Does the definition of “good” vary?
Posted by 1minionsopinion on November 7, 2009
A large portion of our conversation Wednesday night revolved around the semantics of the word “good.”
I’m starting to wonder about this myself. “Good” is such an umbrella kind of term. Be good. In what way exactly?
Brushing your teeth? Using manners? Sitting on your bum in a shopping cart? Picking up all your toys? Taking “No” for an answer without replying with a temper tantrum? That seems to be a parental definition of good. Good service at a restaurant or store. Good as in law abiding. Good as in beneficial rather than detrimental. Good as in approaching perfection. Thorough, effective, adept, deserving of respect, high morals. All these can fall under Good as well.
When atheists think of “Good” what are they thinking about? I can’t answer for every atheist, but when I hear the word “Good” I think of following laws and codes at every level laws and codes are designed, from returning books on time to full stops at stop signs (I count to 5 – do you?) and that kind of thing.
I also think of all the appropriate behaviours that improve society – cooperation, sharing, patience, respect, trust. May as well toss being useful to society in there, too, either with your job, or with volunteer work on the side.
I also think of behaviours that improve humanity – which include all those society ones plus honesty, integrity, loyalty, adaptability, and forgiveness would be in there, too. Life is too short to hold grudges and regrets.
How it started was by someone reminding us that just because someone is an atheist doesn’t mean that they can’t do good. This brought our attention to Mark 10:17-18, “And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’
Breaking in right here. I think it’s unfortunate that people want eternal life. Why can’t this life be cherished and fully appreciated? Why does anyone think they need eternal life? Does anyone ever ask that?
And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.’” In this passage, Jesus changes the focus from man’s work to God’s as to what is good.
I totally disagree with Jesus here, because he doesn’t define what good is beyond saying God is it. Good is God? Good is godly? Good is a perfection no human will ever dare dream of achieving and this is why Christ doesn’t want the moniker in this story?
But Jesus tells us that no one is good except God alone, so this brought up the question can an atheist [or for argument’s sake a Buddhist, Muslim, etc] do “good”? In terms of civic, civil, moral, or ethical righteousness: yes. This righteousness is only valid among men though, not God. God judges on a different basis.
So what? Do we really need to care about God’s supposed level of goodness? Does it matter on a daily basis? Does God’s goodness have anything to do with how Christians act or think? Or do they define their purpose via their church, their pastor, their congregations and their prayers over the unsaved masses?
Are they really concerned over how their god might judge them? How does that explain all the Christians who do terrible things as human beings, unethical, unrighteous, uncivil acts? Won’t this god also see what wrongs were done, just as humanity will? Or will those actions not matter a sniff “because God judges on a different basis” than humanity does?
None of us are gods. None of us will ever be gods. It is my firm belief that all we should care about it the “ethical righteousness” among men and women. Men and women have to live in the world today, so goodness needs to be agreed upon as an earth term. Who cares about how the word relates to a deity? That doesn’t matter one iota. Assuming a god is the only judge of “good” is opening the floodgates for any behaviour to be deemed good, even at the expense of our society and humanity at large.
I give you what should be an insane example but isn’t even as bad as what’s in the bible:
God wills the destruction of entire cultures, whole cities razed to the ground. Must be a good godly reason to do that, right? Even if we have to guess at god’s divine purpose since it suits our politics to blame the destruction on some group we dislike.
Does that take the onus off the rest of us to offer aid after hurricanes and earthquakes and tsunamis because god willed all that destruction for some reason only known to him? Maybe it had to do with wearing socks with sandals. Maybe mixed fabrics really do get his goat up a tree. How can we know for sure? So how dare we get involved in the clean up and after-care? He might want to send another wave or aftershock and we will have saved someone who he wanted dead? How can that be good in this god’s eyes? All we should do is pray that some of them find the righteous path before it’s too late…
Does anybody think like this that would be willing to admit it? Besides people like Pat Robertson I mean? How inhuman does a person have to be to hate people that much?
A Different Kind of Blog 
princessxxx said
i like when jesus says, “‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone”
what i get from that is jesus is himself not good, and likely not god.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
I would have thought it was only meant as a gesture of respect and Jesus gets his nose out of joint like he’s too much of a hippie to need that much respect. Dude…no calling me a good sir, dude. That’s what they call my father…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
The word “good” has many meanings. For example, if a man were to shoot his grandmother at a range of five hundred yards, I should call him a good shot, but not necessarily a good man. — Gilbert K. Chesterton
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
1: “You shot bad, Tex?”
2: “You ever hear of anyone being shot good?”
Reminds me of an alleged murder defense in Texas. “But Judge, he needed killin’!”
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
What some people don’t understand is that good has no meaning without evil. To hope for something that is “all good” is as silly as trying to make a room where everything is “up” and nothing is down.
These are polar opposites, like the front and back of the same coin or opposite ends of the same stick.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
This is written well, but the comparing Buddhism, and Islam to Christianity is laughable. Where Judaism and Islam is very very similar in ritual and CORE symbolic beliefs. Both of those are very different from Christianity. This is both in theology, the rituals, and Core symbolic beliefs. Buddhism actually has many different teachings and paths. The most practiced form of Buddhism comes from Japan. While there are other practiced forms of Buddhism each are different and hold the teachings of different Buddhas. The form of Buddhism I am speaking of is that of the SGI. The SGI is a organization that’s goal is to bring about individual and the human races spiritual enlightenment. In their teachings when one achieves this there will be world peace. Which would be true, but the most effective way for them to achieve this goal would go against the sutra they follow. This of course is but one example of many. There is a gray area to the term good and evil. Truly what is good in one man’s eyes is evil in another man’s eyes. I mean look at the war in Jerusalem for example, and trust me when I say war is never pleasant and hardly ever is for a “good” reason or cause. But Israel believes their reasons are just and try to paint the Palestinians (a country and peoples that consists mainly of Muslims) ans the “bad guys”. Of course that goes vice versa. Another example is that I have done some pretty horrible things in the name of “perserving the freedom’s of the US.” I also saved lives, I took lives, and in a few cases I decided who was worth saving and who wasn’t based on injuries and what not. Every single religion except maybe one or two culty religions teach all life is sacred. Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, etc. Somewhere in the core theology it is stated in some way. When you decide to take a life, it doesn’t matter the reason. Reasons are ways of coping in some cases, but it doesn’t change that feeling if you have done something against your personal ethical code. I truly do not think there is a such thing as good and evil. I believe it is blanket terms to make one feel bad about one’s self or good about one’s self. Who is usually speaking about good and evil? Your Priest, Pastor, Iman, Layman, Rabbi, Grand Master, President etc? (George W. called a lot of people and countries “evildoers”) But these people tell YOU what good and evil is, what makes them right? And here is the paradox. The person, most people would rather someone else to tell them what is good and what is evil. Do not believe me look up the Crusades. Actually look up the accounts of the Genocide that Christianity committed over three or four or more Crusades. Whole countries wiped out in the name of religion. The many different terrorist bombings that happened throughout the 20th and 21st century against *gasp* primarily Christian countries. To put it plainly good exists because it is taught through every persons life these things are good and these are bad. Good and Evil only exist because man created it to justify many different things. Hitler killed how many Jews and he’s evil? The Catholic Church killed more people and they are still regarded as holy? Good and Evil are only descriptors of a human beings own personal code of ethics. If it goes against their personal code of ethics it is evil, if it does not it is good. In short there is no good and no evil, just decisions. We like to imagine a great huge war of good versus evil, but in the grand scheme of things neither exist. The universe is colored in shades of gray. Of course that is my own opinion.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
EE, it sounds like you are basing your theory of good and evil (that it doesn’t exist) on the actions of some people who lived in the past. Or, what they thought. Just like the actions of “Christians” does not define Christianity, neither does their thoughts and actions invalidate the concept of good and evil.
God speaks of good and evil… what our president says about it or our priest or rabbi, if it is not in line with what the Bible says, it is not relevant. Again, you are basing your views on the thoughts and actions of humans. You are letting these things cloud your judgement of the truth.
Living in this world and not seeing the difference between good and evil; thinking there is no such thing as “good and evil” (and sin) boggles my mind.
You said: “Hitler killed how many Jews and he’s evil? The Catholic Church killed more people and they are still regarded as holy? ”
Who says they are holy? The Catholic church? You are assuming that God was ok with what they did. The catholic church does not define what is good, again, God does.
LikeLike
k said
I have a comment in moderation.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
God does not speak to us directly in a booming voice. To do so we would all die according to theology. You take my examples of comparison and think its bashing. Again how can we absolutely know what God determines as “Good” and “Evil” by the Bible? Whose to say that’s actually God’s word as he spoke it. The bible was inspired, I can easily say the comment above was inspired as well. I can easily say that I believe God is speaking through me so I wrote it down. How can you absolutely prove I am correct? How can you prove that God can speak through a preacher or a fanatic believer and not through one that believes just not in what the religion that does things in his name believes? There has been a lot of things done in Gods name. Hitler killed Jews in God’s name. Christianity killed in God’s name. They believed that God spoke and told them to do this. Religion is the cause of more wars, lets take one extreme to another Ireland and North Ireland Catholics vs. Protestant. A war that has been going on forever in God’s name. Almost every branch of Christianity has been a reason for one war or another. The southern baptist church backed the Confederate Army and the Confederacy giving both “the blessing of God”. This eased peoples minds about killing. Now take Fundamental Islam, many that follow those teachings believe Al’Queda is backed by God. Some do not. The teachings of what’s right and wrong differs with every preacher, political official, and brand of religion. So who is truly right and who is truly wrong? Well the answer to each question WILL differ from person to person. Good and Evil are defined by the individual person. Most get their definition from the particular religion they believe. Which is my point and you are actually strengthening my point. For example I have heard in one church what I have laid out as a possibility of God’s Actions and how at one time we could only understand the creation of the universe as the Parable states in Genesis because our limited understanding of how the universe really works. Both spiritual practices and science have shown a majority the possibility that all of that was just a parable and things really happened a lot slower. And in another church I have heard God created the universe in seven days. (The passage God created the Heavens and the Earth implies the creation of the universe. The next passage states the earth was formless and void. Now the meanings to that phrase also varies by each church.) I can list the wrongs committed in the name of the many religions that has been on this earth. So I am not singling Christianity out, but I am trying to put things in perspective so everyone can understand my point of view as simply as possible. Also you are under the assumption that we can actually understand the Will of God. You also assume that the current teachings of the church (which did not teach about Good and Evil, Angels and Demons until around the Dark Ages.) That way everyone can understand things as I see it. Of course it is my own personal opinion and I don’t give a damn whether anyone cares or believes as I do. But I don’t want my words to be confused or taken out of context, like the bible has. How is it so hard to believe that God speaks through everyone in different ways? The Bible really doesn’t speak of Good and Evil that much either. It talks about what God expects from you, what you should and shouldn’t do. What it does say is everything stems from God. God is everything the good and the bad. That is what the bible teaches, that God is life and death. God created everything for a purpose only he knows. It speaks briefly about Lucifer, and that he was cast away from God as a punishment for boasting he is higher than God. But unlike the New Testament, the Old Testament had one story about him and HE HAD TO ASK GOD FOR PERMISSION TO TEST JOB’S FAITH. God told him yes but you cannot kill Job. That story told a lot. It backed up that nothing that happens to any man is not known by God. That even the one cast out of Heaven has to ask for permission to do anything against his creation.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
1minion, I like that you ask these questions. To me it shows an honest approach and a comfortable acknowledgement that you do not have / know all the answers. And that you want to know the truth.
And I liked your summary of what good is in society.. expecially the waiting 5 seconds part… no I don’t do that but I might start.. it’s a good idea and it is the right thing to do… the “good” thing to do.
Which brings me to one explanation to what the definition of good is… anything that helps (or protects) others and ourselves too. Stopping at a stop sign for 5 seconds not only is law abiding (good) but it also deminishes the chance of hurting someone else (and also ourselves).
I don’t know how someone can get that concept confused with evil (EE & TBG). Evil would be just the opposite… causing harm to others. There certainly is no confusion there for me.
The other explaination for good is anything that strengthens our souls…. to help us become more holy (more like God).
God is good and one way we know this is by His love for us… all of us. You cannot say that about any human being past or present. That is one of many ways in which we fall short of God.
Good is also known as “righteousness”. And God is also righteous. Righteousness requires judgement. And for example, Hitler will be judged and God’s righteousness will “right” his wrongs. You and other atheists may want to define that judgement as an “evil” act. And therefore makes God not fully good. But again, righteousness requires a judgement and for wrongs to be “righted”. I don’t see any other way to define “good”. And since we are not “all knowing” like God is, we are not capable of exacting perfect righteousness all the time. Another way in which we fall short.
You said:
“And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.’” In this passage, Jesus changes the focus from man’s work to God’s as to what is good.
I totally disagree with Jesus here, because he doesn’t define what good is beyond saying God is it. Good is God? Good is godly? Good is a perfection no human will ever dare dream of achieving and this is why Christ doesn’t want the moniker in this story? ”
I don’t understand why you have a problem with this passage… first, why is it wrong for Jesus to claim that only God is good? And this passage doesn’t call for a definition of good. The entire Bible describes “good”… it is all thru-out the Bible. Including / especially the commandments. The Bible describes sins all thru-out also and clearly states that God is without these sins. So, again, I don’t understand where the confusion comes from.
But I know I should address this that you said:
“God wills the destruction of entire cultures, whole cities razed to the ground. Must be a good godly reason to do that, right? ”
Again, God is righteousness and righteousness requires judgement. We don’t know what was in the hearts of those people who were judged… God did. And I will add that we do not always know His reasons for the things that He does and therefore it’s not right to deem them wrong. You may not think this is “fair” but it is not right for us to judge God. You don’t seem to want to acknowledge His perfectness and goodness but in taking those stances, you are also not acknowledging His superiority (in ALL aspects)… the superiority that logicaly and automatically goes with being a CREATOR. And again, to acknowledge these things requires humility and acceptence that we are not in control… and that is extremely hard for some people to do.
As to your last paragraph…
“Does that take the onus off the rest of us to offer aid after hurricanes and earthquakes and tsunamis because god willed all that destruction for some reason only known to him? Maybe it had to do with wearing socks with sandals. Maybe mixed fabrics really do get his goat up a tree. How can we know for sure? So how dare we get involved in the clean up and after-care? He might want to send another wave or aftershock and we will have saved someone who he wanted dead? How can that be good in this god’s eyes? All we should do is pray that some of them find the righteous path before it’s too late… ”
This, from a Christian’s point of view is very distorted… Here is a Christian’s interpretaion of these things that you’ve described… and put into the perspective of the “big picture”.
God created us with free will. The free will to do everything, think anything etc. etc. If we want to be with Him, He gives us that opportunity but it is up to us. In order to be with Him, we must try to be like Him as much as possible which is a process. The process of our souls (heart) becoming more holy. (And I say “more holy” because we can not become fully holy and righteous without Jesus.)
And that process is defined by situations and opportunities and how we react to them.. and what we learn from them. And ultimately, the good that is produced inwardly and outwardly. Turning bad into good is the ultimate goal or accomplishment. And to do that, bad has to exist. How else would we have opportunities to produce good? We stop at the stop sign because we consider the safety of others… we know about the “bad” that can happen if we are careless. If no one ever was killed or hurt in a car accident… where would the opportunity be to do good by stopping? There would be no need to stop… to do good.
So, your interpretation of disasters and “interferring” is just the oppposite of the actual meaning… we are to take the bad and do good with it.
Surely I haven’t explained this adequately and as EE says, this is just my view; the way I understand it.
The bottom line is trusting and accepting God even when we don’t know all of the answers. And it is a choice that each of us makes using our free will.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
EE, you said: ” the Old Testament had one story about him and HE HAD TO ASK GOD FOR PERMISSION TO TEST JOB’S FAITH. God told him yes but you cannot kill Job.”
That is just not true, I can think of one other story right now… the snake in the garden of Eden.
The Bible is full of referrences to satan, the inspiration of all evil. The Bible fully gives the definition of good and evil. That is what it is about. And a book that I accept. I know that you insist that God had nothing to do with it but that is not a reasonable view to me.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment in moderation.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
The bible has references to someone who temps man off of God’s path. That is what the snake’s purpose was in the Garden of Eden. It is a parable and the snake is a symbol of of that tempting. Of course reading too deep, the bible never refers to the snake as Lucifer. And the bible NEVER says that Lucifer is the source of all Evil.
Isaiah 45: 6-7 it says “I am the LORD and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the LORD do all these things.”
Tell me please how Satan, which the word in Hebrew literally means “One who obstructs”. This is where we get the idea that Satan is a being that controls us. But that is not true, Lucifer is completely different and the full story is not told. But Isaiah 45: 6-7 says it all… That is where I get my belief from.
This also shows a symbolism, God creates all things there is none higher than him. HE IS THE MOST HIGH from him comes everything. This is not the only passage that conveys this message.
“For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.” (Malachi 4:1)
“Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?” (Lamentations 3: 38-39)
“And it came to pass, when the evil spirit FROM God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.” (I Samuel 16:23)
But God also Loves and Forgives. He cancels out the Good and the Bad. Believe HE is the most High God. Exodus also has something to say that pertains to praying to Jesus and the Virgin Mary. It’s the very first commandment given to Moses from God.
John 3:16 For GOD so loved the world HE gave HIS only begotten son.
Exodus 20 1-6
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
And it was proven that Jesus was in fact a man not a diety. The whole Trinity concept is blasphemy anyway. Jesus was the Messiah, he took in all of our sins so we can go to heaven. That was his ONLY purpose. He is not to be prayed to. The prayer he taught his disciples begun with:
OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN
HALLOWED BE THY NAME
Jesus said pray with me and they prayed in the Name of the Lord God not the Lord Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
And the full story of Lucifer’s fall was never told because we did not need to know it. What we needed to know was what happens to someone who claims to BE just as powerful as the MOST HIGH GOD. Lucifer was cast away FROM GOD because of his boastfulness. Then in a later passage in the same book and chapter it talks about humbleness. Romans also states that “Any man’s righteousness before GOD is but rags.” This is to drive the idea home that boastfulness and pride in GOD’S eyes is the same as what Lucifer did. This and passages from Revelations is where the idea of Hell comes from. But the prophecy that John had speaks of Hell as we know it but theologically does not exist yet.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
The bible also describes the “wicked” as those that oppose GOD and distort his laws, covenants, and WORD. Christianity has done all of these things but the driving idea, the thing I think that GOD wants us to know is not in the actual words but the deeper meaning of those words. You can distort the WORD OF GOD all you want, but those lessons he wants you to learn is there. The secret is being humble and asking him to help you find a meaning. Also a thing about prophets, there is a difference between false prophets and true prophets. Prophecy is funny it is only one possible outcome out of countless. But when GOD speaks through someone you know it. That flutter you feel in your heart, that heat in your veins. That is GOD’S Spirit moving from that person inside of you. You can see GOD in the person’s eyes that he is speaking through. When GOD speaks through someone you know it. Some black out, some speak in toungues, some clap their hands stomp their feet. The Glory of GOD is joyous, and not expressing that is like rejecting the HOLY SPIRIT. That is what the bible was talking about when it talks about rejecting the Holy Spirit. If I get funny looks by saying what I am MOVED to say then it is not the right church. Unfortunately, I don’t get that feeling in a church anymore. I do sometimes, but when I express it I am usually gawked at and I feel like I’m being banished. Slowly I see Christianity rejecting this Spirit. Even in the Church I grew up in this is looked down upon.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
EE said: “Tell me please how Satan, which the word in Hebrew literally means “One who obstructs”. This is where we get the idea that Satan is a being that controls us. But that is not true, Lucifer is completely different and the full story is not told. But Isaiah 45: 6-7 says it all… That is where I get my belief from.”
I refer you to this explanation of Isaiah 45 6-7.
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/create_evil.html
You said: “And it was proven that Jesus was in fact a man not a diety. The whole Trinity concept is blasphemy anyway. Jesus was the Messiah, he took in all of our sins so we can go to heaven. That was his ONLY purpose. ”
How would Jesus have the power to take away all of the sins of humanity with His sacrifice if he isn’t God? Why couldn’t just any man have done in that case?
And where is it proven that Jesus was a man?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
You said: “This also shows a symbolism, God creates all things there is none higher than him. HE IS THE MOST HIGH from him comes everything. This is not the only passage that conveys this message.”
So, does our rebelliousness come from Him? That would mean that we do not truly have free will.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment in moderation…
And I didn’t say that satan was the source of all evil, I said he was the inspiration. In Genesis, the snake is described as a deceiver and you described him as the tempter. Both terms are used by Jesus in the New Testament when referring to satan.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
To the Isaiah faq you referred me to. I never once said SIN is evil. Sin is something man interjected into religion. And the explanation on that verse I learned is something different. The passage basically means All things good and bad come from God. God tests the faithful and allows “One who obstructs” which can actually mean a person not another force. But never did I say God creates Sin. Theologically Sin happens when a person goes against the commandments and laws of GOD.
Jesus was not a deity, never in the Bible did Jesus ever say he was a God. He referred to himself as the “son of Man” or the “Son of God.” But never claimed he was God. All the Miracles he performed was GOD working through him. He never claimed to produce those Miracles on his own. Jesus was a man, God did not create him as he created his messengers or man. He put his seed into Mary. 9 months later out came Jesus. He was born a man, to live as a man. GOD spoke through Jesus, GOD guided him. Throughout the scripture he always talked about GOD the Father. Or Your LORD YOUR GOD. He never once said he was one. He actually rejected the notion that he was a GOD. He said me and the Father are like one. That was more of telling the people that GOD was speaking through him.
As for Jesus taking away all your sins. Jesus did not have the power to do that, GOD put all the Sins, past, future and present on his shoulders. Jesus paid the price for your sins well before you were born. But the key was GOD put all the Sin on his shoulders and Judged that sin while he was on the Cross. The message was GOD loved you and the rest of humankind more than he loved his only begotten son, or his only born son. Jesus accepted his fate because he knew that was his purpose.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
I am aware of that, but the word does not mean one being that is blasphemy. The meaning of those passages more likely referrs to a person or group of persons that tried to lure a man who walked with GOD away from GOD. But there is no actual scriptural passage that says Lucifer and Satan are the same. And Inspiration basically means GOD BREATHED. To be truly inspired means it comes from God. So yes the symbol of Satan, the Snake, and Lucifer are INSPIRED forms of evil, they are symbols of evil that doesn’t mean a being named Satan exists.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
EE, I really don’t want to spend my time trying to prove that satan exists. And I’m getting confused (not hard for me).. what are you saying again? That evil doesn’t exist? What do you call what Hitler did?
And then I think you are saying that God is the source of all evil… “but it doesn’t exist”?
And this is something that I’ve been confused about for awhile …. you continuously state that the Bible is not valid… is translated incorrectly and not God inspired but then you also continuously use the Bible to suppport your points / beliefs…
Like here:
“But there is no actual scriptural passage that says Lucifer and Satan are the same.”
And here:
“But Isaiah 45: 6-7 says it all… That is where I get my belief from.”
You use passages of the Bible to support some of your beliefs but reject it to support other beliefs.
And you said: “Jesus was not a deity, never in the Bible did Jesus ever say he was a God. He referred to himself as the “son of Man” or the “Son of God.” But never claimed he was God.”
EE… he was put to death for claiming to be God…. (blaspheme)
you said: “He never once said he was one. He actually rejected the notion that he was a GOD. He said me and the Father are like one.”
No, He said ” I and the father are one” .. you added “like”.
25Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33″We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods'[e]? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
And when the Jews accused Him of claiming to be God, He did not deny it. Don’t you think He would have considering they were ready to kill Him for making that claim?
There are many passages that support the deity of Jesus.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Rebellion is not evil, Rebellion against GOD is. But just because one is Rebellious towards a religious organization does not mean it is evil. God created man, he did something he never did with even his most “perfect” creations. He gave man a part of himself. He gave man the spark of life. This does not mean man can become the same as GOD, but it does mean we have a greater potential than that of his messengers. Man has the ability and the knowledge to create and destroy. Man can do what no other creation on Earth can. We can touch the stars, we have the ability to understand how and why the universe works. We were created with this understanding already. But when Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This gave man a conscious, instead of us being perfect being oblivious to the harm we can cause we suddenly knew right from wrong. Cain knew that slaying his brother was wrong because of this. But all of Humanities quirks the ability to create, and destroy. The ability to have mastery over our GOD given domain. The energies, and elements within. Rebellion and Servitude all come from GOD. The wild card free will opens up countless possibilities. God knows each one, he tries to guide us, but we CHOOSE not to listen to HIM. He wants us to have the easiest path but mostly we CHOOSE not to take it. That is a gift and a curse, something he did not want us to have because he knew our full capabilities way before we ever ate that fruit. He wanted to protect us. That is what that parable is telling us. But we CHOSE to take the hard path, the serpent may have deceived and tempted Eve in the story but she made the CHOICE. Free Will is all about us having a choice to choose. We could have had the easy life according to the parable but that’s not what Adam and Eve chose for us. That parable holds one of the most meaningful lessons of all and the story of Cain and Abel accents that. The basic meaning is for every CHOICE you make there are consequences.
The story of Jesus, even though incomplete the basic meaning is still there, that meaning is GOD loves you, and wants you to be with him, and he will do anything for that to happen. I mean you really don’t understand the meaning of the story of Jesus until you become a parent. You can only imagine the sacrifice GOD made. The pain that caused him, the anguish, all because he wants his favored creations at his side, where we belong. But when you are a parent and think of that you can feel it, in a way you have a small understanding of just how much GOD really loves you. You become thankful to GOD for his gift of unconditional love. You become more humble before GOD. That is what you are supposed to do anyway. If you CHOOSE to Rebel against GOD, he allows it. He doesn’t want you to and hopes when you feel the Holy Spirit you do not deny it’s release and you give yourself over to him, when that Spirit fills your body and soul. In the end because of Jesus there really is no good or evil. There is just hardships and joys in your spiritual path to understand the lessons GOD wants you to learn. Unfortunately many believers do not understand fully these lessons. Mainly because there are crucial parts missing, but maybe he knew that was going to happen and he wants you to find those lessons. Maybe he wants you to see and understand the bigger picture and how everything fits into place perfectly. Even if you look at the smaller part and see nothing but the “bad” things. Maybe I am wrong, but the thing is I am as sure as rain that I am not. I am absolutely positive that GOD is trying to teach me something, but is telling me that a religion that was once based on his word has been distorted and incomplete. I know GOD is with me, his WORD is my compass, and the meaning of his lesson is my destination. I feel this in my heart of hearts. I feel this in a place that is reserved only for his warmth and glow. At times I feel the Spirit run through me and even though once I was bitter at him for not giving me clear direction. I see that he was I just had my eyes and ears shut to him. I see that many people including pastors, priests, and what have you are in the same boat. I see corruption not caused by GOD or some other influence but man’s own desire to be worthy in GOD’S eyes. I see the only way to heaven is through accepting his flesh and blood son as the messiah. That he placed all the sins of the world past, present, and future on him. Then even though it pained him dearly to do it pass Judgement on him. Jesus died and went to Sheol (The grave. Basically in Hebrew it ment in the ground, in a tomb. The misinterpretation of this is what spawned the idea of purgatory. Your body went there while your soul went to Abraham’s Busom. Which is not heaven, but it is a place where the faithful and those that followed GOD’S laws go. This is in Judaism. This is where Jesus went for three days. He was buried then presumably his soul went to Abraham’s Busom and then after the third day he went to heaven. Having went through with his judgement, this is what gives everyone who believes this a bridge into heaven.) But this is not the only thing GOD wants. He wants you to listen to him, feel him, walk with him. He wants to help you grow spiritually to a state of understanding. We are capable of this, but we choose not to. We still go to heaven without knowing the joys of life, because we are short sided. This is because we choose to be, we only see the sorrow in life rarely the good. Because we choose not to listen to the lessons GOD is trying to teach. And everyone has a different lesson to learn, everyone’s experiences and choices are different giving each human being a unique outlook and experience in life.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Are you sure I added like? Because the Greek scripture which is what a majority of the new testament was written in had like. But you are using a compass as a map. I can explain this much clearer. Satan was created by the Catholic Inquisition. The concept of Satan being a completely different being was created by the Catholic Church. So called demons that was never mentioned in the bible was created as a form of fear. This was to convert many people, but the brimstone and fire which was a warning in revelation was given life. Hell does not yet exist, but according to Christianity it does. The Gods of the old religion was turned into these demons. To cause fear and if fear for your immortal soul was not enough, then fear of bodily torture or death would be. This was done in the name of God and these lies are still being spread. Even though the Pagan Gods are false Gods in GOD’S eyes it does not give the church or any man the right to pass judgment on matters that concern GOD’S judgment. Even though these brutal practices are no longer used inciting fear to convert is. God does not want you to fear some mythical creature that does not exist. God wants you to fear and love him. He wants you to know he will pass fair judgment on those who ignore his covenants and laws. The ten he gave to Moses being the most important. This is in the scripture.
He did deny he was GOD. He said he was God’s Son. What he was talking about was GOD worked through him, and him being apart of the father is because he is his flesh and blood son. Made with GOD’S seed or essence. They are separate yet the same. I can say the same thing about my father and me. My father is in me and I in him because I come from him. He is apart of me as I am apart of him. He was talking about the bond between a father and son. There is 30 something years of Jesus’ life omitted. 30 something years of living as a man while both Joseph and GOD raising him. He is not saying they are the same being, but he works through him to bring the miracles and the teachings. And Jesus worked through GOD by giving GOD a closer understanding of his creation. The Holy Spirit is apart of GOD it is GOD’S hands that shape us and the world. But it still is not truly GOD. They are all apart of GOD. But at the same time not GOD the Father, the Teacher, the Judge, the Redeemer. To say otherwise takes a monotheistic religion and makes it a polytheistic which is something GOD expressly forbids.
LikeLike
k said
Then why was Jesus crucified by the Jews if it wasn’t for claiming to be God?
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
He was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God, or the Messiah which they believed to be untrue and it was a heresy and the punishment was death. This is evident in the crucifixion story in Luke mainly. I think it was told in John too.
Luke Chapter 23
63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
65 And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.
66 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,
67 Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:
68 And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.
69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.
Mark Chapter 14
60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
As was transcribed from the translation of the bible most Christians say is the true translation, the KJV clearly he was convicted and crucified for not being God but the SON OF GOD. The Messiah, King of the Jews. In 62 he said he will be sitting on the right hand of power. This refers to Jesus sitting on the right hand side of GOD when he passes judgement.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple,[a] going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
LikeLike
Anonymous said
I have a comment in moderation.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Which translation is this and which book and chapter? Because Mark chapter 14
58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
59 But neither so did their witness agree together.58, 59 In my bible reads
Luke chapter 22
58 And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.
59 And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean.
Above I typed the wrong number it should read Luke Chapter 22. Chapter 23 only has 56 verses and covers the actual death of christ. I would really like to know which translation you are using. As much as I hate some of the changes that was made it is the closest Ive seen to the Greek and Hebrew texts. Some translations added things the KJV did not have. For non Victorian language I use the NIV.
Corinthians 8:5-6 (English-NIV)
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
James 2:19 (English-NIV)
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that and shudder.
John 15:1-2 (English-NIV)
1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.
2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.
and my favorite because it rings true to today
2 Timothy 4:3 (English-NIV)
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
This sounds like a prophecy that came true huh?
1 Timothy 2:5 (English-NIV)
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
I can go on but I cannot find the passage you posted.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
John Verse 58 is not referring to the I AM in the Old testament. The Greek words “ego eimi” is not the same as what the Hebrew translated into. “ego eimi” is actually used to declare something the full text reads:
54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
The context he used that was he stating he is greater in the eyes of the Lord than Abraham was. Abraham is considered the most favored of GOD by the Jews. And the Thou art not yet fifty years old, actually refers to a Quabbalah belief that around fifty the practitioner will recieve a vision of Abraham. It would be like saying that “I am” in English is equating one with God for it is the word used by God in Hebrew. That is simply not true. Many say “I am” in the New Testament just as they say those words today without meaning they are God.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Here is something that someone who is better at translating Greek and Hebrew wrote.
1. Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. This is just not the case. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes:
Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.” [1]
2. The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be”—John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament.
At the Last Supper, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said, literally, “Not I am, Lord” (Matt. 26:22 and 25). No one would say that the disciples were trying to deny that they were God because they were using the phrase “Not I am.” The point is this: “I am” was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be God.
3. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the mind of God as God’s plan for the redemption of man. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Verse 56 is accurately translated in the King James Version, which says: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” This verse says that Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ, which is normally considered by theologians to be the day when Christ conquers the earth and sets up his kingdom. That would fit with what the book of Hebrews says about Abraham: “For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). Abraham looked for a city that is still future, yet the Bible says Abraham “saw” it. In what sense could Abraham have seen something that was future? Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ because God told him it was coming, and Abraham “saw” it by faith. Although Abraham saw the Day of Christ by faith, that day existed in the mind of God long before Abraham. Thus, in the context of God’s plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was “before” Abraham. Christ was the plan of God for man’s redemption long before Abraham lived. We are not the only ones who believe that Jesus’ statement does not make him God:
To say that Jesus is “before” him is not to lift him out of the ranks of humanity but to assert his unconditional precedence. To take such statements at the level of “flesh” so as to infer, as “the Jews” do that, at less than fifty, Jesus is claiming to have lived on this earth before Abraham (8:52 and 57), is to be as crass as Nicodemus who understands rebirth as an old man entering his mother’s womb a second time (3:4). [2]
4. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus’ “I am” statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God’s “I am” statement in Exodus 3:14. However, the two statements are very different. While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.” Thus the “I am” in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.
Buzzard, pp. 93-97
Dana, Letter 21, pp. 169-171
Morgridge, pp. 120-21
Norton, pp. 242-246
Snedeker, pp. 416-418
source: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=60
LikeLike
kay~ms said
From John Chapter 8 New International Version
42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
The Claims of Jesus About Himself
48The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”
49″I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.”
52At this the Jews exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. 53Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”
54Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
57″You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58″I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
I don’t know how you get that Jesus was claiming to be greater than Abraham when He says this:
“”before Abraham was born, I am!” ”
He is clearly stating that He existed before Abraham was born. And in verse 56 He implies that He knew Abraham by the nature of that statement.
The Jews didn’t grasp the concept of what Jesus was saying and possibly that is why they (may have) referenced the belief of receiving a vision of Abraham.
Just as they hadn’t grasped what Jesus was saying in verse 52… Jesus wasn’t talking about physical death.
And I also included the earlier verses because Jesus is referencing satan as a person and also demons.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
John 1 (New International Version)
John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.
6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.[b]
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15John 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.’ ” 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[e][f]who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
LikeLike
Anonymous said
Kay has a comment in moderation.
LikeLike
Anonymous said
EE, you said: “He was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God, or the Messiah which they believed to be untrue and it was a heresy and the punishment was death. ”
I found this at the website link below …
Some Objections to the Trinity Answered
Jesus is Son of God. From this, some cults try to show that Jesus is somehow less than God. But in Jewish imagery, ‘the son of’ often meant ‘of the order of’ or ‘having the very nature of’. For example, ‘sons of the prophets’ meant ‘of the order of prophets’ (1 Kings 20:35); ‘sons of the singers’ meant ‘of the order of singers’ (Nehemiah 12:28). Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries understood that He was claiming to be God, which is why they wanted to kill him for blasphemy (John 19:7).
This link lists many of the verses of the Bible that describe Jesus’ Deity.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/jesusgd2.htm
LikeLike
kay~ms said
The above post is me.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Okay I stand corrected. The term devil does appear in english translations as well as latin and greek and the “the: is infront of it. But this is in the New Testament. The translations of the new testament started coming out from the dark ages, but I will entertain the possibility that there could be actual beings named demons. But the bible does not list them in the Old Testament. It is debated and the majority accepts that these “demons” were the so called fallen angels that were cast out when Lucifer was. But that still shows GOD as being more powerful. But demon can also mean an extremely tormenting force, person, or passion. Which definition would also fit in many passages.
Before we go to John 1:1 let me beat you to it.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 further states:
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us”.
This suggests that the Word is the Father.
The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word. Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction? There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.
-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.
This is my reference for coming to this conclusion
Of course there is a huge debate to the actual theological accuracy of the Trinity Doctrine. Since in the passage you refer to that states “”before Abraham was born, I am!” ”
In greek it states:
58 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ἰησοῦς, ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.
now in another verse took at the words at the end ἐγὼ εἰμί. Which is a declarative word grouping.
John 9
9 ἄλλοι ἔλεγον ὅτι οὖτός ἐστιν· ἄλλοι ἔλεγον, οὐχί, ἀλλὰ ὅμοιος αὐτῶ ἐστιν. ἐκεῖνος ἔλεγεν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.
This is translated in the KJV as: 9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
Now why does ἐγώ εἰμι. Which does translate as I am. Is not special it shows up in a lot of places. This verse a beggar is talking to Jesus. Jesus asked where the blind beggar was. And the begger replyed I am. or I am he. Does this mean the beggar is saying he is God? No of course not. Why then is every instance of ἐγώ εἰμι. Translated basically as I am he. EXCEPT in that one verse? How does the Greek equivalent of declaring your presence, become declaration of Godhood? Especially when the correct way to declare godhood in the Greek language would look something like: ἐγώ εἰμι Θεός. Or something very similar Θεός basically means GOD. So how does two words of no more importance than someone saying I am going to the bathroom, a declaration of divinity? I will tell you the reason that is given so much importance where until the 17th century it was a foot note in a translators notes for at leat 4 or 5 itertations. So Jesus saying ἐγώ εἰμι which really can be used in many common ways to declare ones intent or self. It DOES NOT validate the Trinity Heresy. Especially when this is the only real place where it could be possible the idea of Trinity is scripturally sound. Now if he said something that translated into I am he, who is and will ever be. (This is what the Hebrew translates into in the most literal sense in Exodus.) In most translations God does not just say I AM. Or at least he did not, of course scripture was changed. The very words of GOD was changed so man could validate a false doctrine.
Do you think GOD is even remotely happy with Christianity. A religion that made HIS SON higher than him, in Christians eyes. In the name of the Father most Christians do not pray. In the name of the false Trinity doctrine do most Christians pray. In the name of Jesus do more Christians praise. But rarely does the MOST HIGH, (In Hebrew the word Adonai, is used to describe GOD as the MOST HIGH GOD. The word that was translated into Jehovah is the most sacred name for GOD and only Rabbi’s can speak it. This is in the Hebrew language.) The evidence is indeed there but Christians refuse to see the truth. They refuse to see Jesus was but a man. That Jesus is ONLY the Son of GOD, the mediator between man and GOD. But is not to be regarded as GOD.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;
11 Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and long suffering with joyfulness;
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
This scripture is a clear reference to GOD not Jesus. God did not have a plan for redemption before he created man. God’s plan for redemption was not made known until GOD showed this plan to Abraham. Jesus even said this, That Abraham saw the coming of the Messiah and rejoiced in it. This was made very clear in scripture. In an earlier post I have given many scriptural references that is clear that all Glory should goto GOD. Through GOD Jesus redeemed us of our sins. He could not have done it on his own. It is very clear in the Scripture. And the imagery in the Hebrew text points to the Messiah being the manifestation of the WILL of GOD. GOD’S WILL is not GOD.
#
2 Peter 1:4 also uses the same word ‘divine’.
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
So we can participate in the divine nature. Therefore:
# are we God?
# are we invisible?
# do we have eternal power?
No we are not God. We have not lived forever in the past and we are certainly not invisible. But we will share in God’s nature and yet we will not be God himself. We will be like him as we are images and we are his sons. So to have divine nature doesn’t make anyone God himself. Now have a look at Christ. He is greater than us, but his Father is greater than him. So he is between us and God.
#
1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Also as mentioned before John 1:1 shows us that the Word is not God himself but that the Word is like God. This is because John 1:1c doesn’t have an article preceeding the last word God. Therefore rather than talking about a person it is talking of a quality because the word “god” without the article is an adjective not a noun like the other instances of the word “God”in John 1:1.
Here is how Hippolytus (ca. 230 A.D) puts it.
The first and Only, both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself… He was One, Alone in Himself…. this Solitary and Supreme Deity, by an act of reflection, brought forth the Word first, not the Word in the sense of being expressed by voice, but as a Reason of the cosmos, conceived and residing in the Divine mind. Him alone He produced from existing things, for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced. The Word was in the Father Himself, bearing the will of his Progenitor, and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. For simultaneously with his procession from His Progenitor, inasmuch as he is this Progenitor’s firstborn, he has, as a voice in himself, the concepts conceived in the Father. And so it was, that when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Word one by one completed each object of creation, thus pleasing God…. God, who is the source of all authority, wished that the Word might render assistance in accomplishing a production of this kind…. The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Logos is God [that is, “deity,” in the sense of nature of substance], being the substance of God….
So Jesus is in class or likeness ‘god’ and we can be too. But in identity the only God is the Father. His nature originates in himself and he shares his nature. Just as Adam was the first human (the son of man) we are also men, but we are not Adam, rather we are or should I say were in Adam. We inherited the fleshly nature from him.
The Trinity teaches us that God is not the Father (exclusively), rather God is a substance and that substance has 3 personalities. So God is this one substance that contains 3 personalities. But scripture teaches that God is the Father and he shares his nature with his sons. The trick with the Trinity doctrine is it tries to convince you that you are praying to 1 God. So in order to present 3 as 1 they say 1 substance. But who prays to a substance? Would that not be like someone communicating with me by talking to my human nature (the flesh). No when you talk to me you are talking to who I am, not what I am. I pray to the Father because that is who God is. Jesus taught us how to pray to God. “Dear Father in heaven”. Jesus said “ask the Father in my name”.
But Trinitarian pray to the 1 substance and call upon any of the so-called 3 personalities that are contained within the so-called substance and they feel at liberty to interchange the identities while they are praying. They are clearly praying to 3 persons when they pray to God. But Christ taught us to pray to the Father in his name. He taught us how to pray to God correctly.
Now Jesus is known by these 2 titles:
# The son of God;
# The son of man.
John 5:18-19 (English-NIV)
18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
Here we can see that Jesus was accused of making himself equal with God, probably because of the Jewish custom that says that the eldest son is equal to his Father in the respect that he inherits all from his Father. Jesus reaction to this, is to point out that he can do nothing of himself, only what he sees his Father doing. In fact this scripture strongly reinforces the truth that his Father is his God and he (Jesus) is in submission to him. Again we make the same mistake as the Jews, if we use this scripture to say that Jesus is co equal to the Father. Whatever equality Jesus has with God was given to him by God, because all things originate in God.
Psalms 82:6 (English-NIV)
“I said, `You are “gods” (Elohim); you are all sons of the Most High.’
The writer of psalms is talking to the Jews. He is not telling the jews they are Gods, but rather like GOD in the respect they have the divine spark. The nature of GOD, or as the bible puts it the divine nature, because God gave it to us. God created man but man did not come from him. We are still his children but not his begotten. Jesus was begotten, or born from God’s essence or seed. Just as I am apart of my Father who impregnated my mother with his essence or seed. Just as I looked to my father for guidance, how to believe, what to do, my father’s actions helped shape me into me. But at the same time it would be preposterous to say that I AM my physical Father. It is ridiculous to say me and my Father are one in the same.0 The same concept goes for Jesus. GOD gave Mary his seed, God did not have sex with Mary rather GOD took a part of himself, and put it in Mary. Mary’s body reacted just as someone got her pregnant. Both Joseph and GOD raised Jesus. Both shaped him into the person he became so he can be the Messiah, and fulfill GOD’S plan.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
I reference a lot of things from here: http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity.htm
It has good stuff in it I suggest you to read it, so I don’t have to regurgitate it. I already have said what I believe GOD wanted me to say. His spirit filled me on this subject and I reacted the words just flowed out of me. But it is evident that is no longer the case so I am not going to try any longer. Maybe one day soon we will see who is right and who is wrong? With Jesus and God himself to clear these things up. There is not a clear consensus on this subject. Not every Christian believes Jesus to be GOD. And it has been like that since the Council of Nicea first introduced the Doctrine, this was well after the apostles, about 300 years. They introduced the doctrine to make it valid in the eyes of the predominately Pagan peoples. Pagan culture and beliefs since then has influenced the different Doctrines of Christianity. But this only confused things fractured something that was and should be clear.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
I’ll try to catch up on all the comments later but I want to point to something kay wrote (as does everyone else, it seems..heh):
“God is good and one way we know this is by His love for us… all of us. You cannot say that about any human being past or present. That is one of many ways in which we fall short of God.”
How do you know it’s love that inspires god? I wouldn’t say it is. I recently came across a post elsewhere that I’m currently working through on my own blog in a series I’ve called “Quotable theology.” From that writer I’m quoting:
“Either we present God as a mushy glow of love and compassion that would really like to do something about evil but either can’t or won’t, or we present him as he presents himself in scripture and push the problem back at the accuser.”
The writer’s impression can be summed up as, whatever god does is Good. But it seems to be “good” on a level humans will never understand or be able to emulate, nor should we try. “Good” in god terms makes room for genocide and harsh judgement on human behaviour. This behaviour lets you into paradise, that one burns your city to the ground.
God is not love. God was never about love. God has always been about fear, intimidation, vengeance and destruction.
God does not have human emotions. God is not human. I’ve gone so far as to suggest on my own blog that god is far more likely to be a well programmed machine. (Which lets me plug a series of books I like by Sharon Shinn – her Archangel/Samaria books are brilliant!) It’s the only way God could truly be objective, as the writer of that theology post suggests he is.
God does very little for objective reasons in the bible. Everything he does is for selfish, childish reasons that might make his chosen people feel good about watching their enemies burn and die, but that’s about it. Gods are what we make of them. What we need them for, they will be.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
So, jump ahead a thousand or so years into Christianity. Genocide is no longer a preferred method of dealing with a problem. The bible has a bunch of books of Paul’s letters (who saved them all!?) discussing what he thinks Jesus thinks about various things and devotes his life to pushing his new Christian ideology anywhere he can shove it.
Modern Christians improved on his style of proselytizing, and many have come up with new interpretations of what he might have meant. Today’s Christianity only reflects the modifications made by today’s believers. No matter how much you might say the bible is the root of all the answers, everyone is still free to interpret those answers any way they see fit.
I don’t care for Keller’s interpretation at all but he’s closer to the original god-belief than anyone else seems to be. Kind of have to admire his commitment to that, if nothing else. It’s retarded, but at least he’s committed. Personally, I think he should be committed and if everyone interpreted the Word like he does, then maybe we’d have an obligation to go to war over our ideologies. Fortunately not every Christian is as close minded as he is.
I think Christianity does have merit. I think even-keel believers can make a difference in the world and should make every effort to clean up their faith and make it admirable. I don’t think Keller and his ilk should get so much press. I don’t think their ambitions and life projects are anything worth promoting.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
1minionsopinion says, “Personally, I think he (bill keller) should be committed and if everyone interpreted the Word like he does, then maybe we’d have an obligation to go to war over our ideologies.”
funny she should say that.
here is keller on “a biblical case for war”
http://liveprayer.com/ddarchive3.cfm?id=3707
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
That’s the thing the Torah, and the various other books that make up the Old Testament actually explain this conundrum, and I believe they do it very well. God IS about love, but God is not only about love but everything else. They explain it as literally God is life. Life does not just consist of the good but also the bad. To live and be alive are really two different things. If you do not believe me go out and live, enjoy yourself and embrace every moment as it was a gift. This also includes the most horrible of the horrible that may happen to you. In the bigger picture these experiences make up who you are. God does not necessarily want you to fear him. Christianity wants you to think something along that lines. But it is easier to convert someone to a faith by creating a baseless fear, then say you will not need to be afraid if you do this. Some sects of Christianity actually teach that believing is not enough, you must be active and go to Church. They teach that is the only way to keep the Sabbath holy. They do not want you to explore or think for yourself. They do not want you to interpret the bible differently than the dogmas that particular sect teaches. This is the true problem with religion. The Council of Nicea, even though I think their interpretations should be rejected and new fresh interpretations should be made, they did these things to try to prevent war and strife between both Christianity itself and the Old Religion faiths. Historical accounts actually show that there was at least two different beliefs of who exactly Christ was. This was at the beginning. It got so bad there was actually fighting and killing in the streets. Both by these sects of Christianity and some Old Religion Sects. Christianity was persecuted for many years before the Council of Nicea. But Constantine was a tolerant Caesar. He was a follower of Isis as was a few other members on that Council. The Council of Nicea is what spawned the Holy Roman Catholic Church which spawned Christianity of today. The Catholic Church also still dictates heresy from true doctrine. Most sects follow what the Catholic Church has laid out, those that do not believe in these doctrines are called heretics, and sects of Christianity that teaches differently are called cults. Some of this doctrine created by the Council of Nicea was influenced by Old Religion theology. The trinity doctrine for example, it appears in many Old Religion doctrines. More specifically it is almost exact to the teachings of the Temple of Isis. Both the story of the Resurrection, as well as the Trinity Doctrine. This is what influenced both doctrines, and also made Christianity less grating turning it from a monotheistic religion to a polytheistic religion. It is then explained why it is still monotheistic by loose translations and in some cases alterations. Constintine and a few other members of the Council never truly converted. Constintine kept the Temple of Isis in Constantinople and actively and publicly worshiped there after the Council of Nicea. So how is the doctrines created by this Council inspired by God? When a few members that created some of these doctrines (Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ.) did not believe in THE MOST HIGH GOD, or that Jesus was the Messiah. Whether or not the actual events actually happened as said in the Bible there are some Historical Justifications that these events may have happened. Other than the cultural thing, the Hebrew word that could be translated into Jesus is not regarded highly. The fact that the biggest temple in Jerusalem, and at the time to be considered the center point of Judaism, was in fact split in two. There was a man named Yeshua that claimed he was the Messiah, He was crucified as was dictated by the ruling government at that time, Rome. The actual dates however differ from the earliest records found. Which is a reason why a lot of Christians reject scientific dating. It brings up questions that the Church really does not want to be asked. Now the New Testament as we know it, more than likely was transcribed many times after the original writing. Ever play telephone in school? One person says a word and it goes around to twenty people and that word becomes a sentence? Same concept over time of transcribing the transcribers own thoughts and beliefs could have been added. It is a very logical explanation. When the Christianity finally became recognized many clergy of the Old Religion, they explained it as new and confusing. After Constintine died the Temple of Isis was converted into a Catholic Church, this Church still has many of the symbols and statues that the original building, now refurbished over the many years and changed slightly, had. This is only the beginning of the organized Christianity.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
The funny thing is even in war you cannot truly justify killing. Someone who kills someone always will feel a small amount of guilt and that guilt grows and grows and grows until you cannot take it anymore. The same thing about all of the commandments. The punishment for sin is guilt, guilt is a very powerful thing. But GOD the Father can take away your guilt, all you have to do is pray. This is how the whole sin concept works, GOD created this it was apart of having knowledge of right and wrong. I find it funny that Bill Keller says there cannot be peace without war, its partially true but it is not a statement based on scripture or doctrine. It is based on logic, and it is sound. It’s just like in a pack of wolves or dogs, there is constant competition to become the Alpha male. Constant competition for hunting territories. Sometimes rival packs see that the most dominant pack in a region or area stopped expanding. From the perception of the rival Alpha Male this is a sign of weakness. So the rival pack starts hunting on the dominant packs grounds. Now with canine’s they have a very good sense of smell. So the dominant pack can smell the intruders. Sometimes a rival pack needs to be put in its place so they fight. It is just how nature works, how the strongest survive. The same with humans, currently the US is the dominant pack. In 2001 we looked weak, complacent. Another pack decided to bid for that position. Then we attacked back, we put them in their place because of that soon we will know peace time again. We do not get absolution, but that is not guaranteed, we do have the mastermind scared and hiding for fear of his life. Iraq now has a democratic government and we Afghanistan is on the way, from oppression to freedom. Looking at the bigger picture we proved our point, don’t believe me ask yourself this. How many cities in the US has been attacked by terrorists lately? I mean rudamentary it is how nature works, theologically GOD designed this system, he also designed guilt so you repent to THE MOST HIGH GOD AND NO OTHER.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
i’m curious e_e. the attack on fort hood, do you think that was a terrorist attack as some have suggested, or an unstable man?
i’m asking you this now, because keller is writing this
“***COMING TUESDAY!!!! The Fort Hood shootings is just another exmaple of Islam, being a relgion of “peace!” Don’t miss it!!!”
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
Flying Spaghetti Monster, preserve me in your delicious red sauce! I can’t possibly be on the page as Bill Keller. I said if everyone was like him we might MIGHT feel a war was necessary. I don’t want more war. More things need to be done the Canadian way. Talk it over until everyone is so damned bored and apathetic that they won’t even bother voting on the issue. I think that’s how we managed to hang onto Quebec when we had that referendum…
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
LikeLike
kay~ms said
This is in response to comment #36. I haven’t read the rest of the comments yet…
EE, you said: “Why then is every instance of ἐγώ εἰμι. Translated basically as I am he. EXCEPT in that one verse? How does the Greek equivalent of declaring your presence, become declaration of Godhood?”
Could it be because of the statement preceding it? “Before Abraham was born..” I think your position is that because of this Biblical translation that would mean that everytime someone says I am, they are declaring themselves God? That there can’t be any exceptions? “I am” are very basic necessary words in any language… but there can’t be any exceptions for it’s use? The preceding words support the “I am” translation”. And When you combine these words with all of the other testimony from Jesus and others, it is a long road to try and disprove the obvious message. And ultimately EE, it only makes sense for Jesus to be God, that is the only sacrifice that can remove our sins and make us righteous before God. If Jesus is just God’s son… he could be easily replaced with another son.. he is replacable… God is not. The Trinity makes more sense… I don’t know why you don’t want to accept Jesus as God. And that is not blasphemy; that is a twisted excuse much like ” believing that God cares about us is prideful”.
If the concept of the Trinity was just a made up theology… why wouldn’t the translators make it more clear, why did they leave in so much that seems to argue against the Trinity? If someone’s intent is to alter the truth, why wouldn’t they make it more clear so no one would question their false “truth”. There are too many passages that state Jesus’ Deity CLEARLY. Why didn’t they change that like all of the other things that you claim they have altered and changed?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
as per comment #36..
EE, you said: “Do you think GOD is even remotely happy with Christianity. A religion that made HIS SON higher than him, in Christians eyes. ”
This is more twisting of Christian beliefs. There are so many passages that state that there is only one God. And the Trinity theology is that all 3; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE. So how can Jesus the Son be higher than Himself? Jesus is not higher than the Father in “Christian eyes.” On the contrary, there are passages where Jesus states that He takes a lower position than the Father (in the concept of the Trinity).
You said: “That Jesus is ONLY the Son of GOD, the mediator between man and GOD. But is not to be regarded as GOD.”
Diminishing Christ is diminishing what He did on the cross. And that IS what you are doing. Again, considering Christ God is not blasphemy because they are ONE, just as Jesus stated. And exaclty what he was crucified for by the Jews.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
EE, you said: “I already have said what I believe GOD wanted me to say. His spirit filled me on this subject and I reacted the words just flowed out of me. ”
I have heard the Mormons make the very same claims… one of you has to be wrong already… or, of course, both of you are, which is what I believe.
You said: “And it has been like that since the Council of Nicea first introduced the Doctrine,”
EE, why do you suppose the Council came up with this “false” doctrine? Why would they want to make this up? Or what would make them believe this false doctrine? As I said earlier, there is much in the Bible that those who disagree could use to argue this doctrine… “sitting at the right hand of God” as one example. Why would they even try this “false” doctrine when there seems to be so much that goes against it?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
You said: “They introduced the doctrine to make it valid in the eyes of the predominately Pagan peoples.”
Why would they do that??? The council was made up of men who’s religion was their whole life.. and they are going to make such a fundamental change to appease the pagans?? And supposedly go AGAINST God?? That doesn’t make sense. It’s a silly conspiracy theory.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
As per comments 40 & 41…
You both are terribly confused… more twisting… this is what Bill says in that devotional concernign war…
“***We as a nation have every right, and even responsibility to defend ourselves from those who would destroy us. Much like the children of Israel had a right and responsibility to defend themselves from those nations that would try to destroy them, there are evil forces in this world who would love to see the United States cease to exist. Thankfully, our forefathers understood this and defended our country to their death so that we could enjoy the great freedom and liberty we enjoy today. It is now our turn to defend this nation from its enemies to insure that our children have the same freedoms should the Lord tarry in His return.”
Defending ourselves and going out to force others to follow our ideologies are two COMPLETELY different things…
We are at war DEFENDING ourselves BECAUSE the other side is trying to force their ideologies on us. That is Bill’s stance on war… please stop twisting and making ignorant and false assumptions.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
1minion, you said: “How do you know it’s love that inspires god? ”
There are infinite signs that say so but as one example and probably the most prominent example to all people is to just use our eyes. And look at everything around you.
After reading your comment(s) it is so obvious that you view is extremely narrow… you have “tunnel vision” literaly! This is no doubt going to sound corny…..but all I have to do is look up at the sky. It is beautiful and I’m not even talking about a sunset or sunrise… why is it so beautiful? It just happened that way? That is one view. Another more logical, sensible view would be that it is God’s intention for it to be beautiful… and why would that be His intention? Could it be because He loves us and wants to give us these beautiful things to see and experience? No doubt, atheists could come up with some ulterior motive… but then would they still be atheists?? .. anyway..
For atheists to be atheists, they have to ignore so much. And to say that God is not about love also requires ignorance of so much that is around us.. and in us. It requires a focus on only the negative and none of the positive… Atheism is a “church” who’s main theology is “until all the answers are revealed, I will not believe”. Which when translated is us little peons trying to “call the shots” with our Soveriegn Creator. No ego and pride issues there.
They’ll put their trust in humans and their science that proves faulty all the time before they will put their trust in God… and trust that He is just even if we can’t see it right now. He can create all of existence but is still not worthy of our trust. He is “wrong” and “unjust” according to us mortals who apparently know everything.
You said: “So, jump ahead a thousand or so years into Christianity. Genocide is no longer a preferred method of dealing with a problem. The bible has a bunch of books of Paul’s letters (who saved them all!?) discussing what he thinks Jesus thinks about various things and devotes his life to pushing his new Christian ideology anywhere he can shove it. ”
Once again, a favorite practice of atheists and non Christians… a referrence to the actions of “Christians” (humans with faults) that supposedly defines Christianity. Can I do the same for you all? An atheist just the other day did the most horrible thing, gunning down people in an office building… see! atheists are horrible evil people. This man believed in killing others as an answer to his problems so of course, all atheists believe the same.
Who saved Paul’s letters? Are you implying that that is not reasonable? Paul is one of the most inspiring stories of the New Testament… how many people do you know today that were so “militant” about one belief to the point where they were causing people to be killed and then do a complete turn around and give their lives for the very cause that they were fighting??
If I had a letter written by someone like that, I’d keep it. Especially if it was concerning my own faith that was the center of my life.
you said: “God does very little for objective reasons in the bible. Everything he does is for selfish, childish reasons that might make his chosen people feel good about watching their enemies burn and die, but that’s about it.”
See.. that “tunnel vision” convieniently doesn’t let you see the ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT! Which is summed up in John 3:16 …
16″For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Tunnel Vision def. Seeing only what you want to see.
LikeLike
k said
kay has a comment in moderation.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Why would they do that??? The council was made up of men who’s religion was their whole life.. and they are going to make such a fundamental change to appease the pagans?? And supposedly go AGAINST God?? That doesn’t make sense. It’s a silly conspiracy theory.
Constantine who was the head of the Council was not a Christian, he supported it and started allowing it in Rome, but was not one. There was him and at least two of his advisers, priests in the Temple of Isis, that was on the Council of Nicea. As for why would they do that? Because they where arguing with one another and killing each other in the streets. The biggest concern of that time was whether Jesus was GOD or not. This is not the only integration of Pagan doctrines in Christianity. Christmas, originally called Yule, it was a time of togetherness on the coldest day of winter families got together to stay warm and have a good time. This turned into Christ’s Birthday. It doesn’t matter if this is the true Birthday of Christ, it was turned into a holiday to appease the Pagans and to get them to Convert. Other holidays Easter, which actually falls around the same time as another two holidays Ostera, and Beltaine. Ever wonder where we get the Easter Bunny from? Coloring Eggs and what not it was Pagan in origin. Beltaine is regarded as a time when the Earth is Resurrected by Spring. The seasons also was taught to be the cycle of life birth, midage, oldage, death, rebirth. See Christianity took other Holiday’s as their own, why would they do that? Why would they make fundamental changes like that? For conversion, to become the dominant religion in the world. To make it familiar, inviting. There is no conspiracy it is what it is.
I have heard the Mormons make the very same claims… one of you has to be wrong already… or, of course, both of you are, which is what I believe.
I have heard Baptists make the same claims, I have heard these claims in Presbyterian Churches, I have heard these claims in Evangelical Free Churches, this is all about the Holy Spirit or the hands of GOD. Bash on those Churches too? Would you rather have a church be cult like, like the Catholic, Lutheran, and Episcopalian? The only time someone in the congregation speaks is during the repeat sections out of their little book. Or the closed of nod with no murmuring? The very definition of rejecting the Holy Spirit from moving through you?
Diminishing Christ is diminishing what He did on the cross. And that IS what you are doing. Again, considering Christ God is not blasphemy because they are ONE, just as Jesus stated. And exaclty what he was crucified for by the Jews.
I am not Diminishing Christ, nor am I diminishing what He did on the cross. Really my views cannot truly do that. Christ was the Messiah, the mediator between GOD and MAN but not GOD. THIS IS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT SEVERAL TIMES. Jesus was Crucified for saying he was the SON OF GOD. God’s First Born Child. You do not understand the significance of this, just like with languages things and ideas can be lost in the translation. The first born in Hebrew culture is regarded as the successor, the one who inherits everything upon the Father’s Death. So for Jesus to say he was the Son Of God, is not saying he is GOD, but he is saying he is higher in stature than any man that has ever been born. He put himself above Abraham, above Moses, above all the other Jewish prophets, teachers, and people who listened to GOD. This was the blastphemy he commited, this is why he was crucified. Because him saying he is the SON OF GOD, he put himself before any man including those that the Jews regarded as the most favored of GOD. Jesus saying he was the SON OF GOD, shook the very foundations of Judaism. Jesus saying Before Abraham was, I am. Is not him saying he is GOD but in the eyes of the society at that time he said that he was Before Abraham. Most literally that is what the translation is. But it is not what that sentence means.
You say I am too hung up on translation? Yes because converting another language to English is sometimes confusing. English is a unique language it has rules that other languages do not. And other languages have rules and sentence structure English does not. Like declaritives in English go before the noun. I am EE. That is a proper declaritive sentence. But in Greek and other languages the Noun comes first then the declaritive. The I am would be at the end of the sentence for everyone. Then rough translation would bring it back to I am … This is how things get lost in translation because of the rules of the different languages. So yes something that is regarded as the WORD OF GOD should be translated very carefully with all of the rules of the language in mind. Most native English speakers do not know all of the proper grammar, because of the rules and exceptions. Have you ever put A french paragraph in Google to translate it? What comes out sometimes makes no sense. But the French language structure is different. For instance Joe and John goes into Claudette’s house. would read: Joe et John entre dans maison Claudette. Translating it back word for word entirely would read Joe and John enter house Claudette. We understand the basic meaning of this sentence but it is not grammatically correct in English. So to make this sentence grammatically correct it would have to read Joe and John enter Claudette’s house.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
EE, this site,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
tells a slightly different story about the Council and the Creed.
First, Constatine was not the head of the council, but he did convene it…
“The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine I upon the recommendations of a synod led by Hosius of Cordoba in the Eastertide of 325. This synod had been charged with investigation of the trouble brought about by the Arian controversy in the Greek-speaking east.[7] To most bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and dangerous to the salvation of souls. In the summer of 325, the bishops of all provinces were summoned to Nicaea (now known as İznik, in modern-day Turkey), a place easily accessible to the majority of them, particularly those of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.”
Constantine actually invited all 1800 Bishops but approximately 250 to 318 bishops attended, from every region of the Empire except Britain.
And the Council was put together to “create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. ”
There is no mention of pagans anywhere…” The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from WITHIN the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was the literal son of God or was he a figurative son, like the other “sons of God” in the Bible.”
I always wondered.. if Constantine’s objective was to manipulate the truth, why would he have invited so many Bishops? Wouldn’t that make it harder for him to change the doctrine especially if it’s changing the “truth” to appease a group of people?
And I still cannot believe that hundreds of Bishops would agree to change such fundamental doctrine as Jesus being God or not just to stop the fighting between pagans and Christians as you have said.. it doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
It was to stop the infighting between Christians, which the Pagan population got caught in the middle at times since it happened in the streets, so violence against Christians was once again on the rise. After the Council decided on which was heretical and which was not, they destroyed and in some cases killed people who believed, in the Arian Doctrines. Also after the Council Constantine was going to give Arius an audience to speak his case, and present evidence that his beliefs where based on. He died before this meeting, while going number 2. His death was not a violent death, meaning it was not caused his body just couldn’t take the strain. I don’t know if his evidence was recovered with the body or not. The fact is Constantine, the Emperor of the Roman Empire, at the time was the most powerful man on Earth. He was Emperor of the biggest Government in that time. His words held a lot of weight, it could have been possible that his commentary listened to the most. The true accounts more than likely are sealed in the Vatican’s library with many writings that it has no business holding. The fact that The Catholic Church, which like it or not was and still is the leading sect of Christianity and still dictates what is Christian Doctrine and what is not, has a history of hiding and changing the truth. There are a lot of secrets in the Vatican. Any organization that keeps any kind of secrets with no way for a parishioner to learn them, should be viewed suspiciously. I mean there is a lot of history of Christianity decieving, manipulating, and controlling for its own gain. There are still sects of Christianity that do at least one of those things. In the past behind every Government leader was a Clergyman of the Church. Throughout history, the only exception is America. It would be different if things have changed, but they have only changed slightly. But for the most part except for a small minority, humankind tend to follow the leader, sometimes blindly without question. But why shouldn’t we go and see the truth for ourselves instead of letting others, many that are ignorant in certain truths, tell us what the truth is? Some people that tell so called “truths” are very ignorant. I can give a few examples, there is a book about cults written by a Christian Theologian that talks about certain religions beliefs, but what those religions actually believe is very different. There is so much propaganda out there and it is spread so thick it is hard to tell what is bullshit and what is not. It all boils down to an individuals interpretation of God and the Scriptures. So I am not saying my views are infallible because that would be like me saying I am infallible, which I assure you I am not. But I am saying it makes more sense to me. And I really do like your commentary Kay, because you have different views and you help get my point across. I have agendas but they are not hidden I say them every once in a while. I want people to think for themselves, and not believe something because a pastor, or someone else said it. I don’t truly care if anyone else shares my views, but I want people to see opposing views. You have come a long way in the game of debate Kay. You present your points a lot clearer and provide more physical evidence than just Bill Keller said so. I don’t care what anyone else says about you, you have become a worthy opponent.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
EE said: “I have heard Baptists make the same claims, I have heard these claims in Presbyterian Churches, I have heard these claims in Evangelical Free Churches, this is all about the Holy Spirit or the hands of GOD. Bash on those Churches too? ”
I wasn’t “bashing” any churches… my point was that you could have been mistaken… that one of you was for sure (you or the Mormon) but again I believe both of you were mistaken. Many people make the claim that the Holy Spirit spoke to them and they can’t all be right because what they’ve “heard” is contradictary … even Bill Keller admitted that he misread what God had said to him when he predicted that Gore would win the presidency.
You said: “So for Jesus to say he was the Son Of God, is not saying he is GOD, but he is saying he is higher in stature than any man that has ever been born. ”
From this site… http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/jesusgd2.htm
“some cults try to show that Jesus is somehow less than God. But in Jewish imagery, ‘the son of’ often meant ‘of the order of’ or ‘having the very nature of’. For example, ‘sons of the prophets’ meant ‘of the order of prophets’ (1 Kings 20:35); ‘sons of the singers’ meant ‘of the order of singers’ (Nehemiah 12:28). Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries understood that He was claiming to be God, which is why they wanted to kill him for blasphemy (John 19:7).”
You said: “I am not Diminishing Christ, nor am I diminishing what He did on the cross. Really my views cannot truly do that.”
No, they can’t literally but you can misguide people to believe a false theology. What is so wrong about believing in the Trinity? It does not make Jesus “higher” than God because they are all One. When someone is praying to Jesus, they are praying to Jesus and God as One.
And again, how could God’s Son be able to take away our sins?? We are all His “sons”… and if Jesus was just His Son (and not God), that would make Him replacable… God is not. His plan was for a one time sacrifice for all the sins of mankind. That couldn’t be done with something that was replacable. Just as the animal sacrifices were required over and over before Jesus.
You said: “Christ was the Messiah, the mediator between GOD and MAN but not GOD. THIS IS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT SEVERAL TIMES.”
Where was it stated several times that Jesus is not God?
You said: “So yes something that is regarded as the WORD OF GOD should be translated very carefully with all of the rules of the language in mind. ”
There is no reason to think that the translators were not careful and fully aware of how important it was to get it right.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Oh I didn’t mean that Constantine had an objective, but his own biased views may have influenced some of the doctrine. I mean there is no physical evidence that he had an objective, but it is a possibility whether inadvertently or not that his views may have influenced some of the scriptural doctrines and the things that should and should not be included in the New Testament. But based on how Christianity made Pagan Holidays into their own, putting their own brand of spin just to lure potential converts. I would say it is a possibility that some doctrines could have been made for that reason as well. But we may never know the full truth. The Vatican has a very strict policy on viewing the things in its vault. It is something that has more red tape than getting any type of information from our government. Which I must say is a lot. And IF you get through that red tape you may be waiting from between 5-50 years, just to get permission. There is also so much writings and artifacts that it would probably take more time than it is worth to find the information you want. For an organization with nothing to hide it sure gives you a hard time if you want to access any of that information.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
EE said in comment #38.. “Not every Christian believes Jesus to be GOD. And it has been like that since the Council of Nicea first introduced the Doctrine, this was well after the apostles, about 300 years. They introduced the doctrine to make it valid in the eyes of the predominately Pagan peoples.”
So, do you still hold to this? This is clearly not the case… the Council did not “introduce” the doctrine… it was a belief among most Christian churches and it was the teachings of Arius (that Jesus was not One with God) that was the concern and the reason for the Council.
” To most bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and dangerous to the salvation of souls.”
And again, pagans don’t even enter the picture. They were of no concern in relation to Christian doctrine.
I don’t mean to pick on you EE, but you are stating things as fact that just aren’t true and these things are the very basis of Christian belief. And DO diminish what Jesus did on the cross. Do you still hold to the belief that Jesus is not God? Based on what? I’ve disproved or given valid arguments to everything you’ve used to support your claim. And again, why do you not want to believe that Jesus is God? It is and always has been the Christian belief. It certainly was NOT “introduced to make it valid in the eyes of the predominately Pagan peoples.”
If you truly want people to think for themselves and not believe “lies” then shouldn’t you make sure that you are not perpetuating any? Please leave the bias out and then you will accomplish what you say you want to do.
And that you haven’t answered most of my questions that argue logically against your view, I am inclinded to think that you can’t answer them and still comfortably hold onto your views. Did you just ignore them and put them out of your mind? So that you could believe what you want to? I sense a lot of bias here.. just like with TBG and Hors and 1minion and on and on and on.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
Catching up and referring to portions of #52:
“After reading your comment(s) it is so obvious that you view is extremely narrow… you have “tunnel vision” literaly! This is no doubt going to sound corny…..but all I have to do is look up at the sky. It is beautiful and I’m not even talking about a sunset or sunrise… why is it so beautiful? It just happened that way? That is one view.”
Yeah, it’s the way the sun makes rainbows out of water droplets, why the sky is pink and yellow and purple and blue. It’s what light does as it passes through the atmosphere, like light through a prism bends the waves/particles into those wavelengths. I admired the beauty of the sky this morning on the way to work, actually. It was confection of colours. Brilliant. The fact that we interpret it as beautiful has more to do with our ability to decide what defines beauty rather than an intention on any deity’s part to put it there for us to see.
“For atheists to be atheists, they have to ignore so much. And to say that God is not about love also requires ignorance of so much that is around us.. and in us. It requires a focus on only the negative and none of the positive… ”
No dear. I just admire and appreciate the world in a different way than you do. It’s not ignorance. It’s just different. I’m willing to take it as it is, without assuming there is a purpose to it beyond what it is. A flower is first and foremost for the bees that helps it pass its genes around. A flower’s purpose is to attract the bees. That I also think it’s beautiful is purely secondary.
“An atheist just the other day did the most horrible thing, gunning down people in an office building… see! atheists are horrible evil people.”
Source please, or were you trying to make a point that atheists can also do bad things? I know we can. But when we do, it’s not because some 2000 year old book said it was okay to do it. If that actually happened somewhere, hopefully we’d find out why he flipped his lid and then maybe he’d get some help or prison or something.
“Who saved Paul’s letters? Are you implying that that is not reasonable?”
No, I’m just asking. People must have cared more about correspondence back then, to hang onto their mail, is all. Who had the pain in the butt job of collecting every piece to assemble into the books? That must have been a chore and a half.
I have to go back to work. I’ll address the tunnel vision thing later. I’ll just point out that I think it’s fair to remind Christians of who their god used to be, what Yahweh used to get away with, and who he was doing it for. Jesus was also a Jew, you know.
LikeLike
dorian said
kay, really now…do you think what you just said does not apply to you? i sense a lot of bias there. just because others’ answers aren’t what you want to hear doesn’t mean they didn’t answer you. and don’t you believe what you want to believe and want to hold on to your views? c’mon now. this is the kind of thing that drives princess to a rage.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Dorian, of course I’m bias… but I don’t let it influence what I pass off as “truth” or “fact”. That’s my point. Clearly, EE wants people to believe that Jesus is not God, but he uses false and incorrect information (because he lets his bias influence him)… I clearly want people to believe the opposite but I do not use false information to convince people. I don’t post speculation concerning historical events as “fact” when it is just someone’s opinion from some (non believer’s) commentary.
“and don’t you believe what you want to believe and want to hold on to your views? c’mon now. this is the kind of thing that drives princess in a rage.”
Yes, there are certain things that I want to believe but I don’t ignore contrary information in the process.
I really don’t know what drives Princess into a rage… he claims it’s people who lie but he knows darn well that I’m not lying when he accuses me of such.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
1minion said: “Yeah, it’s the way the sun makes rainbows out of water droplets, why the sky is pink and yellow and purple and blue. It’s what light does as it passes through the atmosphere, like light through a prism bends the waves/particles into those wavelengths.”
And..
“A flower is first and foremost for the bees that helps it pass its genes around. A flower’s purpose is to attract the bees. ”
This always gets me… apparently the atheist “doctrine” is that if it can be explained scientifically.. it disproves God. Why? Please explain this groundless conclusion. It’s implying that a Supreme Being wouldn’t be capable of understanding science… it’s silly.
“A flower’s purpose is to attract the bees.” Purpose of who? The purpose of accident?
When I stated that atheists have to ignore so much, I was not saying that you ignore the beauty or that you don’t appreciate it. I’m saying that you are ignoring the thought involved / required. To think it all happened (including us) by accident is the most ridiculous and desperate belief imaginable. It’s tunnel vision. That’s what I mean about ignoring so much.
You said: “Source please, or were you trying to make a point that atheists can also do bad things? I know we can. But when we do, it’s not because some 2000 year old book said it was okay to do it. ”
What difference does it make what the reason is behind a horrible act??? Does one reason make it less horrible than another? No, it doesn’t. And once again, I’ll point out that the people who did horrible acts using the Bible as justification were / are wrong and do not represent what Christianity is. And they don’t represent all Christians.. just as you don’t want anyone to believe that a lunatic atheist gunman represents all atheists.
You said: “I’ll just point out that I think it’s fair to remind Christians of who their god used to be, what Yahweh used to get away with, and who he was doing it for. Jesus was also a Jew, you know.”
This is you judging God. Of course, you know more about these situations than He did / does.
And yes, I know that Jesus was a Jew… I’m not getting your point.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay, I have an open mind and heart to truth. Unlike you, when incontrovertible evidence is presented to me that conflicts with whatever views I hold, I do not ignore the evidence. I change my views because I am faithful to what is true.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
You seriously believe such a lame excuse as Bill Keller came up with to justify belief in a young earth, that God created it in a “mature form”? Where does it say THAT in the Bible? It’s an old argument called the Omphalos argument that claims the earth was created with fossils in place. Another Christian explanation I have heard for the fossil record is that Satan planted the fossils. Again, why would God try so hard to deceive us?
When creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, that is an utter and complete lie. Those who claim that probably sincerely believe that because that is what they have been told to believe, not because they’ve checked the evidence for themselves. Look for “transitional fossils” in any search engine and you’ll see many many examples, including from ape to human.
Those who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis make no sense to me. Why insist on literal there but not other places in the Bible? Why can’t Genesis be an allegory to teach us moral lessons and not a science textbook? Like I said, if Genesis IS literally true, then God is a liar to make it look otherwise in everything we can observe and measure that says otherwise, and there’s a LOT we can observe and measure, a LOT more than what was known about when the Bible was written.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
rage…rage…RAGE…
oh, come on, you guys, check your mayan calanders.
it’s my time of the month again.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
“This always gets me… apparently the atheist “doctrine” is that if it can be explained scientifically.. it disproves God. Why? Please explain this groundless conclusion. It’s implying that a Supreme Being wouldn’t be capable of understanding science… it’s silly.”
Why is it silly?
Why is it odd to look for reasons for why things are the way they are?
We don’t have to disprove god. We already think god is a figment of human ingenuity built by humans to explain and rationalize things that couldn’t be known or understood at the time.
The way we see it: the more we learn, the less need there is to use “god did it” as a gap filler. “God did it” isn’t an answer to anything. What it does instead encourage people to resist finding answers, or to only seek out answers that this god would approve of, rather than finding out what’s real and measuring it objectively without religious bias in the way.
Feel free to think there is a god, though. Think he’s the embodiment of love and goodness and justice across the universe if you want. Whatever makes you feel good about the world and your place in it.
I’m under no obligation to follow suit.
“What difference does it make what the reason is behind a horrible act??? Does one reason make it less horrible than another? No, it doesn’t”
Life is never as black and white and if/then as religions want to paint it. Reason makes a lot of difference. It aids compassion and understanding if you make a point of finding out why people do what they do.
A boy pushes another kid off a bike. Why? Does it matter? Absolutely. What if the kid was stealing the boy’s bike at the time? Is the boy a bully who torments everyone he comes across, or did his mother just die and he’s never had to deal with this level of grief before and lashes out instead of cries?
“And once again, I’ll point out that the people who did horrible acts using the Bible as justification were / are wrong and do not represent what Christianity is.”
Why are they wrong, if what they did was part of a book that’s included in the bible and the whole bible is supposed to represent all the words of your just, good, and loving Christian god? Are you following all the words of your just, good, and loving Christian god, or only the ones that fit your current outlook on life?
“This is you judging God. Of course, you know more about these situations than He did / does.”
No, that was me describing god as presented in the available books and how humanity’s need for a god has had to adjust things to fit the new ways to live and think. I only know what’s reported in the bible.
If I judge the deity, it’s only by what he does that I disagree with. But since he’s a deity and not a human being, I wouldn’t be able to hold him to the same standards I expect of humans anyway.
I expect humans to behave better than god.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
I don’t mean to pick on you EE, but you are stating things as fact that just aren’t true and these things are the very basis of Christian belief. And DO diminish what Jesus did on the cross. Do you still hold to the belief that Jesus is not God? Based on what? I’ve disproved or given valid arguments to everything you’ve used to support your claim. And again, why do you not want to believe that Jesus is God? It is and always has been the Christian belief. It certainly was NOT “introduced to make it valid in the eyes of the predominately Pagan peoples.”
I see your point kay, yes it was a doctrine there before but did you ever find out what happened to those that believed in the Arius Doctrine? They were mostly killed and their doctrines burned, except for a select few that are being held secretively in what is now the Vatican Vault. This was not the last time this happened. The Crusades, Friday the 13th, the inquisition. Just a few examples of the Church burning or keeping relics for themselves, and not letting the population access except for a select few. You have given valid arguments, but you have not disproven anything. There are very close similarities to the trinity doctrine and the same teachings different sects of the Old Religion hold, I mean almost exactly the same. Especially in respect to the Horus story. The fact the Horus story and the Resurrection of Jesus as it is said in the bible is very close. But yet there is no possibility that these Christian Doctrines can be related? Nor is there any possibility that these doctrines where revised and changed to make it easier to convert? The story of Horus basically breaks down like this Horus lives for around 33 34 years, during those years he teaches man, Some priests do not like his teachings and they kill him. He goes into the underworld for 3 days kills Set and Resurrects to take the place of the Egyptians most Supreme God, RA. He becomes Horus-Ra. Let’s look at the break down of the story of Jesus, as taught by Christianity (Including the Mormons,and Jehova’s Witness which it is my personal belief that they are in the same false teachings as Christianity. I don’t recognize their Doctrines either. I say this because you seem to be confused on the subject.)
Jesus lived for 30something years, he taught about spirituality and how to worship God. His teachings went against the Jewish priests and because he claimed himself to be the SON OF GOD, he was crucified. He died and went into the underworld for three days. Now those three days in the underworld there is no explanation for what he did there. Then he ascended to Heaven to sit at the right Hand of God.
Both stories are different, yes but they are very similar. Constantine who was the Emperor who had the power just by saying one word could kill anyone he wants. He was both loved and feared, but looking at the Roman Empire’s Culture he was mostly feared. So it is possible that his views may have changed somethings to his liking. You cannot argue that Christianity did not create holidays that happened on the or close to the same Pagan Holidays. Nor can you deny that many of the most beloved deities were turned into saints. Given “Angelic” names. Saint Bridget of Ireland is but one example of many. Or the fertility rituals and practices where adopted by the Christian Church. Hunting for painted eggs was a way to teach kids of fertility and the cycle of life. There was other rituals that involved painted eggs during the festival of Ostera, but I will not get to those. The Christian Church did these things in the hopes of converting Pagans, so why couldn’t they adopt Pagan Doctrines making them into their own with the same gain?
Here is something else Wikipedia will not tell you but historical documents may, During the early days of Christianity before the Council of Nicea. There was at least five factions, unfortunately the Church destroyed the exact number through anthropology we learn that there may have been five but there was at least two for a conflict to exist. This was before the New Testament was even decided on. Fights broke out, some historical documents of Rome explains some of those fights were over doctrines, translation desputes, and other things Rome refused to judge on. There was fighting for many years and innocent people that did not hold the same religious views, and at that time was the leading Gentile religion. They were getting angry that their family members were getting killed in fights that a practice they did not believe in, so this social climate had nothing to do with Constantine calling together the Council of Nicea? Constantine is throughout historical documents known as a just and fair ruler. Most of his decisions was made with the best interest of his charges in mind. To say this was not to stop the violence, against both Christian and Pagan religions is absurd. Because the violence is well documented. It is also funny that any opponents of Doctrine after the Council usually ended with the death or exile of that opponent. Socrates is a good example. In some cases opponents of Christianities Doctrine’s were told it was easier to commit suicide if they did not publicly say they were wrong.
I have not backed down, I follow no religious doctrine or creed because I believe religion is both a form of control, and manipulation. I do follow my own ethical code which I believe is right. Which is what “good” and “evil” boils down to and I do think you have presented a good case to show that in the respects of the existence of “good” and “evil” is nothing more than someone justifying their own actions, beliefs, and ideals. The point of all my debates is to show multiple sides of one argument not just my own. I am not trying to change anyone’s beliefs that is not my goal. If people agree with my beliefs then they do so because they did not believe the “sanctioned” beliefs anyway. You accuse me of trying to lead people astray with “false doctrines” but I could say the same about you. I am just giving my opinion on a matter of faith which cannot be adequately proven or dis proven due to lack of untampered evidence. That is what faith is, the belief in something that does not have the proper evidence to be proven or disproven.
Now to make my closing statement because I believe my view has been adequately made. I have provided scriptural evidence that supports my claim as I see it. Philosophical and Theological debates never end with a clear victor. Since it is based on views that a person has of the world. These views are based on life experiences, and one who truly believes their views will not change them. But they will stop debating the topic because there simply is nothing left to say. see because this debate is not to change your mind but to show all the readers my point of view and how I validate it. Whether or not you see it as a valid view or not does not matter. Because each individual really does not matter in the Big Picture. We like to think we do but the truth is we do not. George W. Bush Jr. is fresh in our minds now but ten years from now when it becomes how it was before this whole farce that is the war on terror disappears from the public mind, just as any other minor conflict has after World War II. There will be some new issue that will captivate the American Social Way of Thinking.
As for 2012 just like many do, for about ten years infact, we will laugh about the fear we allowed religion and conspiracy theorists caused. If you do not know to what I am referring it was known as Y2K which was brought the world into a state of fear. This fear was perpetuated by religion and the mass media. Or religion and the fears of the masses are correct and the world as we know it will end. But the same thing was said about Y2K, and yet here we are. I believe that one day, not in my lifetime, we will travel the stars with the Earth still standing as it has for billions of years. And those people will live in a world that has no conflict or fear. That what is perceived as “human nature” now is laughed at because we never truly understood it.
I would also like to point out I am not presuming the thoughts of God, but I am giving my interpretations of something that is perceived as inspired by God. I think there is a God, but it has no sex, race, or even a physical form as we know it. I believe there is an Intelligent Design, because everything works too well for it all to be not part of a Bigger Picture we always will try to see but never will completely.
I would also like to point out I have not been speaking from any religions doctrine but my own true beliefs and being, this comes like every individual from personal spiritual and physical life experiences. If I am wrong then I am wrong and I know the consequences, but I do not believe I am. I welcome the day when I truly know if I am right or wrong, which will be the day I die physically in this world.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Regarding the Christ-Horus connection and other messiah stories with the same details that predate Christianity, the official Christian explanation is that Satan went back in time to plant these stories first to make it look like Christianity was copying them! I’m not making this up! This is as retarded as saying Satan planted the fossils to make us think evolution happened.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
I know, I heard something different that these stories actually prophecies and I have heard Trinitarians actually use these stories as “proof” that the trinity exists.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
EE, you said: “I see your point kay, yes it was a doctrine there before but did you ever find out what happened to those that believed in the Arius Doctrine? ”
Ok, you admitted it for two seconds and then moved on to another point that has nothing to do with the original point. I hope that you are more consciencious in the future about posting things that are not true.
I have to tell you that because you haven’t given any explanation and have bearly acknowledged the misinformation you posted, that I am cautious now about anything you state as “fact”.
If it is true what you say happened to the followers of Arius’ doctrine… it doesn’t affect the truth that the doctrine that Jesus is God did exist before the council and was not “introduced” at the council and especially not for the pagans. I stay on this because it is very damaging misinformation and I hope that you don’t intend to spread it anymore. This is similar to TBG spreading the lie that Jesus didn’t fulfill any of the Mesianic prophesies. Both of you are guilty of spreading lies that you too quickly believe because it is what you WANT to believe. I cannot take anything either one of you says now as truth without doing my own research to verify it.
You present a lot of speculation to support your belief that Jesus is not God. I know, I do the same also. So that is why I had asked you why you don’t want Jesus to be God. But you don’t seem to want to answer that… If you asked me I wouldn’t hesitate to answer. You still haven’t answered any of my questions for the most part.
You and everyone else keeps refering to the Catholic church and the atrocities they commited… well I am very glad that I can say that my ancestors were part of the group that was smart enough to separate from that church, no doubt because they recognised how corrupt it was. I have nothing to do with the Catholic church now, nor did I have anything to do with them 1700 years ago.
Just because they were corrupt in some areas, that doesn’t mean that they were corrupt in all areas. You have nothing to support what you wish to be true, that Christian doctrine was altered for any reason other than trying to decide what God’s will was. Why would the church be so concerned about the souls of men because of Arius’ false doctrine but would, at the same time be willing to change it in such a fundamental way (defining who Christ was) to apeal to non believers? Again, it doesn’t make sense… at all.
Look at the Catholic church today… they are certainly still corrupt in some areas but they still won’t change fundamental doctrines to appease anyone if it’s not what they believe is God’s will.
You said: “You accuse me of trying to lead people astray with “false doctrines” but I could say the same about you.”
I didn’t necessarily claim that you are intentionaly spreading lies but you and so many like you have very biased views.. views that you want (or need?) to believe so badly and so your conclusions (much of which is based on favorably biased opinions of others) are not objective. You then believe these conclusions as fact and pass them on (as fact).. I’ve proven this here.
I may be doing the same thing but I am using the Bible as my guide… you all are using nothing more than your own biased reasoning or someone else’s who’s ideas espouse what you want to hear.
I do respect your right to believe what you want. You certainly have put in the research more than anyone else I can think of. But when someone makes such fundamental claims that go against the Bible, I have to speak out against it. You say you are not going against the Bible but the majority of believers disagree with you. And that goes for all the Christians who have ever lived.
If there is one thing I wish all of you (non Christians) could understand it’s that Christianity is defined by the New Testament. Not the actions of people who just claim to be Christians but do not follow what the Bible says. It’s not fair to judge Christianity by the actions of a few. Why does that theology seem to apply to every other group of people or religion except Christianity ( for liberals) ???
LikeLike
kay~ms said
http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusHorus.html
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I’ve seen a list of descriptive factors that you’d swear were unique to Jesus Christ, but nope, it’s Mithra of Persia. There were like sixteen or so things listed and the question was if you could guess who was being described.
Christians and Jews before them borrowed and adapted stories from other cultures. Many details of many stories in the Bible have roots in earlier stories from neighboring peoples.
This isn’t wrong or bad. The Bible is a book of myths to teach us about what it is to be human. Myths are NOT lies. They are metaphors. A mythology incorporates the cosmology of the people it is written for. That is why the Bible clearly teaches the earth is flat, from Genesis to Revelation. That is what they thought back then. There is spiritual truth in the Bible, but if you insist on taking it literally and on its being inerrant in every detail on every subject you are quite out of touch with reality.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
hey Kay, why don’t you ask your hero Bill Keller for the “official” explanation of why human chromosome 2 shows clear physical evidence of being two chromosomes fused together, and why endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes are the same in chimp DNA and human DNA, and why there are so many transitional fossils that do exist even though he claims they don’t?
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Actually Kay I have made my supporting statements in biblical scripture that I interpret as otherwise. I have evidence that the possibility exists that doctrine and scripture was changed. History tends to repeat itself. I see corruption in every sect of Christianity. I have seen small town churches with Pastor’s that have new cars, a nice house, and a “building fund” but nothing is ever built. I have seen statements that are opposite of Jesus’ teachings. One of the ones I actually live by actually.
Matthew 5:44-48
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
I have seen Bill Keller teach something that is against that. I will not lie I joined the Army, I joined the Army as a Medic to save people. I have killed people, but killed more than I fired my weapon. I have seen the death and destruction the “good” does over the “evil-doer” on these basis I have seen innocent men, women, and children die, just because they where in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could have been avoided with proper Diplomacy. Actually doing as the above scriptures say. But the nation was angry, we wanted vengence when we shouldn’t have sought it. We should have cooperated with interpol, and the UN, to catch the one responsible. But we did not. We went after a tyrant, who killed his own people, and held public executions of Christians, and Jews when something went wrong. Ever heard a story from a man who saw his own Mother and Father along with other family members, just because of their religion. With the basis that they where American spies and that’s why Iraq did not take Kuwait? Ever see a child with legs blown off just below the femur? All because someone is trying to kill you based on what country you are from? Even if you are trying to help and do help? When I say I killed people its because I have, yet I was in one fire fight. That I never fired my weapon in. I have killed men, women, and children because there was no way to save them, and I couldn’t get them to a proper care facility because it was over 50 miles away. I treated those that attacked Americans saved some of their lives just so they could rot in jail. This is what eats at me, and I didn’t fire a weapon to kill them. It eats at me because I base my life on this one teaching.
I know I couldn’t save them all but I still cried and do cry over everyone that died because I could do nothing. All over religious interpretation. So yes I am very biased. And I get very angry when a so-called Man of God says that war is necessary, even scripturally justified. Even though Jesus taught differently. Oh and the evidence I thought I posted but didn’t
1st Timothy 1:16-17
16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
John 1:18
18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
1st Corinthians 8:4-6
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Verse 6 is often confused. In 4 it says there is non other God but one. Verse 6 is giving distinction to God and Jesus. Now people do confuse this, in my opinion. the of and by is the distinction. It states there is but one God and one Messiah.
James 2:19-22
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Again the scripture states there is one God, has no mention of a Trinity. When he talks of works it means the actions that are committed that follow Jesus’ teachings. Jesus never talked that war was necessary. Him getting angry and the defilement of the inner sanctum by making it into a bazaar to feed the Pharisees’ coffers, should not be used to justify violence as, even though he had the power to kill everyone in that room he did not. He turned over tables to disrupt those practices, in that place of worship. I think this is an important fact to state.
John 17:1-4
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
These are the words of Jesus, who did not say he was the same as his father but said that he is the only true God.
Okay now to my next bit of evidence that shows the possibility that the Council of Nicea may have added things to certain stories and added Doctrines that do not coincide with the scriptures. This is anthropological evidence, anthropology is a science so you may not accept it. But here it is.
From Legends of the Gods, The Egyptian Texts: Introduction Summary IX: The History of Isis and Osirus. By E.A. Wallis Budge copyright 1912.
THE history of Isis and Osiris given on pp. 198-248 is taken from the famous treatise of Plutarch entitled De Iside et Osiride, and forms a fitting conclusion to this volume of Legends of the Gods. It contains all the essential facts given in Plutarch’s work, and the only things omitted are his derivations and mythological speculations, which are really unimportant for the Egyptologist. Egyptian literature is full of allusions
p. lxxx
to events which took place in the life of Osiris, and to his persecution, murder, and resurrection, and numerous texts of all periods describe the love and devotion of his sister and wife Isis, and the filial piety of Horus. Nowhere, however, have we in Egyptian a connected account of the causes which led to the murder by Set of Osiris, or of the subsequent events which resulted in his becoming the king of heaven and judge of the dead. However carefully we piece together the fragments of information which we can extract from native Egyptian literature, there still remains a series of gaps which can only be filled by guesswork. Plutarch, as a learned man and a student of comparative religion and mythology was most anxious to understand the history of Isis and Osiris, which Greek and Roman scholars talked about freely, and which none of them comprehended, and he made enquiries of priests and others, and examined critically such information as he could obtain, believing and hoping that he would penetrate the mystery in which these gods were wrapped. As a result of his labours he collected a number of facts about the form of the Legend of Isis and Osiris as it was known to the learned men of his day, but there is no evidence that he had the slightest knowledge of the details of the original African Legend of these gods as it was known to the Egyptians, say, under the VIth Dynasty. Moreover, he never realized that the characteristics and attributes of both Isis and Osiris changed several
p. lxxxi
times during the long history of Egypt, and that a thousand years before he lived the Egyptians themselves had forgotten what the original form of the legend was. They preserved a number of ceremonies, and performed very carefully all the details of an ancient ritual at the annual commemoration festival of Osiris which was held in November and December, but the evidence of the texts makes it quite clear that the meaning and symbolism of nearly all the details were unknown alike to priests and people.
An important modification of the cult of Isis and Osiris took place in the third century before. Christ, when the Ptolemies began to consolidate their rule in Egypt. A form of religion which would be acceptable both to Egyptians and Greeks had to be provided, and this was produced by modifying the characteristics of Osiris and calling him Sarapis, and identifying him with the Greek Pluto. To Isis were added many of the attributes of the great Greek goddesses, and into her worship were introduced “mysteries” derived from non-Egyptian cults, which made it acceptable to the people everywhere. Had a high priest of Osiris who lived at Abydos under the XVIIIth Dynasty witnessed the celebration of the great festival of Isis and Osiris in any large town in the first century before Christ, it is tolerably certain that he would have regarded it as a lengthy act of worship of strange gods, in which there appeared, here and there, ceremonies and phrases which reminded him of the ancient Abydos ritual. When the
p. lxxxii
form of the cult of Isis and Osiris introduced by the Ptolemies into Egypt extended to the great cities of Greece and Italy, still further modifications took place in it, and the characters of Isis and Osiris were still further changed. By degrees Osiris came to be regarded as the god of death pure and simple, or as the personification of Death, and he ceased to be regarded as the great protecting ancestral spirit, and the all-powerful protecting Father of his people. As the importance of Osiris declined that of Isis grew, and men came to regard her as the great Mother-goddess of the world. The priests described from tradition the great facts of her life according to the Egyptian legends, how she had been a loving and devoted wife, how she had gone forth after her husband’s murder by Set to seek for his body, how she had found it and brought it home, how she revivified it by her spells and had union with Osiris and conceived by him, and how in due course she brought forth her son, in pain and sorrow and loneliness in the Swamps of the Delta, and how she reared him and watched over him until he was old enough to fight and vanquish his father’s murderer, and how at length she seated him in triumph on his father’s throne. These things endeared Isis to the people everywhere, and as she herself had not suffered death like Osiris, she came to be regarded as the eternal mother of life and of all living things. She was the creatress of crops, she produced fruit, vegetables, plants of all kinds and trees, she made cattle
p. lxxxiii
prolific, she brought men and women together and gave them offspring, she was the authoress of all love, virtue, goodness and happiness. She made the light to shine, she was the spirit of the Dog-star which heralded the Nile-flood, she was the source of the power in the beneficent light of the moon; and finally she took the dead to her bosom and gave them peace, and introduced them to a life of immortality and happiness similar to that which she had bestowed upon Osiris.
The message of the cult of Isis as preached by her priests was one of hope and happiness, and coming to the Greeks and Romans, as it did, at a time when men were weary of their national cults, and when the speculations of the philosophers carried no weight with the general public, the people everywhere welcomed it with the greatest enthusiasm. From Egypt it was carried to the Islands of Greece and to the mainland, to Italy, Germany, France, Spain and Portugal, and then crossing the western end of the Mediterranean it entered North Africa, and with Carthage as a centre spread east and west along the coast. Wherever the cult of Isis came men accepted it as something which supplied what they thought to be lacking in their native cults; rich and poor, gentle and simple, all welcomed it, and the philosopher as well as the ignorant man rejoiced in the hope of a future life which it gave to them. Its Egyptian origin caused it to be regarded with the profoundest interest, and its priests were most careful to make the temples of Isis quite different
p. lxxxiv
from those of the national gods, and to decorate them with obelisks, sphinxes, shrines, altars, etc., which were either imported from temples in Egypt, or were copied from Egyptian originals. In the temples of Isis services were held at daybreak and in the early afternoon daily, and everywhere these were attended by crowds of people. The holy water used in the libations and for sprinkling the people was Nile water, specially imported from Egypt, and to the votaries of the goddess it symbolized the seed of the god Osiris, which germinated and brought forth fruit through the spells of the goddess Isis. The festivals and processions of Isis were everywhere most popular, and were enjoyed by learned and unlearned alike. In fact, the Isis-play which was acted annually in November, and the festival of the blessing of the ship, which took place in the spring, were the most important festivals of the year. Curiously enough, all the oldest gods and goddesses of Egypt passed into absolute oblivion, with the exception of Osiris (Sarapis), Isis, Anubis the physician, and Harpokrates, the child of Osiris and Isis, and these, from being the ancestral spirits of a comparatively obscure African tribe in early dynastic times, became for several hundreds of years the principal objects of worship of some of the most cultured and intellectual nations. The treatise of Plutarch De Iside helps to explain how this came about, and for those who study the Egyptian Legend of Isis and Osiris the work has considerable importance.
_____
Okay now you may ask how is this evidence because it shows how bored the people in Rome was becoming with the national gods. It could have been that they where becoming bored of these Egyptian ones as well. It is very possible this to be the case. I already stated the violence that was going on before, with Christians killing each other. The fact that Constantine convened the council supports that he wanted to end the violence. I mean we are talking about events that founded the Holy Roman Catholic Church from which Christianity as we know it is founded. (I really don’t have to talk about the split from Catholicism and the fact that each sect was at once considered a cult do I?) So how is what I say not a possibility? Based on the evidence both scriptural, scientific, and linguistic? My point was made a long time ago. But this will not change your view, and I hope it does not. What I do hope is you accept that I have valid reasons for my beliefs. But my views come from my personal spiritual walk, which I assure you is very different from yours. but of course if you grew up in the same church, same town, as someone else and ask them thier own personal views you will find they will be different from your own. Not this drastically but still. And this is my last ending statement, to this debate. But feel free to carry on.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
you can read the full Legends of the Gods, done by English Egyptologist, Orientalist, and philologist who worked for the British Museum and published numerous works on the ancient Near East.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
EE, I’m not reading all of that… call me ignorant.. but if your point is that other peoples changed “facts” about their gods (out of bordom?) then so would Christians… that’s an extremely weak argument. Sure, Constantine wanted to end the violence and that is why he called together the Council of Bishops.. to decide on “official” doctrine… which is an obvious need when people are fighting over what is right. Surely it didn’t stop all of the fighting. Because if as you say, changes were made to appease one group of people… wouldn’t logic state that the other group of people would then be angry and the fighting would continue??? I would say so… that is what all religious fighting is about. There is no way that the fighting would have been eliminated by appeasing one group of people. There had to be Official doctrine, that was the only way to address the problem. And obviously Constantine called together the proper people to do so. Not his own “people” that you tried to allude to. He put it in the hands of the Christians to work out.
And this verse that you quoted earlier…
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
“and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, AND WE BY HIM.”
This clearly states that Jesus was/ is the Creator.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Again difference of interpretation. OF would be more from. By would mean for. But that is what I get.
And my point for the bordom thing was that if it happened before several times in history. Both in Egypt and the Mediterranean area, then why is it not possible that it happened with Christianity? I mean we already know that Christ really wasn’t born on December 25th. We know he was born more than 30 something years before 0 AD. I mean astronomers actually made note of a star that was described in the bible. (the only consistant story of his birth. One book said he was visited by shepards in the manger another said he was visited at home by wise men. The story that is told in churches and to children is the three wise men visited the Baby Jesus when he was swaddled in the manger. That the angels sung a chorus to the Sheppards in the fields. Didn’t happen exactly like that in the scriptures but again another example of how it is possible that some doctrines in Christianity could be fabricated.) We know that Mary and Joesph would have froze to death if they travelled in the desert on the coldest day in the year. That realistically he was born around end of spring beginning of summer. Before the Desert got too hot but at night is about perfect for a pregnant woman, that has little to no health care available to her, to travel. I mean the Jews where meticulous record keepers a good majority of the Bible is genealogy. Except for the New Testament. We know he had brothers and sisters. It would have been improbable that Joesph and Mary did not concieve children after Jesus’ birth. Again another doctrine created by the Church that does not line up with the scriptures.
I mean Christianity altered pagan sabbats, practices, almost down to the day put the Christian spin on it and there you go. For one thing and one thing only, to convert. Now more parishioners meant more money to the Church. Then when they didn’t convert the Inquisition killed, many on false testamony, or torture those that did not. The Catholic Church killed so called heretics, which literally means infidels. Then fast forward to this day and age. Christian ministers and preachers in America, do not talk about diplomacy, or loving thy enemy. They talk about how killing those of the false religions is necessary. Does any of this seem familiar? No red flags that say STOP! jumping at you? And yet when I interject my personal opinion, as fact because to me it is, you are hung up on achieving what is not achievable. To fully change my mind. I mean it could be possible, which is all I am asking yes or no? Simple, no it is far fetched. yes or no does history repeat itself. Yes or No is there fundamentalists undermining Jesus’ teachings? Yes or No is there people, who have never killed anyone for any reason and probably never would, saying war is necessary only because they don’t have to see it in person? Jesus taught that conflict is never the answer. Trusting that the only being in the cosmos that can pass judgment GOD, will be fair and just. Half-assed shotgun diplomacy as the US is known for, as the US is perceived as is not diplomacy. It’s just a bunch of rednecks looking for a scapegoat to lynch.
But your opinions will be different from mine. With an open mind and accepting anything is possible you learn things. Tell me your opinions. (BTW I do not believe it is true, this does not mean I do not accept the possibility I am wrong. Philosophy, and matters of Faith are usually 50/50 and we don’t know the outcome till the end. But its all about what we percieve as true. This is the point of this exercise, because the more you argue the more I will argue back in an attempt to open your mind to new possibilities. Oh wait isn’t having an open mind is like leaving a fortress unguarded an antiquated Christian belief? Your opinions please.)
LikeLike
kay~ms said
First, in the English language, “by” and “for” are two entirely different even opposite meanings.
By changing those two little words, your view is conveiniently proven, the only problem is that those two words are not interchangable.
As to the other…
First, you didn’t address my very logical point (all of my logical points for that matter)… how would appeasing one group of people make everyone happy?? It can’t.
Second, the main reason that Christianity survived and flourishes today, besides it being true, is the martyrdom of the Saints and the persecutions of Christian believers. It was still going on at the time of the Council. These men, who I will again point out that their faith was their life, would not, with the death of the saints and other Christians so fresh in their minds, sacrifice the truth that they died for … for money? Or to stop the fighting? When are you going to see how fallible your (conspiracy) theories are?
Of course I can admit that your theories are possible… as anything is possible… but it’s not likely. And I’ve proven that here.
You say that you are not trying to change my mind… oh yes you are… that is what debating is all about, and I am trying to do the same thing. But it doesn’t bother my ego one bit if I am not successful, which I believe is not true of others here. I just want to get my points and views out there… the rest is out of my control. I’m a realistic control freak I guess you can say… but I know I am surrounded by mostly unrealistic control freaks, I grew up with them… it was always so funny to see them try to control me and others… they never realized that if they ever had “control” it was because I or others let them… and when they learned the hard way that they never did truly have control, it didn’t go over too well. It was always funny and amusing to me. And, of course, they never learned the lesson.
YOu said: “They talk about how killing those of the false religions is necessary. Does any of this seem familiar? No red flags that say STOP! jumping at you?”
Here you go again, trying to define Christianity by the wrong actions of Christians.
As to the subject of war… I agree with you that war is horrible and in so many different ways, many of which you have shown us here. I feel bad for what you went thru EE. I can’t imagine what it must be like or what it was like.
But I understand Bill’s point. When he talks of the necessity of war, I know he understands that it is always a last resort.
The bottom line is that if we do not fight the Islamic radicals, they will get their way. And their way is to take over this country and force us to become Muslims. And if we don’t, we will be killed. So, really either way, people will die. Bill is saying that sometimes war is necessary. Please don’t twist that to say that he is a war monger. He has said nothing to support all of the biased views about him here.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
But you forget that the translations of the New Testament isn’t changed to make sense in English. It made sense when we used Royalty English and Peasants English, but that practice was abolished.
And to me, a debate is not about changing my opponents mind. When I debate I speak with the audience in mind and I try to influence their opinions. I know this debate will never be won as you see a debate, because of two things. I am stubborn and hardheaded. I hold unto my opinions and not easily swayed. You would have to make one compelling argument for me to do that. I am not trying to control your actions or opinions. I did not make my opening statements with you in mind. You just rose to the occasion quicker.
As for the Islamic radicals killing us all, isn’t that a little extreme? I mean we didn’t even try diplomacy. And when we went hunting for Osama bin Laden, (which we stopped doing to hunt for an easier target) we did not have the sanction of the United Nations. You understand that the United States broke international laws when we invaded without the sanction of the United Nations. England helped us not look like complete cowboys. Both Afghanistan and Iraq, I mean it took a lot of butt kissing by our UN rep. I mean things may be different if we actually learned a countries culture and tried to have diplomatic talks instead of ordering these countries about. For instance Obama bowing out of respect to Iran’s leader? In their culture that is the same as a handshake. Of course some left-wing extremists take that out of context and says that Obama should not have been rewarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
EE, you said: “But you forget that the translations of the New Testament isn’t changed to make sense in English. It made sense when we used Royalty English and Peasants English, but that practice was abolished. ”
Is this another one of your “facts”? This is a subjective opinion. I’m not even sure what you are trying to say… that our English transation is incorrect? Then what good would the translation be? and all of the work that was put into it? What would be the point if it couldn’t be translated properly.. and from English to English?? All other translations are “correct” except the Christian Bible we have today? This is your opinion. And many disagree with you. Please don’t state it as “fact”.
And again, you are conveiniently using this translation to “prove” some of your points and at the same time you get to say that the translation is false on other points???
You said: “As for the Islamic radicals killing us all, isn’t that a little extreme? ”
Tell that to Israel… Iran has stated that they want to “wipe Israel off the face of the map”. So, do you think Israel should not engage in war if necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?? How would you propose to resolve this problem???
LikeLike
Princessxxx said
naw kay, bill on his show read that devotional from his TELEPROMPTER to justify the iraq war.
iraq did not attack us.
bush invaded iraq to spread an ideaology, democracy,
well that’s what she said.
not to mention that on every war document, at the top was started off with a bible verse. i will look that up for you. peace.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment in moderation on the other post.
If Bill is not of the thought that war should be a last resort then I don’t agree with him.
I’m not sure if Bush did the right thing by invading Iraq. Have more lives been saved than lost by doing so? I think so. I guess that is the ultimate question when deciding on going to war or not. It is a valid last resort when not doing so would cost more lives?
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Kay, way back around the Middle Ages the English language actually had two forms. A Noble form and a Peasant form. What I am using as an example is Victorian English, and Peasants English. Actually back during the Victorian age, believe it or not, not everyone spoke with thee and thou etc. The Nobles spoke that language, the peasants language was more closely related to modern English. Language like life evolves, social structures, ways of thinking. They all evolve. Greek has not stayed the same since Ancient times. Just like the early days of English, I believe was created as a mixture between the anglo-saxton language and gaelic. I learned this in grade school so I may be a bit spotty. If we tried to read the most ancient form of English without knowledge of social structure and the social way of thought at that time, it wouldn’t make sense. Just like there are some words in what SOME Brits call The Queens English, that we have a meaning for, but due to differences in culture and social thought we don’t fully understand the context of those words. And in American English, some words we have they just don’t fully understand. When working with the British Military, there was many times when we would ask another what do you mean? Just like Canadian French has differences to French. Or Spain’s Spanish to Mexican Spanish. They are all similar languages and you can get a basic meaning but not the full meaning due to ignorance of how the society is in those countries. And actually s very good example of this is the song Yankee Doodle. The song was actually created to make fun of the Americans or Yankee’s or Yanks. The joke went over our heads sadly. The fact is that when the translations actually where being made, the translators in the 14-17th centuries were ignorant of the Greek Society was back in the estimated time of the last Greek Revision. This is what the scholarly debate is actually based on. And really from all the .edu sites I have read on this subject there is about an even 50/50 consensus which view is right and which view is wrong. Because of this these scholars, actually have come to one conclusion, that a unanimous decision on who is right and wrong cannot be determined. This is due to the biased opinions of each member. These are very recent debates, one member concluded that to find a true translation you would need to find someone who has no opinion either way. Someone who knows the way the society worked and the different ways that languages sentence structure, how words were used, what was considered slang etc. Which would actually be impossible because everyone has a biased opinion on this subject. Of course before I came into this debate I knew this, I knew that it would end in a stalemate. I will present what I believe as fact because to me it is. That will not change, until the moment when someone with no religious leanings and no negative or positive feelings towards the subject, and someone who knows all the information needed for the translation. Because there are words and phrases used that is up to the translators discretion in many of the texts. That is where the biased opinion comes in. So I do not believe that any translations we have actually is unaffected by an individuals biased views. You can argue this fact all you want, but it doesn’t change how a languages sentence structure is set up. Unlike English, many languages have in many cases one word or phrase that can mean from one to five things at a time. All depending on the context used in the sentence.
We would like to say we saved more lives than was lost. But the news is not telling you how many innocent women, children, and men is caught in each of the cross fires. I would love to say there was no other way. With the Taliban, I know there was no other option and the Afghan people are better off. But we were more worried with stabilizing Iraq than Afghanistan. Of course Iraq has many more oil fields than Afghanistan, but that is just something I noticed. When Iraq had a constitution that the people voted on the US government did not allow it to be put into effect. I am sure they had good reasons. But there are things we should have done that we did not. I mean the whole ultimatums that were spread. “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” The fact that we did not present our full justifications, with evidence to the United Nations, and NATO also hurt our global perception. Traveling outside of the US is actually riskier than it was before this whole thing started. I mean there are people that are not Muslim or terrorists that will attack you because you are an American. It’s not just one country either it is multiple in Europe. The US using shotgun diplomacy, had its consequences. I mean George Bush calling Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea the axis of evil was not favorable. Now we as a nation must depend on diplomacy to prevent another World War. This is my opinion but, we need to tone down our hostilities particularly towards Muslims. I mean we are starting to be surrounded by enemies with very little friends willing to back us up. We need to see why the Muslim people really want to destroy us. They do not want us in their affairs, Israel and Palestine will never come to a peaceful compromise. We have tried to help that many times in the past and it never worked. I don’t think we should give up on that, but I definitely think that we should start acting more diplomatic towards the Muslim nations. Not just because if they all banded together out of fear which country we would invade next, because they control most of the world’s oil. Right now N. Korea, and Iran are afraid that we are going to invade them next. Out of fear comes finding a way to defend itself. We see this as an act of hostility, but the Cold War was not that long ago. We started an arms race with the USSR because we felt they were a threat to us. That in my opinion was irresponsible, but at the time social way of thinking put Communism as an evil that must be combated. I mean the War in Iraq and the fact that we wasted Trillions of Dollars basically breaking the worlds economy in eight years does have its upsides. We are actually trying to improve our world image so other countries do not attack us while we are broke. There have been comedians that have pointed out the point in time when we the first black president was elected, is when the country is broke. When we have to borrow money from China, we know we are broke. That was not meant to be racist, but funny. And watching John McCain’s reaction when he lost it seemed like he was relieved. Like oh I would hate to be that guy. But in eight months, he has done good. He received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to create diplomatic relations with the rest of the world. I mean no one has attacked us yet, hopefully no one will. But seriously we cannot afford to invade another country. But most of this is my opinion.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a couple of comments in moderation on the other posts.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
1minion said: “Why is it silly?
Why is it odd to look for reasons for why things are the way they are? ”
It’s silly to come to the conclusion that because it can be proven by science that that disproves God. You just figured out how God did it. And I don’t think it’s “odd” to want to know how God did it.
You said: “We don’t have to disprove god. We already think god is a figment of human ingenuity built by humans to explain and rationalize things that couldn’t be known or understood at the time.”
First, again.. the cause of our existence cannot “known or understood” yet you have still discounted God
. And you are wrong to make that assumption… sure that might be the case for some people especially in history but many very intelligent people (scientists ect.) today do understand the probability of God. Even Darwin acknowledged the probability of a Supreme Being.
I don’t believe in God because it can’t be explained otherwise. I’ll admit that it is a good argument though… as I’ve said earlier… our existence isn’t logical and provable by science as we know it today and I believe for always. You cannot get something from nothing… “oh yeah?, Well where did God come from then?” Of course that cannot be answered either. So a logical explantion is that existence cannot be. But the problem with that is that we are.
ONe of the reasons I believe in God is because that is what logic dictates.
YOu said: “I’m under no obligation to follow suit.”
I never said we are under “obligation” to believe. And I don’t think the Bible says so either. God gave us free will to make the decision for ourselves.
I said: “What difference does it make what the reason is behind a horrible act??? Does one reason make it less horrible than another? No, it doesn’t”
YOu said: “Life is never as black and white and if/then as religions want to paint it. Reason makes a lot of difference. It aids compassion and understanding if you make a point of finding out why people do what they do.
A boy pushes another kid off a bike. Why? Does it matter? Absolutely. What if the kid was stealing the boy’s bike at the time? Is the boy a bully who torments everyone he comes across, or did his mother just die and he’s never had to deal with this level of grief before and lashes out instead of cries? ”
First, I was talking about horrible acts as in someone loosing their life. And the reason does not make the act less horrible. It might make it more understandable, but the tragedy is the same.. the loss of a life, the loss of a loved one.
You said: “Why are they wrong, if what they did was part of a book that’s included in the bible and the whole bible is supposed to represent all the words of your just, good, and loving Christian god? Are you following all the words of your just, good, and loving Christian god, or only the ones that fit your current outlook on life?”
I am not as familiar with the Old Testament. I do understand that there are passages that are questionable. Could you please pick out the worst ones and post them here and I will try to address them from a Christian point of view.
I will say again that what God did in the past when passing judgement, first, is His sovereign right, second, He does know all, we do not know all of the circumstances pertaining to these events, so we are in no position to judge Him. Knowing these things that seem horrible and unjust does seem to present a challenge in believing that God is Just and Good and Loving. That is where faith comes in. Trusting in Him that He is just. And remember, in order to be righteous (Good), judging is necessary and correction is necessary.
You said: “No, that was me describing god as presented in the available books and how humanity’s need for a god has had to adjust things to fit the new ways to live and think. I only know what’s reported in the bible.”
It seems that you only know the “bad” and ignore the good. You make judgments on the “bad” (without all of the facts or circumstances) and you use that to “justify” your rejection of the good (God).
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
“I am not as familiar with the Old Testament. I do understand that there are passages that are questionable. Could you please pick out the worst ones and post them here and I will try to address them from a Christian point of view.”
I thought you didn’t want me to cherry pick the old testament. 😉
What are your thoughts about Moses promoting rape? (Numbers 31:15-19)
The killing of children? (Isaiah 13:16)
Ezekial has some fun stuff about ripping old women to shreds, and other women, and men and children, too. (9:4-6)
Who wrote 2 Chronicles? Oh, Paul, right? “Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.” (15:13) That one particularly sucks, so I’m glad to see people don’t follow it.
Three other questions:
Which Genesis story do you prefer?
Which version of Christ’s birth do you prefer?
Which version of Christ’s death and the after activity do you prefer?
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
I don’t think you want me to answer those questions. I am not nor will I ever be labeled as a Christian. I choose to believe in God, and Jesus the messiah because it was part of my upbringing. My spiritual practices are not really understood too well by those without an open mind and heart. My outlook on life is different, mainly because I have an open mind and I am willing to accept the possibility I am wrong. Those things are frowned upon in Christianity obviously. Put in the fact that I don’t like most conservative opinion, and I enjoy inciting debates that question man’s authority to even dictate God’s Will. Well we have seen already how my commentary on Christianity goes and how my spiritual beliefs have become Liberal Poison. Libertarian is actually quite different and that is the closest political thought I come close to. Most conservative views look like liberal views in comparison at times, when you compare them.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
According to ancient Jewish tradition, Ezra wrote Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (see Introduction to Ezra: Literary Form and Authorship), but this cannot be established with certainty. A growing consensus dates Chronicles in the latter half of the fifth century b.c., thus possibly within Ezra’s lifetime.
Could you please tell me why you attributed this verse to Paul of the New Testament?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
And in that passage, it was the people at that time who chose to take an oath, it was not God.
“12 They entered into a covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul. 13 All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. 14 They took an oath to the LORD with loud acclamation, with shouting and with trumpets and horns. 15 All Judah rejoiced about the oath because they had sworn it wholeheartedly. They sought God eagerly, and he was found by them. So the LORD gave them rest on every side.”
This is NOT a Christian doctrine. Nice try.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
1minion, you said:
“What are your thoughts about Moses promoting rape? (Numbers 31:15-19)”
I think it’s horrible.
“The killing of children? (Isaiah 13:16)”
“Ezekial has some fun stuff about ripping old women to shreds, and other women, and men and children, too. (9:4-6) ”
I think this is horrible also, but I will not judge God; I understand that I am in no position to judge Him…. and you are free to judge Him all you want.
Three other questions:
Which Genesis story do you prefer?
I only know of one.
Which version of Christ’s birth do you prefer?
They are all the same, but from different sources / points of view.
Which version of Christ’s death and the after activity do you prefer?
Same as above.
These “different” accounts do not conflict with each other.
That these seemingly conflicting stories were included in the Bible shows that no effort was made to fabricate God’s word. He leaves it up to us to either use it as an excuse to not believe or apply our faith and trust.
And this also applies for the Old Testament verses you asked about.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
The stories of Christ’s death don’t actually differ. The scriptures do not contradict each other in that case. I mean they are actually word for word except maybe one book has a little added detail about the actions of the Romans, that the others may have been too squeamish to see.
I have a serious question, I want to know how come some of the Old Testament is used to support Christian doctrine, while others are said to not be apart of Christian Doctrine? I mean Christianity adopted a small portion of inspired writings that make up the Old Testament, and Christianity does teach from many of the scriptures in the Old testament.
The story of Judah was one of the many Old Testament examples, used by Christianity to justify its earlier persecutions of other religions. The passage “Suffer not the witch” was the British Inquisitions slogan. As Christianity basically did rule the world at that time. Almost every king in Europe, had to send new laws for the pope to review, and the Currency of the Vatican was accepted the same value as the local currency in Europe for a long time. I know Christian thought has come a long way since the 1950’s I understand that. And the Catholic Church has apologized for their past actions of brutality, but they are not the only Denomination that acted in this way. I mean after pretty close to 1000 years of a convert, or make it seem like you converted, or die policy. It is no wonder there are still people who question today’s Christianity, and it’s motives. Especially when someone says something Ignorant about another religion. Knowing the bloody history of the church. I mean it is apart of Christian theology, since Christianity has adopted the Old Testament as apart of their religion. It is an outdated way of thought, and for the most part unfollowed, except for the small minority that do. The same could be said about those verses in Islam. Since the same concept does apply. Not every Muslim wants to “destroy the infidels”, just like not every Christian wants to kill all those that reject Christianity. Which I believe was the point of Princesses statement, she was just mistaken about the source. It happens.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
That passage in 2 Chronicles was not an Old Testament doctrine either. It was a telling of the actions of a certain group of people.
This was not a law for God’s followers to abide by for ever and ever. Much unlike the laws of the Koran.
I have a comment in moderation on the other post.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
“12 They entered into a covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul. 13 All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. 14 They took an oath to the LORD with loud acclamation, with shouting and with trumpets and horns. 15 All Judah rejoiced about the oath because they had sworn it wholeheartedly. They sought God eagerly, and he was found by them. So the LORD gave them rest on every side.”
WELL, THAT WAS RIGHT KIND OF THE LORD TO GIVE THEM SOME REST AFTER KILLING ALL THE NON-BELIEVERS.
anyway, it’s the same damn bible. same damn lord. NICE TRY THOUGH
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
“Which Genesis story do you prefer?
I only know of one.”
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
Genesis 1 has animals made before humans. Genesis 2 has Adam first and naming all the animals after. Genesis 1 has Adam and Eve made at the same time. Genesis 2 has her made from Adam after all the animals.
Which one is the one you believe?
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
“That these seemingly conflicting stories were included in the Bible shows that no effort was made to fabricate God’s word. He leaves it up to us to either use it as an excuse to not believe or apply our faith and trust.”
Everyone’s telling a different story yet you claim nobody fabricated or embellished any of it? How can you know for sure?
You’re okay with not really knowing what way it really went down? That would drive me nuts.
Interesting to see how you can ignore conflicting reports and not see them as a way to disbelieve what’s in the book. As I see it, they can’t all be true, so why would any one of them have to be true?
Ah well. Whatever. I was just curious about how you get around the inconsistencies.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
And I apologized already for assuming it was Paul. Lots of books. Easy mix up.
I guess I find it interesting how each gospel provides a “truth” yet they’re all subjective truths related to the people who wrote them. Were the later writers aware of the earlier stuff or did they have to make up what they thought happened because they had no access to what other earlier writers wrote about what they thought happened?
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
It is funny isn’t it? That is accepted because of the different perspectives, but it is not possible for ones persons perspective to be the absolute truth to that person. Making many absolute truths. This is MY belief that I came to the conclusion by myself. I actually stated it on this blog that everyone’s version of the truth in a way is true. It makes up a bigger picture. It’s like 1000 photographs from different vantage points from different cameras in one area of a city. Put them all together and you get to see that area as if you where there. But that conclusion is obviously false, because of the belief not everyone can be right so I am. Too many people have this belief. Also read up on the three-fold law, the golden rule, and karma. Tell me if you see anything interesting in those three things. Those three ways of thought appeared almost at the same time, in three areas of the world that was isolated from each other. They were isolated not because of land mass but because they believed nothing existed past the region in which they lived.
LikeLike