is no way to adequately explain how it is valid, as you have seen in this thread. I grew up in a non-Trinitarian Christian sect. Of course simply for not accepting the concept of The Trinity the Mormons are called non-Christians by many in the Trinitarian sects. I had a pastor who once admitted to me that The Trinity dosn't really make sense, he said that it is just a construct to explain what humans are unable to comprehend. I don't think humans can really grasp something that is infinite. In my opinion The Trinity concept emerged after the time of Jesus and the Apostles. Christian leadership started to accept Jesus as divine, but they wished to still be monotheistic. The Trinity was an attempt to have both ideas at the same time. The concept of the Mormon Godhead attempts to do the same thing, but has three gods that are separate personages. Their critics claim they are polytheists, and when they are honest they will essentially admit this is true. Their tenuous way of still claiming to be monotheists is to place The Father higher than Jesus or the Holy Ghost. But if Trinitarians are honest they will admit that they are really polytheists as well, no matter how they attempt to cut it. Listen to them at Christmas and Easter they sound like the Father and the Son are totally separate. Press them on the nature of God and they attempt analogies that don't work at all. Compared to Muslims and Jews, Christians really struggle to get a grasp on the nature of their God. Good knowledgeable post HOWEVER I feel the need to answer your first question with what I just posted on another thread where my 'motives' were also brought into question. There are some Christians here who think that this Board is for religious discussion of THEIR faith on THEIR terms ( Erjenious I am looking at you and your mates) On a free public international forum I refuse to be questioned on my 'motives' for posting, just because many Christians /theists find it difficult to justify the answers that they give on this forum. The other point is that they don't 'have' to, if their belief is enough for them and they are secure enough in it. If they choose to enter the discussion, then it is fair to challenge everything written. This is not 'rocket surgery'! OK, I understand, you don't wish to answer my question.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 24, 2019 6:28:40 GMT
My opinion is that there are. Others clearly differ IF you have read this interesting and edifying thread. Good knowledgeable post HOWEVER I feel the need to answer your first question with what I just posted on another thread where my 'motives' were also brought into question. There are some Christians here who think that this Board is for religious discussion of THEIR faith on THEIR terms ( Erjenious I am looking at you and your mates) On a free public international forum I refuse to be questioned on my 'motives' for posting, just because many Christians /theists find it difficult to justify the answers that they give on this forum. The other point is that they don't 'have' to, if their belief is enough for them and they are secure enough in it. If they choose to enter the discussion, then it is fair to challenge everything written. This is not 'rocket surgery'! OK, I understand, you don't wish to answer my question. What, about my dissertation on posing questions (possibly contentious) on this message board don't you understand? To answer your question, I would say that IF there were problems with the concept of the 'trinity' this thread is a good place to discuss it. My opinion is that there are. Others on this thread do not, and have tried to state their positions. What is the problem here?
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 24, 2019 9:35:36 GMT
My opinion is that there are. Others clearly differ IF you have read this interesting and edifying thread. OK, I understand, you don't wish to answer my question. What, about my dissertation on posing questions (possibly contentious) on this message board don't you understand? To answer your question, I would say that IF there were problems with the concept of the 'trinity' this thread is a good place to discuss it. My opinion is that there are. Others on this thread do not, and have tried to state their positions. What is the problem here? Your dissertation reminds me of answers giving by politicians at press conferences, where they deflect and talk around a subject without ever answering the question posed. Perhaps you should go into politics as you seem adept at their methods to avoid answering a simple question, while at the same time hypocritically criticizing others for taking the same approach you are taking (CoolJGS in that other thread you started).
Once again you have not answered my question, which only requires "yes" or "no".... I guess you never intend to do so.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 24, 2019 12:29:11 GMT
And I explicitly stated that that was not what I was asking you. This was what I was asking you: If the nature of Jesus is as plain as his followers assert, why should there be all these differing interpretations among varying sects?
Plainly, you cannot answer this, so you attempt to keep giving me the runaround about how you answered a question that wasn't asked in the first place. For the same reason Jews claim disagreements in their own beliefs. There is a Jewish saying: When 2 Jews debate, there are 3 opinions. Protestants criticize the Catholic Church's old rule about not allowing the average person to read the Bible for his/herself. It wasn't so much that the Church did not allow the average person to read the Bible for him/herself, as the person was not allowed to come to their own personal interpretations. It was the same with the Orthodox Church. The fact that there are now thousands & thousands of Protestant & post Protestant sects today, only proves the Catholic & Orthodox Churches were right. None of that touches on my question. Apparently, the one thing that came out of the Bible's being translated into the Vulgate was the reality that the nonsense could now be read and understood by any literate individual, simply showing up that the contents of the 'holy book' made no sense when perused without the aid of priestly 'interpreters'. Small wonder the Church preferred everything kept under wraps in esoteric Latin. This still does not explain the differences in Trinity interpretation or the nature of Jesus, between RC and Orthodox, and between protestant sects. Once more, if the nature of Jesus is as clear and plain as Xtians contend, it should not matter in what language the bible is read or written. Plain truth should come across as plain truth, regardless. The bottom line is that there is no plain truth here, only rigamarole that hardly any two people, much less sectarian groups, can agree on the meaning of.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 24, 2019 12:30:03 GMT
Your response was not only nonsensical, it barely counted as a response. Nope. You're batting a thousand on the non-responses, Clusium.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 24, 2019 12:33:09 GMT
You know, if you honestly think any of these 'answers' you're giving would persuade anyone other than a fellow brainwashed cultist then I'm hardly surprised at your complete and unquestioning credulity in the face of religion. I don't recommend that you take up a career in missionary work nor any other sort of proselytizing field, should you have ever been considering one.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 24, 2019 13:08:34 GMT
Lol at tagging me.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 24, 2019 14:12:46 GMT
Already saw your other thread. Saw no reason to post there, as there was this one here. Whether you see need for the Holy Spirit or not doesn't matter, Goz. He's there, & in fact, although He Is the Third Person Of the Trinity, He Is the First Person Of the Trinity to be mentioned in the Holy Bible (Genesis chapter 1, verse 2). Jesus Has a Dual Nature: One Human & One Divine. Jesus does not exist and thinking in dualistic terms only creates more conflict and suffering. Even Christ would have known this. Now stop being a prawn, because you are just making a fool out of yourself. No. YOU are making a fool out of yourself, if believe that Jesus does not exist. Yes, He Does.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 24, 2019 14:17:33 GMT
You know, if you honestly think any of these 'answers' you're giving would persuade anyone other than a fellow brainwashed cultist then I'm hardly surprised at your complete and unquestioning credulity in the face of religion. I don't recommend that you take up a career in missionary work nor any other sort of proselytizing field, should you have ever been considering one. I never said that I was going to take up a career in missionary or proselytizing work. This discussion all came about because this topic was a non-sequitur, as Jesus Is God, in Christianity. So what, if there are a few Christian sects that reject the Trinity. All religions have their fair share of sects that go against the mainstream belief of the particular religion.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 24, 2019 14:20:53 GMT
You know, if you honestly think any of these 'answers' you're giving would persuade anyone other than a fellow brainwashed cultist then I'm hardly surprised at your complete and unquestioning credulity in the face of religion. I don't recommend that you take up a career in missionary work nor any other sort of proselytizing field, should you have ever been considering one. Well, I hope for her own sake, that she keeps it in cyberspace and on here, because I'd hate to think that she is even more deluded to think she can convince on any other platform, she can't even do it as an invisible entity, kinda like Jesus and Mother Mary ya know! No, I never proselytize. In fact, I don't even proselytize online. I like to talk about religion, yes. But, I don't expect anybody to convert, for exactly the same reasons I don't expect anybody to convert me to their own religion or religious views.
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 24, 2019 15:41:53 GMT
You know, if you honestly think any of these 'answers' you're giving would persuade anyone other than a fellow brainwashed cultist then I'm hardly surprised at your complete and unquestioning credulity in the face of religion. I don't recommend that you take up a career in missionary work nor any other sort of proselytizing field, should you have ever been considering one. I never said that I was going to take up a career in missionary or proselytizing work. This discussion all came about because this topic was a non-sequitur, as Jesus Is God, in Christianity. So what, if there are a few Christian sects that reject the Trinity. All religions have their fair share of sects that go against the mainstream belief of the particular religion. The OP does not pose a question that can really be answered by most Christians whether or not they accept the Trinity. As worded "Who do you believe in more?" poses a question I could not answer. I "believe" in both "God" and "Jesus" whether or not they are the same as outlined in the Trinity, or separate personages. To me both exist. Most people are assuming that "God" refers to "The Father" and the question is asking which of the two is "greater" but that is not really what is asked as worded. But even making such an assumption, most Christians accept the concept of the Trinity and the question is meaningless for them as you have pointed out. Whether from the point of view of Trinity or not, Jesus was sent by The Father to unable mankind to return to The Father. As a mediator between us and The Father the role of Jesus is more immediate to us but we "believe" in both and both are important.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 24, 2019 18:03:47 GMT
You know, if you honestly think any of these 'answers' you're giving would persuade anyone other than a fellow brainwashed cultist then I'm hardly surprised at your complete and unquestioning credulity in the face of religion. I don't recommend that you take up a career in missionary work nor any other sort of proselytizing field, should you have ever been considering one. I never said that I was going to take up a career in missionary or proselytizing work. This discussion all came about because this topic was a non-sequitur, as Jesus Is God, in Christianity. So what, if there are a few Christian sects that reject the Trinity. All religions have their fair share of sects that go against the mainstream belief of the particular religion. Unsurprisingly, irony is lost on you. I find that to be a common trait amongst the faithful. I notice, again with no surprise, that you still haven't even made a cursory attempt to answer the question, because--of course--you have no answer.
|
|