lcb

some "myths" are darwinistically superior to other myths!

NOGO

Hi DavidH,

As you can see from the posts of ReasonableDoubt and wordSmyth that the idea of the trinity is not a concept which is so easily extracted from the text of the NT. The early church struggled with these ideas and the final word was with people who ruthlessly imposed their views on everyone.

When ReasonableDoubt says "blood on its hands" he talking fact. Streets were flowing with human blood. Over what? "the Father and I are one" versus "The Father is greated than the son"; "Mary mother of God" versus "Mary mother of Jesu".

People who imposed their views on everybody else also got to choose which books would constitute the NT but they in no way settle the issue.

What is astonishing is that Christianity almost from its birth diverged into a thousand variants and only ruthless force brought it together. 1000 years later the Protestant reform broke the Papal hold and Christianity started to diverge again. There are today thousands of Chrisitian sects.

Truth, unlike Chrisitnity, converges.

davidH

Oh my word Nogo!!!
Will you never understand.

Ok, Nogo. I am going to give you a few passages and I want you to tell me exactly what Jesus is saying in them, ok?

Since you say that I am reading stuff into the verses, I will let you interpret them for everyone here.

First of all, you didn't comment on these verses I gave.

[quote] John 1 v 1-2
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

v14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling amoung us, we have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only (or the Only begotten) who came from the father, full of grace and truth.

v 10
He was in the world and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognise him.

v15
John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, "He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me."

Also please explain again what Jesus meant when he said,

Here's what you said.

Ok, since I am obviously reading between the lines would you please tell me what Jesus is saying when he says all the verses?

This is all I am going to post up at the minute.
You've said that the Trinity aspect is a joke and that I am only reading between the lines - therefore I am giving the verses to you so that you can tell everyone here what they are really saying.

You have made other points which I will comment on again once you have done this.

(If you have a Bible you may want to look up the whole chapter of John 1 just to make sure that they are in context.)

Steven Carr

I have had a look in John 1 and I can't see any mention of a Trinity in it at all. Perhaps you could give us a passage mentioning God the Father, God the Son , and God the Holy Ghost explaining that they are all gods, but all one.

Steven Carr

2 Corinthians 4:4 'The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.'

So Paul says there is more than one god, and he *deliberately* calls this immortal, supernatural being who blinds unbelievers a god.

Of course, Christians will deny that when Paul talks about there being more than one god, he means that there is more than one god, yet curiously, they insist that the NT calls 'Jesus' and the 'Holy Spirit' gods, when it never does.

Ted Hoffman

I have a solution to your problem people. And I hope this wont inspire the deafening silence I have observed in the past:

David H asked for the meanings of the following:
[quote]John 1 v 1-2
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

v14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling amoung us, we have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only (or the Only begotten) who came from the father, full of grace and truth.
v 10
He was in the world and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognise him.

v15
John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, "He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me."

Also please explain again what Jesus meant when he said,

As I had responded earlier to some posters, the authors who created the character of Jesus were quoting from ancient texts and expounding on them in a midrashic manner. Jesus was a comet and his father was an exploded planet.

I have an interpretation (borrowed from Alan Alfords ideas) that makes sense of the following:

• The word being with God from the beginning
• The word also being God
• All things being made through him
• The word being flesh
• In him (the word) being life
• The word being the son of God
• The light shining in the darkness

First of all, you must appreciate the fact that christianity started as a gnostic religion whose beliefs were shrouded in secrecy (JBap was among those who broke the tight circle of secrecy and went out to proclaim the coming of the messiah). To gain acceptance from the surrounding people while at the same time retain the secrecy of their beliefs, they dumbed down their "mysteries" and eheumerized their deities and following the Jewish war, the sects got scattered and disorganized, Constantine concerted and the idea of historicizing the religion arose. Thats why we get caught up using the wrong paradigm.
I will move closer to the original meanings of "the word".
Where else in the bible do we find reference to "the word"?
In Jeremiah 23 :: King James Version (KJV)
Why was the word like fire? What word is this that could, like ahammer crush a rock to pieces? Was it a hot hammer? What does it mean?
In the Egyptian Coffin Texts it says the following about the word:
Alan Alford When The Gods Came Down pp.306.
Here too, we see that the word contained the "efflux of Osiris" (ie life) and had fire - ie a meteorite.

A comet/ meteorite, on falling upon the earth at a high speed, cools and becomes a rock. Did the ancients beleive life could come from a rock?
Deut 32:17
Any other evidence?
Meteorites, come while heated to very high temperatures and when they hit the earth, because of their speed and heat, they sink deep into the dark earth, their heat of course produces light (so this is the light shining in the darkness):
Did the ancient people (hebrews ect) beleive they came from a meteor? Lets look at the following verse:
Isiah 55:1
Its simply all there when we look closely.
In Luke 1:35 How could the holy Ghost come upon Mary and how could a virgin give birth?
God was a planet, the primeval Jesus was a (flood of) meteorites and therefore, logically, since Jesus was NOT a human being, his mother was not a real human and thus could give birth without having sex - thus virgin birth.

In The Gospel of Philip So who was virgin Mary?
The ancients embraced the idea of a sacred marriage in which a falling sky (God) impregnated a fertile earth - which was like a giant womb able to bring forth all sorts of creatures. This idea is clear in a sumerian legend:
Samuel Kramer History Begins at Sumer as quoted by Alan Alford in When The Gods Came Down pg. 388.
This same idea is also clear in the birth of Horus by virgin Isis in ancient Egyptian texts. Osiris, was born in a similar fashion to Samson of the bible. The Egyptian texts describe Isis' conception thus:
The word became flesh by bringing forth mankind.

Because God was seen as an exploded planet, and the word/ his son, meteorites from the exploded planet, the word was with God and the word was God.
After bringing forth mankind, God arose from the earth sphinxlike - ie spiritually without his hitherto physical body - back to the heavens.

You should be asking me why we had two contrary Marys: one being a prostitute (Magdalene) and the other being a virgin. And Why Pilate, who Tacitus mentions in the Annals has a name so close to French pilote and the medieval latin pilotus and what pontus or Pontius means.

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Oh, incidentally, the EPH of Science thread is going on <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=57&t=000444&p=1" target="_blank">Right Here</a>. What I have posted above, conforms to the EPH of Religion and Myth

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

GunnerJ

So sad, no answer from dave yet... is he avoiding me?

davidH

No, I'm avoiding noone Rimstalker.
Though I am disappointed that Nogo has not posted.

All in good time though.

Steven Carr - John 1 doesn't mention the Trinity.
But it mentions something about Jesus.

Nogo, said that I was reading between the lines of the verses and applying my own interpretation to it.

Would you prehaps care to tell me what you see that passage as saying - up tp verse 18 ? Since you have read it all, tell me what John is saying - Mainly in the verses that I put up.
I asked Nogo but maybe he hasn't got a chance to post yet.


Ok folks.
I don't want to do what I have been doing previously - that is posting up a massive answer.
In doing so much gets left behind and the debate centers around lots of things and things get confusing.


Firstly let me answer Rimstalker.

At least you acknowledge that the word "we" or "us" = plural. !!
Ok, so we have God referring to himself as plural.
Therefore how many singulars are there? - We look in the Bible for clues - we find them and see that there are 3 that are referred to.


Your post was interesting Intensity.

You said.

But to believe this you must believe that a historical Jesus didn't exist and didn't die. There are many historians who refer to him (this in itsself is another debate). I could cover this some other time.

Also how is an exploding planet and a comet going to come and make their home in a person?

But humour me for the moment and let us assume that the gospels are about a true person and that everything written in them is true. Jesus did do all the miracles etc.

ok, now please interpret the verses that I gave.
I want to see if Nogo is correct and that I was reading between the lines. - The verses don't support the whole Trinity idea, but just tell me what John is saying.

This has to be done before I can continue on with this discussion.
Assuming the above, please interpret it.
Thanks.

Edited to put in "up to verse 18"
and to put in that "the verses don't support the whole Trinity idea"

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: davidH ]</p>