Doctor X

Secular Pinoy:

What? Sweeping generalizations contradicted by texts and history not good enough for you?!

--J.D.

mark9950

that the trinity is a monotheistic way of describing a polytheistic god.

God is the name of a family of gods,no monotheism here.

Here is an example: my last name is gray and the other family members are james gray(son) and jeanne gray(wife).

Were three separate individuals with something is common(last name)that is simple.

The same is with this God

God the father
God the son(jesus)
God the holy spirit

Does this not show a family of a polytheistic God?

Bengt03

Esther, but look at what the scholars say about Jesus' divinity:

That quote was from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...us/tikkun.html

One of the problems with the Bible is that you can just as well interpret it to say the opposite: that Jesus was NOT divine. In fact the majority of all scholars, not just one or two, but the majority believes that Jesus "almost certainly did not see himself as divine"

Maybe you're comitting idolatry and are going to hell.

You contradict yourself. Was Jesus fully god or a limited god?

If he was a limited god then he was not the god of the bible, because the god of the bible is supposed to be All-Knowing, not somewhat All-Knowing, he's supposed to be All-Powerful, not somewhat All-Powerful, e.t.c. Did god change?? If so, then it contradicts the bible (Malachi. I don't remember wich verse)

The statement that Jesus was a limited god, sounds much like greek mythology to me, not like the judeo-christian-islamic god.

Esther, note that Mark 13:32 does not say "Jesus", it says "the Son", supposedly the divine nature of Jesus. It's the Son who does not know about the last day, not "Jesus walking on this Earth as man".

There is a much better interpretaion of Mark 13:32: Maybe the author (whoever he was) did not believe in the divinity of the son.

There is another, more serious problem that completely destroys Christianity: The belief that Jesus was fully god and fully man at the same time. I think it's called "the hypostatic union" by theologians. This belief is necessary for salvation, according to Christianity. You have to believe it, if you want to go to heaven, the problem is: it's unbelievable! The doctrine can not be stated in any way that is free from contradictions. It is impossible for Jesus to have been fully man and fully god at the same time, for this would mean that he was finite and infinite at the same time,
that he was fallible and infallible at the same time. This is impossible.

To be man means to be limited, lacking in knowledge, prone to mistakes, imperfect. To be the judeo-christian-islamic god means just the opposite: unlimited, complete in knowledge, infallible, perfect. You cannot have it both ways. By definition, a thing cannot be the opposite of it self. Either Jesus was one or the other. When we are told two opposites what then are we to believe?!

It is like saying that you saw a square circle! This is an impossibility. Are you saying the circle was not round, in which case it was not a circle? Or are you saying the square was circular? This is meaningless nonsense.

To say that Jesus is fully man and fully god at the same time is to say that “X” and “not-X” can both be true at the same time. This is either to abandon the meaning of these words or else to abandon logic, and in either case this means we are speaking nonsense that can have no meaning for us.

Perhaps the islamic version of Jesus is wrong, but your version of Jesus is impossible.

Soul Invictus

River,

Did you get a chance to read my issues on the 3rd page of this thread? I was hoping to get your feedback...

Rational BAC

I have no problem believing that Jesus was half God, half man during the 33 years He was on this Earth. He had supernatural powers given by the Father and knew many things, but not everything. Which explains many of the somewhat confusing Biblical passages which trouble so many.

The Trinity just gets in the way of Christianity.

(I will admit I could believe in it if someone gave me a good argument for it. My impression is that about the 4th century the powers that be decided to make Christianity monotheistic, come hell or high water. And that is what they did. The Trinity was born. )

Jesus' mission on Earth was for God (or a half God definitely connected to God ) to FEEL the human condition------to live and breath and feel joy and sadness and suffer and die.-------just like any human does.

(Remember now that the God of the Old Testament does seem to be a real uncaring, uncompassionate bully--------Whatever you say about the God of the Old Testament, the most obvious impression is that He had no idea of the concept of empathy or of love)

Maybe God decided it was time to rethink things and the best way was to send a part of Himself down to Earth to get a better "Feel for things" I like the idea of a God who is not completely perfect and omniscient and always correct. ----

---A God who sits down and says to himself one day. "Self, maybe you are being a bit of a prick here. Maybe you really do not understand the human condition all that well. Maybe it is time for a fresh outlook."

And Jesus was born.

It is a wonderful story of God coming down to Earth. And that inherant empathy in the story is what has made Christianity grow. It is what makes the ordinary common Joe Blow just love Jesus and the whole concept of God coming down to Earth to suffer along with us and understand us better.

Christianity will never die. The basic story is too beautiful and sublime.

Magus55

Rational, God made it quite clear He knows everything and is omnipotent. What part of the Bible DO you accept, since you seem to throw out almost everything pertaining to God, His character, prophecy, etc.

River

Yes, I am in the process of creating a new thread to address this .



I will be making a thread about the Prophet and OT. However, I will also answer the questions from page 3 in a moment, (here).

River

Obviously, it will not die. Islam will proudly carry the True traditions of Jesus Christ for a new "cooler" generation of followers.

winstonjen

Then surely it did not need all those mass-genocides to force the religion on people.

Rational BAC

Magus---

I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the Old Testament. Just a general (though seriously inaccurate in untold places) prologue for the New Testament. Much beautiful literature there along with much that would put anybody to sleep. And much gore and mayhem incomprehensible to the modern mind. A fairy tale if you will ---that Jesus came to Earth to make sense of it all.

I am much more interested in the New Testament. And am much, much more interested in what were the purported words of Jesus. I do not think ANY part of the Bible is the word of God. It is just the word about God. The best man could do to try and understand and record supernatural events that DID happen.

I consider myself to be a Christian from the first 300 years of Christianity, before the whole thing became canonized and codified and written in stone------mostly due to committee work and much political influence.

I am a Christian heretic. I admit that freely and proudly. I think I am just as smart as the Council of Nicea and just as smart as that other Council (forget the name right now) about 380 AD.

I believe I can pick and choose what I think is valid about Christianity and what is not just as well as the early Christians did. ---------and MUCH MUCH better than those politically influenced committees of the 4th century that canonized Christianity.

And remember--------I have the Holy Ghost guiding me in all my cherry picking and choosing. The Bible does say that I will be guided. And I believe that.