Theological Debate.

[KarlXII]

I see that sometimes a thread regarding religions pops up, and I have seen a lot of good theological debate, between both people of different faiths and people of the same faith. So I decided to create this thread, to hold our debates and questions on the various theologies and religions.

I invite the religious members of the Org Backroom to participate, and even the non-religious. Feel free to post a question, or challenge, of religion.

I only have a few rules I'd like to mention,
1. This is a thread for healthy debate, NOT for trolling/provoking members. These are beliefs that Orgahs hold and should be treated with the same respect you hold your own beliefs with.
2. The Hebrew Bible, the Christian Bible, the Quran, etc., will be considered sources for questions/debates regarding verses in the religious texts, or theologies based off the texts.


So, to start, I'd like to present this question:

Is the Trinity Biblical?

The Christian Trinity, recognized by the major churches, is a doctrine that asserts that there are thee persons in one Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

There are, namely Unitarians, Christians who reject Trinitarianism, and hold the belief that God is One, completely One. These theologies may even go as far as to reject the Divinity of the Christ.

It is my belief that the Trinity is both theologically and Biblically sound. Refer to 1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear witness IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE." and 1 Timothy 3:16: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh...”

I'd like to leave you with this scenario: You are a very small organism, let's say a cell, inhabiting a plane of water. There are other cells with you, all inhabiting the same plane. One day, you see three long pieces of flesh stick themselves in the water you inhabit. Being a cell, you are natural to assume these three pieces are, in fact, separate and different. These three pieces of flesh are fingers, and they are three pieces, but united in one hand.

On a side note, do we have any Unitarians in the Org? If so, I'd love to hear the oppossing argument.

[Sigurd]

Ok KarlXII, I’ll take the challenge.

First the disclaimer: I am not a theist. I like debates on these topics (religious) and will happily play the role of a theist or an atheist if challenged to do so. I am really an agnostic with an interest in Christianity.

*cracks knuckles*

The Trinity is not Biblical as the canon does not mention Trinity by name. It is thus a human construct.
One must then ask, why does this dogma of the Trinity exist in the major denominations of the Christian world?
If we look to history, the concept of Trinity was first introduced in the Nicean Creed in 325 AD. Before this church council, it was not commonly believed among the Christians that God, Jesus Christ and The Holy Ghost were one modal being.
In fact, the orthodox view before Nicea was that of Subordinationism; the doctrine that Jesus and/or the Holy ghost were subordinate or subject to God the Father. This teaches that Jesus Christ was a separate being from the Father, because you can’t be subject to your self.

I would also like to claim that the participants of the Nicean council looked for a way to exclude the growing movement in the church called Arianism. They had serious problems with this task and could find no scriptural term that would refute Arius and at the same time include the other movements. They ended up constructing something called Homo-ousios.

It is the finalisation of fusing Greek-philosophy with Christianity after the deaths of the leaders of the early church – the Apostles. Clement and Origen brought the immaterial God to the church and Augustine capped it with Trinitarianism. Now it is interesting that the canonisation of the Bible happened after these events. And that it was the same culprits who organised it.
Take your example scripture:

The verse in the early Greek manuscript reads:
There are three which bear witness, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one.
In the 4th century the verse had words added to it to support the new orthodox doctrine of the Trinity:
There are three which bear witness on earth, the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus; and there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one.
Several later scholars, involved in translating the Bible, noted the problems with these verses.
Erasmus in the 14th century removed the addendum (1 John 5:7) in his first edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516, but later restored it after massive protests and threats. He had responded that if anyone could produce a single Greek text where this verse was included, he would put it back. Apparently fraudulent scholars had manufactured a document and Erasmus was true to his word – but later noted that people cared more about what their dogma, creeds, and councils had taught than what the word of God actually said.
Martin Luther in his German translation did not include verse 7 and many of the newer translations of today omit it:

New American Bible
New American Standard Bible
New Revised Standard Version.

In summation:
The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature.

The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity.

There is in them [the Apostolic Fathers], of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem."

The Church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the Council of Constantinople [AD 381] was the formula of one God existing in three coequal Persons formally ratified.
It was an attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus Christ during a period in the 2nd century where disputes on the nature of Christ were making fractions in the church. The modalists won this dispute and it was a convenient way to get rid of Arius and his followers.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sigurd is largely correct, however I would like to add some caveats:

Christianity inherrited the monotheism from Judaism, put also had to deal with the Christ.

It is the Christ which causes the real problem, because he is worshipped along with the Father very early. The original doctrine of Arrian (who is said to have recanted before his death) still worshipped the Son of God, but saw him as a created being with a beggining. In this he was equated to many Greek Gods, such as Dionysus.

This was intollerable for Jews, so then you get Unitarianism, which denies the hummanity of Christ, which eaither means the Father suffers with the Son, or the Son does not suffer.

This was intollerable for the Greeks and others.

Enter Trinitarianism and the Divine Duality. The two doctrine together resolved the inherrent problems in both doctrines by containing the paradox within the ineffable Godhead Himself, rather than outside it.

In Nomine Dei Patri, Filiae, et Spiritus Sancti, Amen

:beam:

[Lemur]

There are Christian denominations besides Unitarianism which deny the literal divinity of Jesus; Christian Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science) springs to mind, and I'm sure there are others ...

[Rhyfelwyr]

JW's are probably the best known non-Trinitarian denomination, IIRC they believe Jesus is a sort of demi-God created by the main God, the Father. There's also binatarians (Jesus and the Father are one, but not the Holy Ghost), Oneness Pentecostals (reject any division of the Godhead into different persons), and a few other small groups with varying beliefs.

Anyway, I will try to defend the Trinity. In that well-known passage, John 1:1, it says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", the Word in this case referring to the same spoken of when he later says "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). Similarly, in other places it is said that "God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim 3:16), and when speaking of Jesus, Luke says that "God hath visited his people" (Luke 7:16).

Jesus himself also shows how he shares a common essence with the Father, and is recorded by John to have said "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." (John 14:10). Now, you could say that this refers to the same indwelling of the spirit in our hearts that drives us to good works; however this is something attributed always to the person of Christ as our mediator (1 Tim 2:6, Heb 7:7), and so by having the Father directly dwelling in him Christ claims a special relationship within the Godhead that no human could.

Also, certain things attributed to God are in other places attributed to the person of Christ. For example, in one place the scripture speaks of the "living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein" (Acts 14:15), while in Hebrews 1:10 this work is said to have been done by Jesus himself: "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands".

And finally, Christ's divinity, combined with passages which speak of one God, mean that Christ must be one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Christ makes this claim in several places, one example being "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58), here clearly referring to the same description Yahweh gave of himself in Exodus 3:14. And so it it was remarked that Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Phil 2:6). While these passages show Christ's divinity, it is not possible that he is a seperate godlike creature alongside the Father. Indeed, Paul says "there is but one God" (1 Cor 8:6), the same one John talks of when, commenting upon Christ, says "This is the true God, and eternal life" (1 John 5:20). And this is why it makes sense when Thomas hails Jesus as "My LORD and my God" (John 20:28).

The Trinity might not be mentioned as such (apart from that disputed verse 1 John 5:7), but it does certainly seem to be implied in the scriptures. And whether or not you believe they are God-breathed, they are at least a fairly solid indication of what exactly the very early Christians believed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There are Christian denominations besides Unitarianism which deny the literal divinity of Jesus; Christian Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science) springs to mind, and I'm sure there are others ...

Like any good catholic Christian I consider all "oneness" etc. Unitarians, all those who subject the Son to the Father, Arrians.

Interestingly enough, Oneness Pentacostals seem to be both depending on which what you look at it.

[Sigurd]

Dissection time...



Anyway, I will try to defend the Trinity. In that well-known passage, John 1:1, it says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", the Word in this case referring to the same spoken of when he later says "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). Similarly, in other places it is said that "God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim 3:16), and when speaking of Jesus, Luke says that "God hath visited his people" (Luke 7:16).

Jesus himself also shows how he shares a common essence with the Father, and is recorded by John to have said "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." (John 14:10). Now, you could say that this refers to the same indwelling of the spirit in our hearts that drives us to good works; however this is something attributed always to the person of Christ as our mediator (1 Tim 2:6, Heb 7:7), and so by having the Father directly dwelling in him Christ claims a special relationship within the Godhead that no human could.

Why in all creation does the Christ make references to a Father in the first place? If Christ is really the Father (as in the monotheistic GOD of the universe) manifested in flesh, why not state: "I am Jehovah, your God. There was no before and no after. Pray to me, worship me". Why circumvent or complicate things by introducing modalism? As I said, the first Christians and the apostolic fathers had no Trinitarian doctrine and apparently there was no Trinitarian problem. The uncomplicated answer would be that God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son was distinct entities, not modal, but one in purpose. The Lords prayer as found in John 17:
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them. (John 17:21-26)
Am I blind or is Jesus saying that the Apostles are modal as himself is modal with the Father?
That there is actually one Apostle with twelve fingers instead of 3 (if we use the analogy of CarlXII) or 12 personalities found in one man?
Or could he be saying that the apostles are 12 individual and separate beings, but have an oneness like the one he shares with God the Father, that is, an oneness in purpose – the purpose of redeeming mankind? That seems to be the easiest answer. There is no Trinitarian problem and certainly no dodecagonian problem in early Christianity.



While these passages show Christ's divinity, it is not possible that he is a separate godlike creature alongside the Father. Indeed, Paul says "there is but one God" (1 Cor 8:6),
If you continue reading verses it would appear that Paul believes there is more than one God in the universe.
For though there be [others] that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 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. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge. (verses 4-7)
You quoted verse 4 by the way, not 6.
Paul says in light of other verses which I will present, that they (the Christians) worship one God – The Father.


the same one John talks of when, commenting upon Christ, says "This is the true God, and eternal life" (1 John 5:20). And this is why it makes sense when Thomas hails Jesus as "My LORD and my God" (John 20:28).
Well, John does make it difficult doesn’t he? Had he kept his mouth shut after those verses it would be all dandy. But no, he continues:
Jesus to Mary Magdalene: I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17.)
and also:
I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28.)
And yet again:
My Father . . . is greater than all. (John 10:29.)
Well? Does Jesus Christ not say that The Father is greater than him? That The Father is his God according to John?


The Trinity might not be mentioned as such (apart from that disputed verse 1 John 5:7), but it does certainly seem to be implied in the scriptures. And whether or not you believe they are God-breathed, they are at least a fairly solid indication of what exactly the very early Christians believed.
The trinity is not worded as trinity in any of the canonised scripture. John 5:7 is obviously a forgery, which begs the question: If the church fathers were apt to change scripture to suit new dogma created at church councils, can we really trust any scripture found in the Canon? Should we not throw out the entire thing for what it is – a creation of corrupt and fallen leaders in a time where divinity had left the church a long time ago?

[Sigurd]

No rebuttal? I thought this was supposed to be a debate? :sweatdrop:

[Rhyfelwyr]

No rebuttal? I thought this was supposed to be a debate? :sweatdrop:

I'll get round to it when I can get my mind to focus on anything...

[Sigurd]

I'll get round to it when I can get my mind to focus on anything...
That's alright... But where is the OP guy - Karl of The Twelfth?

[KarlXII]

I'm watching. I'll make rebuttal later tonight. :sweatdrop:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why in all creation does the Christ make references to a Father in the first place? If Christ is really the Father (as in the monotheistic GOD of the universe) manifested in flesh, why not state: "I am Jehovah, your God. There was no before and no after. Pray to me, worship me".

According to the Trinitarian viewpoint, Christ is NOT the Father. To be honest, I don't think the analogy with the fingers on the hand is appropriate, it reminds me of when St. Paddy the Proddy used a shamrock to describe the Trinity to the pagan Irish, and I don't think it works. Such analogies suggest that God's essence is divided amongst the three persons, or that they all share it from a common root. Both are incorrect according to orthodox understandings of the Trinity, since the fullness of God's essence is in each of the three persons, and these three persons are fully distinct as persons, though they are each comprised fully of the same divine essence (notice how I didn't say they share it?). The mechanics of how this works go beyond human understanding, and so I don't think our wordly analogies will ever cut it.

Anyway, Christ isn't the Father manifested in the flesh, but He is the fullness of the Godhead in the flesh, "For in him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9). That's why Christ can still reference the Father as a seperate person. As for why Christ doesn't ask to be worshipped, I'll get to that later...


Why circumvent or complicate things by introducing modalism? As I said, the first Christians and the apostolic fathers had no Trinitarian doctrine and apparently there was no Trinitarian problem. The uncomplicated answer would be that God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son was distinct entities, not modal, but one in purpose. The Lords prayer as found in John 17

...

Am I blind or is Jesus saying that the Apostles are modal as himself is modal with the Father?
That there is actually one Apostle with twelve fingers instead of 3 (if we use the analogy of CarlXII) or 12 personalities found in one man?
Or could he be saying that the apostles are 12 individual and separate beings, but have an oneness like the one he shares with God the Father, that is, an oneness in purpose – the purpose of redeeming mankind? That seems to be the easiest answer. There is no Trinitarian problem and certainly no dodecagonian problem in early Christianity.

Modalism is an entirely different understanding of God compared to Trinitarianism. According to modalists, there are no three persons in the Godhead, but rather it only appears to us as such. But the difference here is much more than superficial, since the actual existence of three persons in the Godhead is central to the understanding of Christ's sacrifice, what it obtained, how the things obtained by it were applied to us etc.

As for the issue you mentioned with the Lord's prayer and the apostles, I would go with your last explanation - that they are united in purpose but are seperate as persons. You could then ask what Christ means when he says "they may be one, even as we are one", however here I think he is best understood as referring solely to his one purpose with the Father, and not His relationship in the Godhead with Him. The reason for me thinking this is not baseless, but the bits you highlighted in the Lord's prayer are very similar to Hebrews 2:11, where is reads "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one". Then, straight after in the same verse, it says "For which cause he [Jesus] is not ashamed to call them brethren". If we are his brethren, or his brothers, then we are still distinct as persons, though united in purpose.


If you continue reading verses it would appear that Paul believes there is more than one God in the universe.
For though there be [others] that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 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. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge. (verses 4-7)
You quoted verse 4 by the way, not 6.
Paul says in light of other verses which I will present, that they (the Christians) worship one God – The Father.

I'm sure I quoted the right verse. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians+8:6). IIRC you once said (either here or at the TWC) that you used a Watchtower edition of the Bible, or some uncommon version anyway, maybe that is where we differ here.

Regarding what Paul says on 'gods', surely in that verse you quoted he is referring to the various false gods which the people of the time believed in? Otherwise he would be contradicting himself in the same verse. Indeed, it's only after having spoken of these gods, that he then confesses to believe in one God only, and says that not all men have such knowledge... in saying that he seems to be indicating the previously mentioned beliefs were erroneous. Also, though non-Trinitarians use this verse to suggest Christ is a minor god, Paul seems to contrast these "gods many, and lords many" with the "one God, the Father" and the "one Lord Jesus Christ", again contrasting the many false gods and lords of the time with the one and true God and the one true Lord (with Christ being both Lord and God, as Thomas calls him in John 20:28). The way they are contrasted here seems to divert away from any views of Christ being one of the minor gods.

BTW, I agree with the last bit (sort of), in that as Christians we worship the Father (though the divine essence dwells wholly in the two other persons). Christ is our mediator which allows us to do this. That is why we start prayers with "Our/my Father", and finish with "in Jesus' name".


Well, John does make it difficult doesn’t he? Had he kept his mouth shut after those verses it would be all dandy. But no, he continues:
Jesus to Mary Magdalene: I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17.)
and also:
I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28.)
And yet again:
My Father . . . is greater than all. (John 10:29.)
Well? Does Jesus Christ not say that The Father is greater than him? That The Father is his God according to John?

Christ is right to claim that the Father is greater than him, but this not in respect of their inherent nature, but rather to the offices or roles to which they have each been appointed. I've already given the passages establishing Christ's divinity, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9), etc etc. And so by his divine nature, he is equal with the Father. This is established in the second chapter of Phillipians, when it says Jesus "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Phi 2:6). Immediately after this, it says how he put himself in a lesser station than what he was by nature worthy of, when he "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phi 2:7). And the reason he did this was so that he could become "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross" (Phi 2:8), so that he might be "wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities", so that "with his stripes we are healed" (Isa 53:5). Having been equal with the Father, Christ lowered himself so that he could be the "mediator of the new testament" (Heb 9:15). The Godhead descended in the person of Christ to us, since we could never ascend to him. Of course, the person of the Father remains in his original station, with Christ below him so that he might make "intercession for the transgressors" (Isa 53:12). Though the person of Christ must be seperate from the Father for this purpose, there is still that singular divine essence that dwells in each so that we can say we worship one God.


The trinity is not worded as trinity in any of the canonised scripture. John 5:7 is obviously a forgery, which begs the question: If the church fathers were apt to change scripture to suit new dogma created at church councils, can we really trust any scripture found in the Canon? Should we not throw out the entire thing for what it is – a creation of corrupt and fallen leaders in a time where divinity had left the church a long time ago?

Well I'm not going to debate the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 here, I don't know enough about it, and if I did use it there wouldn't be any room for debate. Still, I think the Trinity is implicated throughout the entire scripture and its core teachings, and so I'll try to uphold it. As for the rest of the Canon, that's a debate for another time, let's keep focused on discussing the Trinity from a scriptural point of view.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Rhy, you have committed profanity according to the Creed.

Sigurd was naughty for not posting this, actually:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm

Nowhere is it allowed that Christ's Godhead can be placed below the Father. Only Christ's Manhood could possibly be so denigrated.

Further, as formalised in 381 at Constantinople the Nicine Creed pre-dates the first accepted canon of the scripture by 20 years and all the final canons by around 1,200 years.

Now, you two dig your teeth into that while I finish this blsasted dissertation.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Nowhere is it allowed that Christ's Godhead can be placed below the Father. Only Christ's Manhood could possibly be so denigrated.

I practically paraphrased the relevant part of my post with the scripture there. I didn't actually say in what respect Christ should be seen as being beneath the Father as he went about achieving the work on the cross, but, as he said, "I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I". I took this as referring to the flesh being crucified on the cross, being made sin for us etc. As I said earlier, he was by his own nature equal with God.

This is the single most confusing topic to discuss in theology (maybe), what exact bit of my post did you think was wrong? Ah, is it the "Godhead descended in the person of Christ to us" part? If it is, I meant that the person of Christ literally descended out of heaven, not that the Godhead's glory was in any way degraded. Or if it's the "Father remains in his original station, with Christ below him" bit, I mean this as I said purely in terms of their office, and not as reflective of one's Godly nature being superior to the other.

Theology is confusing, especially in the early hours of the morning. :juggle2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I practically paraphrased the relevant part of my post with the scripture there. I didn't actually say in what respect Christ should be seen as being beneath the Father as he went about achieving the work on the cross, but, as he said, "I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I". I took this as referring to the flesh being crucified on the cross, being made sin for us etc. As I said earlier, he was by his own nature equal with God.

This is the single most confusing topic to discuss in theology (maybe), what exact bit of my post did you think was wrong? Ah, is it the "Godhead descended in the person of Christ to us" part? If it is, I meant that the person of Christ literally descended out of heaven, not that the Godhead's glory was in any way degraded. Or if it's the "Father remains in his original station, with Christ below him" bit, I mean this as I said purely in terms of their office, and not as reflective of one's Godly nature being superior to the other.

Theology is confusing, especially in the early hours of the morning. :juggle2:
It was primarily, "Father remains in his original station, with Christ below him", as this implies the work of the Son is of less import, or of a different progressional order.

Ergo, I go get the faggots and a flint.

The three persons of the trinity must be seen as distinct, but not seperate. This is why the hand is used, because the fingers are all the hand, and yet they are also fingers independantly.

Also, neither of you have dealt with the Divine Duality, that the Christ was both God and Man, and that he can therefore speak as both God and Man, and further, the Man should not be worshipped, but the God must be.

In Nomine Patri, Filiae, et Spiritus Sancti, Amen.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It was primarily, "Father remains in his original station, with Christ below him", as this implies the work of the Son is of less import, or of a different progressional order.

Ergo, I go get the faggots and a flint.

The work of the Son is no doubt different to that of the Father in his purpose of bringing us to salvation, though they are ultimately working towards a single purpsoe. Christ was made of no reputation so that he would suffer at the Father's hand, he says himself he is in some respect below the Father in this regard. The Godhead which dwells in Christ need not necessarily be placed below that in the Father (how can something be placed below itself?), but it seems undeniable that Christ is in some respect below the Father, surely it is his flesh or the human aspect. Since he's 100% God and 100% human (not 50/50), it should be possible.


The three persons of the trinity must be seen as distinct, but not seperate. This is why the hand is used, because the fingers are all the hand, and yet they are also fingers independantly.

However, all the hand is not in a finger, whereas the fullness of the Godhead is in each person of the Trinity, that's why I don't think it's suitable.


Also, neither of you have dealt with the Divine Duality, that the Christ was both God and Man, and that he can therefore speak as both God and Man, and further, the Man should not be worshipped, but the God must be.

In Nomine Patri, Filiae, et Spiritus Sancti, Amen.

Is that directly relevant to this thread?

Can't speak a word of Latin I'm afraid. :shame:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The work of the Son is no doubt different to that of the Father in his purpose of bringing us to salvation, though they are ultimately working towards a single purpsoe. Christ was made of no reputation so that he would suffer at the Father's hand, he says himself he is in some respect below the Father in this regard. The Godhead which dwells in Christ need not necessarily be placed below that in the Father (how can something be placed below itself?), but it seems undeniable that Christ is in some respect below the Father, surely it is his flesh or the human aspect. Since he's 100% God and 100% human (not 50/50), it should be possible.

I'm not familliar with a Trinitarian doctrine where Christ suffers under the Father. Also, are you talking about Jesus, the Christ, or God the Son?


However, all the hand is not in a finger, whereas the fullness of the Godhead is in each person of the Trinity, that's why I don't think it's suitable.

Well, the fullness of the hand is in the palm and the fingers, they are of one body and essence. The hand is not complete if you remove a finger and the finger is just flesh if you remove it from the hand. To protest that the fullness of the Godhead is in the Son and the Father is to protest that they might be distinct, so that it is needful that the "fullness of the Godhead" be contained distinctly in all three. Is it not said, "the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, and the Holy Ghost in both as they are in Him"?


Is that directly relevant to this thread?

Can't speak a word of Latin I'm afraid. :shame:

Of course, because Christ the man is not of the same nature as God the Son. While he dwells on Earth in the form of a Man the Son of God can, therefore, be viewed differently than the assended Christ. This can have consequences for his utterences. In John Christ calls the disciples his friends and equals before his crucifiction.

Edit: The Latin is completely obvious, though I tend to miss out Dei after Nomine. So formally it would read:

In Nomine Dei Patri, Filiae, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

You should be able to read it easily, just pretend it's English.

[Sigurd]

According to the Trinitarian viewpoint, Christ is NOT the Father. To be honest, I don't think the analogy with the fingers on the hand is appropriate … Such analogies suggest that God's essence is divided amongst the three persons, or that they all share it from a common root. Both are incorrect according to orthodox understandings of the Trinity, since the fullness of God's essence is in each of the three persons, and these three persons are fully distinct as persons, though they are each comprised fully of the same divine essence (notice how I didn't say they share it?).

But the concept of Trinity is un-orthodox. The orthodox view of the Godhead is Subordinationism, that is, Jesus and The Holy Ghost are subordinate or subject to the Father.
In Subordinationism, Jesus must be a separate being from the Father.
The Trinitarians were actually a minority at Nicea. They were one in three groups where Arians were the second and the large body of the middle party (according to J.N.D Kelly: the great conservative middle party) who where Subordinationalists, was the third group. The Trinitarians were called Nicenes and included Athanasius which was more or less a modalist.
The conservatives believed in three divine persons, “separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will”.



Modalism is an entirely different understanding of God compared to Trinitarianism. According to modalists, there are no three persons in the Godhead, but rather it only appears to us as such. But the difference here is much more than superficial, since the actual existence of three persons in the Godhead is central to the understanding of Christ's sacrifice, what it obtained, how the things obtained by it were applied to us etc.
If I am not entirely mistaken, modalism or a form of modalism is the current belief of Christianity – or more specifically Western fundamental Protestantism (mainstream?).
Monarchianism was the belief of the main Trinitarians at the council of Nicea including Athanasius.



As for the issue you mentioned with the Lord's prayer and the apostles, I would go with your last explanation - that they are united in purpose but are separate as persons. You could then ask what Christ means when he says "they may be one, even as we are one", however here I think he is best understood as referring solely to his one purpose with the Father, and not His relationship in the Godhead with Him. The reason for me thinking this is not baseless, but the bits you highlighted in the Lord's prayer are very similar to Hebrews 2:11, where is reads "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one". Then, straight after in the same verse, it says "For which cause he [Jesus] is not ashamed to call them brethren". If we are his brethren, or his brothers, then we are still distinct as persons, though united in purpose.
Right… so you are leaving modalism and embrace what? Am I seeing a tendency towards tritheism in your explanation there?




I'm sure I quoted the right verse.. IIRC you once said (either here or at the TWC) that you used a Watchtower edition of the Bible, or some uncommon version anyway, maybe that is where we differ here.
My mistake. I was using the KJV as that is the most acknowledged English version. I was glancing on the verses when I wrote that. Verse 4 ends with “and that there is none other God but one”



Regarding what Paul says on 'gods', surely in that verse you quoted he is referring to the various false gods which the people of the time believed in?
Yes, he says there is one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.



BTW, I agree with the last bit (sort of), in that as Christians we worship the Father (though the divine essence dwells wholly in the two other persons). Christ is our mediator which allows us to do this. That is why we start prayers with "Our/my Father", and finish with "in Jesus' name".
No disagreements there.



Christ is right to claim that the Father is greater than him, but this not in respect of their inherent nature, but rather to the offices or roles to which they have each been appointed. I've already given the passages establishing Christ's divinity, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9), etc etc. And so by his divine nature, he is equal with the Father. This is established in the second chapter of Phillipians, when it says Jesus "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Phi 2:6). Immediately after this, it says how he put himself in a lesser station than what he was by nature worthy of, when he "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phi 2:7). And the reason he did this was so that he could become "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross" (Phi 2:8), so that he might be "wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities", so that "with his stripes we are healed" (Isa 53:5). Having been equal with the Father, Christ lowered himself so that he could be the "mediator of the new testament" (Heb 9:15). The Godhead descended in the person of Christ to us, since we could never ascend to him. Of course, the person of the Father remains in his original station, with Christ below him so that he might make "intercession for the transgressors" (Isa 53:12). Though the person of Christ must be seperate from the Father for this purpose, there is still that singular divine essence that dwells in each so that we can say we worship one God.
I have not argued the non-divinity of Christ. But he is clearly subordinate in glory as evidenced in the gospels and specifically on the cross and meeting Mary Magdalena at the tomb.



Still, I think the Trinity is implicated throughout the entire scripture and its core teachings, and so I'll try to uphold it. As for the rest of the Canon, that's a debate for another time, let's keep focused on discussing the Trinity from a scriptural point of view.I am on the opinion of the contrary. Yes the canon does speak of a unity of purpose but the Trinitarian concept as proposed by the Nicene creed needs Clement of Alexandrian Origenian and Augustinian presuppositions from the Hellenistic tradition. In fact, many earlier church fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Novatian and Justin the Martyr held views that later would be heretical if they had survived the Nicene Creed.



Sigurd was naughty for not posting this, actually:
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm

Well… I could post the different versions of the creed – the 325 version and the 381 version. One interesting one is the Armenian version with the bodily ascension of Christ and the bodily return of Christ. If I am not mistaken, the Western Fundamental Protestantism believes Christ shed his bodily tabernacle when ascending to sit on the right hand of God. (yeah.. the right hand of himself).




Also, neither of you have dealt with the Divine Duality, that the Christ was both God and Man, and that he can therefore speak as both God and Man, and further, the Man should not be worshipped, but the God must be.

In Nomine Patri, Filiae, et Spiritus Sancti, Amen.
I guess I would reject this notion as well as that is just another innovation by the councils.
It is not taught in the Bible and is therefore the ideas of men.



Is that directly relevant to this thread?

Can't speak a word of Latin I'm afraid.

"In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, Amen."
The duality of Christ – is established and not established in the following church councils and is apparently a result of some conflict between the East and West. Was there not a big flop council on this very subject popularly called – the Robber Synod in which Monophysitism got a foothold in the church?
They condemned monophysitism (one nature of Christ) in Chaldcedon 451 but later (Constantinople 553) condemned the three anti-monophysitist chapters.

I just realised that I have really no affirmative position on this as I don't belong to any church denomination. Hmmm...
Maybe I should make an In Character position for the fun of it. Ya know like those mafia games I like to play.
I got to think this over...

[Rhyfelwyr]

But the concept of Trinity is un-orthodox. The orthodox view of the Godhead is Subordinationism, that is, Jesus and The Holy Ghost are subordinate or subject to the Father.
In Subordinationism, Jesus must be a separate being from the Father.
The Trinitarians were actually a minority at Nicea. They were one in three groups where Arians were the second and the large body of the middle party (according to J.N.D Kelly: the great conservative middle party) who where Subordinationalists, was the third group. The Trinitarians were called Nicenes and included Athanasius which was more or less a modalist.
The conservatives believed in three divine persons, “separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will”.

I meant that those views were othodox for Trinitarians, not that Trinitarianism in necessarily the orthodox view for Christianity. It's fine to talk about various creeds and the divisions in the fairly early days of Christianity, but remembers Arius wasn't even around until the late 3rd century. The scriptures are a better indication of what the earliest Christians believed, in some cases people who knew Jesus in person. And so though we talk about Arius etc as being representative of early branches of Christianity, in reality they should hold no more weight than someone from the 10th, 16th, or 19th centuries. If we want to argue that our beliefs are the same as those held by the original followers of Christ, then we have to go right back to the disciples. Factionalism in the 3rd century church isn't that relevant.


If I am not entirely mistaken, modalism or a form of modalism is the current belief of Christianity – or more specifically Western fundamental Protestantism (mainstream?).
Monarchianism was the belief of the main Trinitarians at the council of Nicea including Athanasius.

Right… so you are leaving modalism and embrace what? Am I seeing a tendency towards tritheism in your explanation there?

Mainstream Protestanism pretty much toes the same line as the Catholics and Orthodox when it comes to the Trinity. Modalism is not trinitarian, since it argues that God is not manifested in three persons, but rather it just appears to us as such.

Also, what did I say that suggests tritheism? When I said, "they are united in purpose but are seperate as persons", I was referring to Christ's relationship with the apostles, not the Father.


Yes, he says there is one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.

Remember though that on numerous occasions Christ is said to be God or claims to be God (John 20:28, John 8:58 etc). In the pasage you gave, I think the person of the Father is specifically implicated as the one God due to his being the fountain from which Christ and the Holy Spirit draw their divine essence which comprises each fully, the Father being the natural form in which the divine essence expreseses itself. I say this because both Christ and the Holy Spirit, though by necessity one with the Father, yet bear different persons from Him, and are subordinate to Him. In Christ's case, this mystery is necessary so that me might be a mediator so man can communicate up to God. In the Holy Spirit's case, so that the Father's grace can by communicated down to mankind.

Elsewhere, there are things ascribed to God, and not specifically the person of the Father, which are in other places ascribed to the Son. For example, look how Titus speaks of the "doctrine of God our Saviour" (Tit 2:10), and immediately after "the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Tit 2:13). If you say that only the Father is God, how can God be said to be our saviour? He didn't die for our sins, apply our salvation to us, or make intercession for us. Christ did these things, and that is why he is said to be our saviour. Also, things such as the creation of the world are in one place attributed to God (Gen 1:1, Acts 17:24), and in other places attributed to Christ (Col 1:16). If only the Father is God, how can this be so?

Also, look at the early parts of Hebrews chapter 1. When it speaks of God, we can agree it is referring to the Father. Then, in verse 8, the Father says to the Son "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever". Immediately after calling the Son "God", the Father then refers to Himself again as God. Indeed, he says, "God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy." Is the Father contracting what he said a moment before, suggesting there more than one God, and contradicting so many other parts of scripture? Or maybe, as I said earlier, the Father is in certain places called the God by way of eminency, not excluding others from the Godhead, but referring to the fact that the other two persons are comprised of the divine essence by way of communication through Him (John 15:26 for the Holy Spirit, Christ in John 5:19) to perform their offices to achieve the salvation of mankind/the elect.


I have not argued the non-divinity of Christ. But he is clearly subordinate in glory as evidenced in the gospels and specifically on the cross and meeting Mary Magdalena at the tomb.

I agree he is in some aspect placed below the Father, but is this because the Son is by nature inferior to the Father? What about where it says that Jesus "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Phi 2:6). And then it describes how, from being equal with God, he would be made of no reputation, prepared for the cross etc. This referring to his coming "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:3). Christ's divine nature sustained him from sin, and by preserving his own flesh unstained by sin, he could present himself as a lamb without blemish for the perfect sacrifice. If his nature was not fully divine, he could never have fulfilled the law, and so his subordination to the Father must not be in terms of their inherent nature, but rather the office to which each are placed.


Well… I could post the different versions of the creed – the 325 version and the 381 version. One interesting one is the Armenian version with the bodily ascension of Christ and the bodily return of Christ. If I am not mistaken, the Western Fundamental Protestantism believes Christ shed his bodily tabernacle when ascending to sit on the right hand of God. (yeah.. the right hand of himself).

Fundemantalist Protestants are actually pretty much in line with mainstream Christianity when it comes to the Trinity, and they believe that Christ had a bodily resurrection. In fact, Protestants tend to take the idea of a bodily resurrection for all the saved more literally than others do. From my experience, Catholics tend to view the portrayals of heaven very allegorically, whereas the stricter Protestants believe we will be physically walking around on the new heaven and new earth just as we do here.

Also, Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, who he refers to as his God in respect of the positions to which each of them have been appointed.

As for the issue of Christ having both a divine and human nature, surely that is a seperate discussion?

Also, for Philipvs, the Fifth Ecumenical Council seems to indicate that Christ's Godly nature and his human nature were inseperable in his person, and both suffered with him on the cross. It says “One of the Trinity suffered for us.” This was a significant point in refuting those who said Christ's two natures remained distinct from one another. You said earlier you could not lower the Godhead so that it suffered at the hand of the Father, however this seems to contradict this council, and aren't all of the first seven councils recognised as authoritative by Catholics, Orthodox, and almost all Protestants?

Check out this piece (http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html) on gotquestions.org, point 5 speaks clearly of subordination within the Trinity. I don't quote this site because it must be correct, but it is a mainstream Protestant site and I didn't think I was heretical with what I said earlier.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Also, for Philipvs, the Fifth Ecumenical Council seems to indicate that Christ's Godly nature and his human nature were inseperable in his person, and both suffered with him on the cross. It says “One of the Trinity suffered for us.” This was a significant point in refuting those who said Christ's two natures remained distinct from one another. You said earlier you could not lower the Godhead so that it suffered at the hand of the Father, however this seems to contradict this council, and aren't all of the first seven councils recognised as authoritative by Catholics, Orthodox, and almost all Protestants?

Check out this piece (http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html) on gotquestions.org, point 5 speaks clearly of subordination within the Trinity. I don't quote this site because it must be correct, but it is a mainstream Protestant site and I didn't think I was heretical with what I said earlier.

Subordination is dangerously close to Arianism, regarding the 5th Council:

1

If anyone will not confess that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have one nature or substance, that they have one power and authority, that there is a consubstantial Trinity, that one Deity to be adored in three subsistences or persons: Let him be anathema.

There is only one God and Father, from whom all things come, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one holy Spirit, in whom all things are.

2

[This canon confirms two nativities]

3

[This declares the Word and the Christ to be one and the same, in one person]

4

[This anathemises all who declare anything other than two natures united in one person]

I refer you to Norman P Tanner's translation, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils Vol. 1, 1990.

I see nothing in these canons which subordinates the Son of God to the Father. It may be said that Christ, as he has two natures, may as a man, be subordinate to God whilst he dwells on Earth, just as it may be said he sits on the Right Hand of the Father. However, there cannot be a subordination within the Trinity. I see nothing in the first or second Council which says, The Son is a subject unto the Father.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I see nothing in these canons which subordinates the Son of God to the Father. It may be said that Christ, as he has two natures, may as a man, be subordinate to God whilst he dwells on Earth, just as it may be said he sits on the Right Hand of the Father. However, there cannot be a subordination within the Trinity. I see nothing in the first or second Council which says, The Son is a subject unto the Father.

It may not say it directly, but as a consequence of Christ's human and divine natures both working together in perfect unison in one person (since to argue against this would be Nestorian heresy), then one cannot suffer upon the cross without the other. Granted, the Son was not always in the flesh, but once he was, his divine nature was intertwined inseperably with his human one, and so they were both put to death on the cross.

Otherwise, how could we call God our saviour? If you remove Christ's divine nature from the cross, then the Godhead had no part in the work of the cross, save pouring out wrath onto an innocent man. If you say this, I'm sure it is you and not me that's defying traditional understandings of the Trinity. Indeed, Socinus' main argument against Calvin's idea of a penal atonement was based on his non-Trinitarian views, in that he said God was just taking a random innocent and placing him on the cross for the sins of the guilty, and so no mercy on God's part was involved. Being a Trinitarian, Calvin could argue that God took the sins of the guilty on Himself, an act of mercy that also allowed His justice to be satisfied.

So it looks like the faggots and flint are for you... :smash:

[Sigurd]

Thank you all for derailing this fine debate on the subject of the Trinity. :no:
It makes it a bit harder for those involved to sift out the relevant posts.
:beam:

I wanted to play as the orthodox party in this debate - the conservative in the Arians vs Niceans argument which forced Trinitarianism into Christianity mainstream.
I then realized that I couldn't think of any living denominations that follows this doctrine.

As a debater you really need to base your arguments on a presupposition or a foundation of some sort. My agnosticism will not cut it as I believe I will not be given the answers to any of these questions. I don't have that presupposition or foundation - I simply lack the gnosis that others seem to base their position on. I therefore need to play as if I have one.

Seeing ajaxfetish in here gave me an idea. Isn't it so ajax that the first principle of your gospel is to know the true nature of God? And the second, the true nature of Jesus Christ?
And wouldn't you say that your view of God or the triune Godhead is supposed to be the same view as that of the early Christians? As in pre-Nicea but not pre-Christianity?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Is this thread for everything theology-related, or just discussion on the Trinity? The latter is confusing enough on its own, never mind everything else being said here.

Anyway, I really don't have much experience when it comes to apologetics, but isn't one of the points on whether God exists related to whether or not a material universe must be created?

Is it logically sound to say the universe has always existed?

I'm not so much trying to make an argument as genuinely asking a question...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Is this thread for everything theology-related, or just discussion on the Trinity?

In consultation with the original poster, this thread will continue to discuss a controlled theme - to date, the Trinity.

The tangent has been formed into a thread of its own: The Definition and Existence of God. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=121435)

It is natural that debates will veer off into related territory, but the divergence was too great to sustain the original intent.

Please continue.

:bow:

[Adrian II]

You are a very small organism, let's say a cell, inhabiting a plane of water. [..] One day, you see three long pieces of flesh [..]You're a cell and you see? What nonsense is that?

Show me a cell that has eyes and I will swallow your bible whole.

It's amazing how little some Christians know or care about the supposed creation of their own supposed god. Never mind if the Trinity is biblically or theologically sound. Biologically, it isn't.


It may not say it directly, but as a consequence of Christ's human and divine natures both working together in perfect unison in one person (since to argue against this would be Nestorian heresy), then one cannot suffer upon the cross without the other. Granted, the Son was not always in the flesh, but once he was, his divine nature was intertwined inseperably with his human one, and so they were both put to death on the cross.What on earth is that supposed to mean? If Christ was not always in the flesh, then where was he? In the air? In the Milky Way?

And what is that stuff about two natures of Christ working together in perfect unison? It isn't even plausibe that the guy ever existed, so how can you pretend to know anything about his nature? Pardon, about his natures?

Look again at what you have just written. Aren't you ashamed of the mind-boggling arrogance with which you deny the myriad achievements of modern science and pretend to replace them with absolute gobbledygook?

[Rhyfelwyr]

What on earth is that supposed to mean? If Christ was not always in the flesh, then where was he? In the air? In the Milky Way?

Something like that. Well, the Son was not always in the flesh anyway. Christ is the manifestation of the Son in the flesh with a human nature, he is the Father's son and also of the seed of David.


And what is that stuff about two natures of Christ working together in perfect unison? It isn't even plausibe that the guy ever existed, so how can you pretend to know anything about his nature? Pardon, about his natures?

By studying the scripture, it says a lot about what the early Christians thought of his nature.


Look again at what you have just written. Aren't you ashamed of the mind-boggling arrogance with which you deny the myriad achievements of modern science and pretend to replace them with absolute gobbledygook?

I have no idea what you are saying about science here, did I say the earth was 6,000 years old or something? I also don't see why you're so upset, this isn't Fred Phelps fundamentalist stuff I'm writing, the Trinity has been accepted by almost all of Christendom for many centuries. I think it is a sound doctrine, if you don't then you can join in the debate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It may not say it directly, but as a consequence of Christ's human and divine natures both working together in perfect unison in one person (since to argue against this would be Nestorian heresy), then one cannot suffer upon the cross without the other. Granted, the Son was not always in the flesh, but once he was, his divine nature was intertwined inseperably with his human one, and so they were both put to death on the cross.

Otherwise, how could we call God our saviour? If you remove Christ's divine nature from the cross, then the Godhead had no part in the work of the cross, save pouring out wrath onto an innocent man. If you say this, I'm sure it is you and not me that's defying traditional understandings of the Trinity. Indeed, Socinus' main argument against Calvin's idea of a penal atonement was based on his non-Trinitarian views, in that he said God was just taking a random innocent and placing him on the cross for the sins of the guilty, and so no mercy on God's part was involved. Being a Trinitarian, Calvin could argue that God took the sins of the guilty on Himself, an act of mercy that also allowed His justice to be satisfied.

So it looks like the faggots and flint are for you... :smash:

Weredoes it say that the Son is Subject to the Father?

We might percieve that the body of Jesus was subject to the laws which the Father imposed upon the world, but then he walked on water, so even our perception would be manifestly incorrect.

Unless, of course, you're talking about some Calvinistic view of the world as deterministic, but even that wouldn't be true, as God can change such determinations, should he so choose.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're a cell and you see? What nonsense is that?

Show me a cell that has eyes and I will swallow your bible whole.

It's amazing how little some Christians know or care about the supposed creation of their own supposed god. Never mind if the Trinity is biblically or theologically sound. Biologically, it isn't.

What on earth is that supposed to mean? If Christ was not always in the flesh, then where was he? In the air? In the Milky Way?

And what is that stuff about two natures of Christ working together in perfect unison? It isn't even plausibe that the guy ever existed, so how can you pretend to know anything about his nature? Pardon, about his natures?

Look again at what you have just written. Aren't you ashamed of the mind-boggling arrogance with which you deny the myriad achievements of modern science and pretend to replace them with absolute gobbledygook?

Adrian, this has nothing to do with Science at all, and you know it.

If we accept God exists and is all powerful, then the laws of the universe upon which science rests are laws under His sufference and subject to His will just like everything else.

In any case, there is a heap of evidence he existed, including over 30 accounts of his life, that's more than we have for any other figure of the period; and, may I point out, accounts of Caesar's or Alexander's lives are almost as fantastical.

In fact, modern Science was founded on the principle that the world must be regular and ordered because it has a creator which orders it, and will not change that order.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Weredoes it say that the Son is Subject to the Father?

We might percieve that the body of Jesus was subject to the laws which the Father imposed upon the world, but then he walked on water, so even our perception would be manifestly incorrect.

Unless, of course, you're talking about some Calvinistic view of the world as deterministic, but even that wouldn't be true, as God can change such determinations, should he so choose.

This has absolutedly nothing to do with determinism, I don't understand why you raised that issue. As for the miracles, remember that Jesus said "the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10). Jesus attributes everything he does to the Father, for "The Son can do nothing of himself" (John 5:19), and he says "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work" (John 4:34).

In arguing that only the human nature of Christ suffered on the cross, you are effectively removing any element of God's mercy in our salvation. All Christians, be they Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinist, early Arminian (before their views developed that is; remember Arminius was a student at Geneva and he effectively believed in Calvin's theology, but said free will was a mystery - the later Arminians got bogged down trying to figure out how the mechanics of their worldview could work) believe that God died on the cross for our sins. That's how his mercy and his justice can work together and bring us to salvation. Do you believe He punished a random innocent?

[Adrian II]

Adrian, this has nothing to do with Science at all, and you know it.I know, it even runs counter to science. And to common sense as well.
In any case, there is a heap of evidence he existed, including over 30 accounts of his life [..]Yeah, and the same goes for Cinderella.

There is not a single contemporaneous source that testifies to the existence of a figure that might remotely resemble your Christ. Let alone to his single, double or for all I care his triple nature. You dare you insult historiography in this way?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is not a single contemporaneous source that testifies to the existence of a figure that might remotely resemble your Christ. Let alone to his single, double or for all I care his triple nature. You dare you insult historiography in this way?

The only contemperous sources for figures like Alexander are inscriptions, which tell us nothing at all, even less exists for his father. I am aware of no contemporary visual depiction or charactar sketch of Alexander, all extant narrative sources were written 300 years after his death.

Mathew's Gospel was written some 30 years after Christ's crucifiction, Luke's perhaps 40. They are both historical sources, just because they made it into the Bible does not make them less so. The gap is less and the association closer than Herodotus to the 300 Spartans he helped immortalise.

Given that Christ was:

A: Not a politically significant figure in his own lifetime

and

B: No contempory local history has survived

I am not surprised he does not turn up in Roman sources until Tacitus, but then Tacitus is our only narrative source for Nero, and Suetonius the only other character sketch, yet his villification at the hands of later writers has remained unchallenged until very recently, and such challenges are admitted to be weak and only relatively minor in character.

If you want to bamboozal someone with claims about the accuracy of our knowledge in this period, I am not he Sir. How dare you insult me as an historian?

[Adrian II]

The only contemperous sources for figures like Alexander are inscriptions, which tell us nothing at all, even less exists for his father.Excuse me? And very precise inscriptions they are.

The Astronomical Diaries of the Egesila Temple mention his reign as 'Year 1 of Alexander', 'Year 2 of Alexander', et cetera. On the day of his death, the record says: 'The twenty-ninth: The king died. Clouds.' Thus, we can date his death between the evening of June 10 and the evening of June 11, 323 BC. Nothing at all, you say?

Even Gaugamela (331 BC) is precisely datable on the basis of the Diaries:


On the 11th of that month, panic occurred in the camp before the king. The Macedonians encamped in front of the king.
On the 24th [1 October], in the morning, the king of the world erected his standard and attacked. Opposite each other they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops of the king he inflicted. The king, his troops deserted him and to their cities they went. They fled to the east.
And yet you say that these inscriptions tell us nothing at all? Phooy! How can you? :no:

Mathew's Gospel was written some 30 years after Christ's crucifiction, Luke's perhaps 40. They were written 70 to 200 years after the supposed fact.

The earliest Christian texts are the letters (Paul &cetera) and these do not refer to a historical person named Christ at all. They refer to him as a celestial being that was revealed through the Old Testament.

It was only later, when the Jezus cult took hold, that the Gospels were construed to make people believe that Christ was historical and had really walked the earth. I say 'construed' because they were selected from a huge batch of stories about mythical figures that preceded Christ and whose lives went through similar stages: Osiris, Tammuz, Baal, Attis, Adonis, Hercules.

For freak's sake, Osiris' life had been recounted and written down (we have the texts) since around 2500 BC. Osiris was the son of god, his mother was a virgin, he was born in a cowshed, his birth was prophesied by a star in the heavens, he converted water into wine, he baptised his followers in water, he had 12 disciples, he was killed on a stake or cross for licentious behaviour, he was resurrected on the third day and ascended to heaven. This 'God made flesh' as the Egyptians called him (there's your flesh, Rhyfelwyr; only its Egyptian, not Jewish) was the saviour of the world, he was equal to his father. And he wil return at the end of time!

That's 2500 years before Christ, my good man. Yet you believe that your Christ is the real one?

Ha!

Napoleons. Millions of Napoleons. :wall:

P.S. And just in case anyone wonders whether this is on topic: it is because we are discussing the supposed Trinity and I maintain that there is or was no such thing as a Holy Trinity because there was no Christ. If mods feel that it belongs in another thread, please feel free to refer it and I will continue in that thread.

P.P.S And before Banquo's Ghost smites me and throws me into outer darkness, let me mention some real sources. Take this passage for comparison, quoted from Randel Helms book Gospel Fictions (though it is not as good as Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle):


In the first century of the Common Era, there appeared at the eastern end of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one true God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some followers to claim he was the son of God, although he called himself the son of man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended to heaven. Who was this teacher and wonder-worker? His name was Apollonius of Tyana; he died about 98 A.D., and his story may be read in Flavius Philostratus's Life of Apollonius.
Those interested in archaeology may want to look at Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, in which they dispell myth after misinterpretation rooted in the Bible, and reconstruct the biblical era from proper sources. Alas, there has been no Mozes, no exodus..

[Rhyfelwyr]

For freak's sake, Osiris' life had been recounted and written down (we have the texts) since around 2500 BC. Osiris was the son of god, his mother was a virgin, he was born in a cowshed, his birth was prophesied by a star in the heavens, he converted water into wine, he baptised his followers in water, he had 12 disciples, he was killed on a stake or cross for licentious behaviour, he was resurrected on the third day and ascended to heaven. This 'God made flesh' as the Egyptians called him (there's your flesh, Rhyfelwyr; only its Egyptian, not Jewish) was the saviour of the world, he was equal to his father. And he wil return at the end of time!

Ugh... these myths have been thoroughly debunked, they appear quite often at the TWC where even the atheists with knowledge on the matter say they are rubbish.

Osiris was believed to be the offspring of two Gods, Geb and Nut, not a virgin woman. His birth wasn't prophecied by a star, he only later came to be associated generally with the Orion constellation as his story of death and rebirth was though to mimick the seasonal cycle. He was never claimed to have been the 'lord of the born again' as some German historians contrived to portray him as in the 19th century, and this claim was shown to have no backing at the time. He wasn't executed like Jesus, but murdered and had his body scattered. Rather than being resurrected with a new body like Jesus, he was supposedly revived when the pieces of his body were put back together. And after this, he didn't return to earth to walk amongst us as Jesus did, nor did he ascend to heaven as Jesus did, but rather went to rule the underworld. Osiris became the god of the dead to the Egyptians, Jesus is the Lord of the new heaven where we have eternal life.

This Zeitgeist :daisy: gets really tiresome...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Ha!

Napoleons. Millions of Napoleons. :wall:

P.S. If mods feel that it belongs in another thread, please feel free to refer it and I will continue in that thread.Now I don't care what the mods think about your posts in this thread or the 'define God' one. I myself think you are way out of line and utterly disrespectful to Greatness you know nothing about. 'Millions of Napoleons'. Tsk. There's only one Napoléon and that's me. :no:

[Adrian II]

Osiris was believed to be the offspring of two Gods, Geb and NutThat is the Greek version of Egyptian myth.

The real Egyptian myth is, surprisingly, Egyptian.

You might start with the Pepi 1 Pyramid text, which states that Osiris is the son of Atum, supreme deity, creator and ruler of all the gods.

Don't skip the Memre texts. They are very informative, too. You will see that Atum impregnated Nut, that she gave birth to Osiris and that Geb decided to treat the child as his own.

Sounds familiar, eh? All Maria and Joseph-like.

Take it from there.

There's only one Napoléon and that's me. :no:See you at Waterloo!

Arthur Wellesley

[Louis VI the Fat]

See you at Waterloo!

Arthur WellesleyI shall let my marshalls see to you. I can't waste my precious time waiting for you nobody to finally dare and ride out openly to face me. I am busy adding to my immortal glory by conquering the Pyramides, to open up Egypt and start the study of Egyptology, bringing priceless knowledge back to be studied by Europe's sages.

*here's an ancient manuscript about Osiris, which will one day expose to Europe that the much simplified version that neighbouring underdeveloped Palestine uses is a mere copy*

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is the Greek version of Egyptian myth.

The real Egyptian myth is, surprisingly, Egyptian.

You might start with the Pepi 1 Pyramid text, which states that Osiris is the son of Atum, supreme deity, creator and ruler of all the gods.

Don't skip the Memre texts. They are very informative, too. You will see that Atum impregnated Nut, that she gave birth to Osiris and that Geb decided to treat the child as his own.

Sounds familiar, eh? All Maria and Joseph-like.

There are similarities, but the conflation is a fallacy because Jesus knew those myths and deliberately aped them. How many times does it say, "and he did so and so, so that the prophecy would be fullfilled."

Hells, he had Lazarus put a Donkey on standby so that he could ride into Jerusalem on it!

Your argument is that Jesus did not exist, therefore... However, if you reject the Protestant conviction of Biblical Inneracy, which is absurd, Heretical and anti-Patristic, and you accept Jesus was a thinking man, everything he does becomes explicable.

As to your contention regarding the date of the Gospels, the extant manuscripts all date to around 300 AD, but so does most of the old Testemant, and yet philologists are confident in dating to as early as 1200 BC in places, and 500 BC in others; even within the same book.

All the commentaries I have read date the newest Gospel (John) to between 70 AD and 120 AD, with the mode and mean being around 90 AD.

Also, you might want to look into the Armara period in Egypt and the monotheistic religion that was briefly popular there around 1400 BC before dismissing the Exodus out of hand.

[Rhyfelwyr]

However, if you reject the Protestant conviction of Biblical Inneracy, which is absurd, Heretical

On what authority can you state with such confidence that it is heretical? When people grant authority to the scriptures, at least they can claim authority on those grounds, even if the reasoning is circular. Are you making these statements on the basis of church tradition, revelation from God, or whatever?

[Adrian II]

There are similarities, but the conflation is a fallacy because Jesus knew those myths and deliberately aped them. How many times does it say, "and he did so and so, so that the prophecy would be fullfilled."You profess to know more than you ever could. And you take the bible literally, even though your said earlier that it is the work of fallible humans.

The Gospel writers knew those older stories, that's for sure. They copied many themes from the stories about Mithras, Dionysus and around 100 other mythical figures, about half of which predated your supposed Christ, sometimes by hundreds of years. And there are many discarded gospels that use similar themes, leave some out, add others. The period abounded in such stories. It's called syncretism.

Particularly striking are the similarities between the Christ-cult and the Mithraic cult, the cult of the Roman soldiers'god Mithras, which developed roughly at the same time: the second half of the first century.

Mithras, too, was born from a virgin on the 25th of December, greeted by shepherds, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseam etcetera. But for a bit of luck, you would be professing your belief in Mithras Christ today, not in Jesus Christ. Both, alas, never existed.
Also, you might want to look into the Armara period in Egypt and the monotheistic religion that was briefly popular there around 1400 BC before dismissing the Exodus out of hand.Trust me - professor Finkelstein, who is Israel's number one archaeologist, covers all your bases twice over.

[LittleGrizzly]

Well all my hours of conspiracy video watching have not been wasted... they have actually given me some true facts on the matter...

Isn't there apparently one theory that the devil made these religions up through the ages to discredit it when Christinaity did it, its the only get out that seems remotely plausible to me..

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Particularly striking are the similarities between the Christ-cult and the Mithraic cult, the cult of the Roman soldiers'god Mithras, which developed roughly at the same time: the second half of the first century.

There are some similarities, certainly, but the two are fundamentally different. Mithras allowed only male worshippers, and was only monotheistic in obedience, for starters. Also, the Mithraic right involved the slaying of a white Bull in a cave, which got to be mighty expensive so that they adopted the symbolic Christian wine and wafer.


Mithras, too, was born from a virgin on the 25th of December, greeted by shepherds, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseam etcetera. But for a bit of luck, you would be professing your belief in Mithras Christ today, not in Jesus Christ. Both, alas, never existed.Trust me - professor Finkelstein, who is Israel's number one archaeologist, covers all your bases twice over.

Except that Mithras was a God of battle and accepted only men. Sol Invictus would have been a much better bet for your point Adrian, then you could have pointed out that Christian Churches orientate their doors towards the rising Sun, just like Sol's Temples.

I should also like you to demonstrate that A: The Epistles show no awareness of an historical Christ and B: That Christ never existed. Fact is, you failed to prove either point four years ago, and you cannot provide any better evidence today.

As I said in my previous post. Jesus was, according to all the Gospels, an educated and perceptive man. Every extant account charactarises him as so. He explicitely works to fulfil prophecies and sets out to follow a set plan that will lead to a particular outcome. This is evident in everything from his name, through the progress of his journey in immitation of Joshua, up to he repeated antagonisation of the Jewish authorities.

I accept that you don't believe he was a God, but I fail to see why you persist in insisting he didn't exist, especially when you seem to think all the other two-bit prophets did.

Why do you think there is no historical Jesus?

[Reenk Roink]

Mithras was never attested as being born from a virgin in any ancient text (both pre-Christian Iranian and post-Christian Roman).

[Rhyfelwyr]

Mithras, too, was born from a virgin on the 25th of December.

Where does the Bible say Jesus was born on the 25th of December?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

On what authority can you state with such confidence that it is heretical? When people grant authority to the scriptures, at least they can claim authority on those grounds, even if the reasoning is circular. Are you making these statements on the basis of church tradition, revelation from God, or whatever?

Common sense.

1. The "Bible" as we call it was Canonised by Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome, both of whom acknowledged the fallability of the base text and the Latin Vulgate. The Protestants, in ignorance of this, assigned to the Bible a quality it's original canonisers never intended it to have.

2. The Gosepls do not agree on the basic facts of Jesus' life, they agree on the general shape but there are manifest errors of chronology and geography, the date of his birth is variously fixed at 5BC (Mathew), 5 AD (Luke) and 13 BC (John). Sigurd once pointed out an extensive list of these errors, they are there in all extant manuscripts. There is also a short and long ending to Mark.

3. Heresy is error and deception passed off as truth. The Bible contradicts itself when it relates the same events more than once, therefore it is clearly fallable, therefore to state otherwise is deceptive, therefore offensive to God.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where does the Bible say Jesus was born on the 25th of December?

Totally missed that, good catch. If anything he was born in September, because the sheep are still in the high hills.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Common sense.

1. The "Bible" as we call it was Canonised by Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome, both of whom acknowledged the fallability of the base text and the Latin Vulgate. The Protestants, in ignorance of this, assigned to the Bible a quality it's original canonisers never intended it to have.

2. The Gosepls do not agree on the basic facts of Jesus' life, they agree on the general shape but there are manifest errors of chronology and geography, the date of his birth is variously fixed at 5BC (Mathew), 5 AD (Luke) and 13 BC (John). Sigurd once pointed out an extensive list of these errors, they are there in all extant manuscripts. There is also a short and long ending to Mark.

3. Heresy is error and deception passed off as truth. The Bible contradicts itself when it relates the same events more than once, therefore it is clearly fallable, therefore to state otherwise is deceptive, therefore offensive to God.

Generally speaking, I'm inclined to agree that what we have now isn't perfect. We don't have the originals, there are dubious verses like 1 John 5:7, different styles writing in 2 Peter from 1 Peter were so clear even Calvin said a different hand had written it, and there are some apparent contradictions. Although at the same time, I think some people try to exaggerate these contradictions, and don't afford enough consideration to what the writer is trying to convey, in particular this happens with the Gospel of John in comparison with the other three, since John tries to emphasise Christ's divinity.

Anyway, regarding the canonisation of the Bible, Protestants do try to justify that by the beliefs of the early Christians, and argue that while anything resembling the modern canon wasn't given until Athanasius of Alexandria, that should be seen more as the finalisation of already existing consensus, rather than a sudden watershed. Also, although it in itself it is circular reasoning to justify biblical innerancy by the Bible, we should still remember that these texts in our canon are amongst the best indications of what the early Christians believed. 2 Timothy 3:16 shows at least the OT would have been regarded as divinely inspired or god-breathed, while 2 Peter 3:16 seems to indicate the Pauline epistles were regarded as scripture just as the OT was.


Totally missed that, good catch. If anything he was born in September, because the sheep are still in the high hills.

It's not the only misconception I've seen made when looking at these theories. Another one I've often heard is that various ancient gods were visited by three wise men on the night of their birth, this given as a similarity with Jesus' story. Of course, the number of men which visited Jesus is not stated in the Bible, and Matthew even says they didn't visit on the night of his birth, but months later at his house.

[Adrian II]

Where does the Bible say Jesus was born on the 25th of December?Go ask the Pope. His outfit instituted that birthday in 525 AD.

It's not my problem. Nor (thank God..) is the burden of proof for all the other religious particulars you believe in.

[Adrian II]

It's not the only misconception I've seen made when looking at these theories. Another one I've often heard is that various ancient gods were visited by three wise men on the night of their birth, this given as a similarity with Jesus' story. Of course, the number of men which visited Jesus is not stated in the Bible, and Matthew even says they didn't visit on the night of his birth, but months later at his house.The story of the magi is an age-old Persian lore that ended up in Christianity, like so many other folktales. Marco Polo relates that during his travels in Persia he visited the castle whence, according to the inhabitants, three magi once departed to the West in order to greet a new-born king.


Time and again, I am astonished that well educated people try to make sense of the bible on the basis that Christ really existed. They explain away all the contradictions, all the illogicalities, all the chronological impossibilities by saying that the bible was man-made and thus prone to mistake. But when it comes to Christ's existence, they don't doubt the gospels. Among the myriad of man-made, mythical gods whom we encounter in thousands and thousands of similar sources and tales, this one is supposed to have been real?

If you regard the texts as literary and philosophical sources, everything falls into place. There are no contradictions, because the gospels were never meant to be part of a quadruplet, let alone a hodgepodge of texts like the bible. Throw out a few bible books, put a few other (so-called apocryphal) gospels in their place and you get a whole new set of contradictions. So bloody what? What counts is the messages all those texts - and there are dozens of them - were trying to convey to contemporary and later readers.

Never mind, for instance, if the gospels contain clues about the Olive Mountain so we can tell the exact spot where Jesus wll return to Earth. Ridiculous! The Mountain is a literary topos, a symbol if anything. It's the place where all Jews were buried at the time, the Arlington of the Jews, and a place of honour. Thats what counts.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The story of the magi is an age-old Persian lore that ended up in Christianity, like so many other folktales. Marco Polo relates that during his travels in Persia he visited the castle whence, according to the inhabitants, three magi once departed to the West in order to greet a new-born king.


Time and again, I am astonished that well educated people try to make sense of the bible on the basis that Christ really existed. They explain away all the contradictions, all the illogicalities, all the chronological impossibilities by saying that the bible was man-made and thus prone to mistake. But when it comes to Christ's existence, they don't doubt the gospels. Among the myriad of man-made, mythical gods whom we encounter in thousands and thousands of similar sources and tales, this one is supposed to have been real?

If you regard the texts as literary and philosophical sources, everything falls into place. There are no contradictions, because the gospels were never meant to be part of a quadruplet, let alone a hodgepodge of texts like the bible. Throw out a few bible books, put a few other (so-called apocryphal) gospels in their place and you get a whole new set of contradictions. So bloody what? What counts is the messages all those texts - and there are dozens of them - were trying to convey to contemporary and later readers.

Never mind, for instance, if the gospels contain clues about the Olive Mountain so we can tell the exact spot where Jesus wll return to Earth. Ridiculous! The Mountain is a literary topos, a symbol if anything. It's the place where all Jews were buried at the time, the Arlington of the Jews, and a place of honour. Thats what counts.

Except that Christianity is comepletely worthless if there is no sacrifice and no Christ, everything about the theology is nullified and the whole belief system is utterly useless.

[Adrian II]

Except that Christianity is comepletely worthless if there is no sacrifice and no Christ, everything about the theology is nullified and the whole belief system is utterly useless.Wrong again. The Christ-story is a great literary vision of sacrifice. The Christ character provokes the ire of the world in order to absorb its negative energy and serve as its supreme scapegoat. That is the main, the crucial theme of all gospels, your four 'official' gospels as well as all the other gospels that the church leaders decided to throw out, and of many myths that went before and came after it.

The writers understood or explored the theme of the scapegoat, of the single human who is blamed for, and forced to expiate, the illicit deeds and desires of a whole community, thus bringing peace to thate community.

The Christ character knows this mechanism. He understands its inner workings, and he uses this 'esoteric' knowledge to manipulate the mechanism and to try and undo it once and for all. His sacrifice will be the last one, or so he hopes, and therefore the peace that results from it will be lasting.

[Reenk Roink]

It's not my problem. Nor (thank God..) is the burden of proof for all the other hogwash you believe in.

However, when you make any kind of assertion (such as the one about Mithras alleged virgin birth), (according to your apparent concept of burden of proof), you are burdened with actually giving evidence for it (which you won't be able to because it is anachronistic nonsense first spouted by Campbell).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wrong again. The Christ-story is a great literary vision of sacrifice. The Christ character provokes the ire of the world in order to absorb its negative energy and serve as its supreme scapegoat. That is the main, the crucial theme of all gospels, your four 'official' gospels as well as all the other gospels that the church leaders decided to throw out, and of many myths that went before and came after it.

The writers understood or explored the theme of the scapegoat, of the single human who is blamed for, and forced to expiate, the illicit deeds and desires of a whole community, thus bringing peace to thate community.

The Christ character knows this mechanism. He understands its inner workings, and he uses this 'esoteric' knowledge to manipulate the mechanism and to try and undo it once and for all. His sacrifice will be the last one, or so he hopes, and therefore the peace that results from it will be lasting.

Didn't you just give Christ the sort of historiographical self-awaeness I have been arguing for, thereby undermining your own argument that he merely repeats hackneyed religious tropes?

Anyway, aren't you making exactly the argument they wanted Christ to make, except he insisted on being more than a symbol, so they crucified him?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Go ask the Pope. His outfit instituted that birthday in 525 AD.

It's not my problem. Nor (thank God..) is the burden of proof for all the other hogwash you believe in.

If you want to challenge my beliefs, then fine, but please make sure you're talking about my beliefs. The Pope declaring Jesus was born on the 25th of December is no more relevant to me than the Emperor of Japan declaring he was born on New Years Day.

Same goes for the three wise men and all the other pagan practices which have crept into Christianity over the years. If you want to compare Jesus to supposed ancient gods, at least stick to the best texts we have on the matter.

[Adrian II]

Didn't you just give Christ the sort of historiographical self-awaeness I have been arguing for, thereby undermining your own argument that he merely repeats hackneyed religious tropes?The story testifies of that awareness and the tropes go back many centuries. I never said that they were nonsense, did I? I said they are great literary sources. Older members may have a vague memory of lengthy discussions I had with with Pindar and others in the Monastery about the topoi, the historic context of the biblical texts, etcetera.

What is nonsense is the attempt to deduce the existence of a historic Christ from them. Or any other historic detail. Take the example of the number of wise men coming from the East. What the heck does it matter if there were two, three or nineteen and what the heck does it matter if they greeted Jesus in a cowshed or a home? What counts is the literary device: he was greeted by wise people as the king of the world. Why? Because his life and death demonstrate that in order to truly rule this world like a king, one must be prepared to totally sacrifice oneself.

Many gospels make use of this recognition device, each in a different way, not because the writers were confuzzled humans who got their numbers or locations mixed up, but because the whole thing never happened. It's like the King Arthur stories. King Arthur didn't 'happen', but the stories are great. And in a sense they happen every day: as boys we have all been young Arthurs in search of Caliborn, as girls we are all Guineveres in search of illicit adventure under the King's watchful eyes, we are all in search of Grales.

Now who in his right mind would speculate about a 'historic' Arthur and his quadruple nature as father, son, spouse and holy ghost?

Well, maybe some stray catholic..

[Reenk Roink]

The story testifies of that awareness and the tropes go back many centuries. I never said that they were nonsense, did I? I said they are great literary sources. Older members may have a vague memory of lengthy discussions I had with with Pindar and others in the Monastery about the topoi, the historic context of the biblical texts, etcetera.

I do, and unlike the way the topic is being discussed (tangentially) in this thread, that was actually a good one (well what did I expect: Monestary vs. Backroom). I liked Pin "Gah is for the retarded :clown:" dar's statement: "a secular mindset leads to a secular conclusion"

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Many gospels make use of this recognition device, each in a different way, not because the writers were confuzzled humans who got their numbers or locations mixed up, but because the whole thing never happened. It's like the King Arthur stories. King Arthur didn't 'happen', but the stories are great. And in a sense they happen every day: as boys we have all been young Arthurs in search of Caliborn, as girls we are all Guineveres in search of illicit adventure under the King's watchful eyes, we are all in search of Grales.

Excect "Arthur" did happen, because like "Christ" its a title, not a name. Saxon expansion stops dead at a certain point around 550 BC, and Maiden Castle among other fortifications show refitting and garrisoning during the period. Of course, the Early sources don't call the leader of the British a King, "Rex", but Dux Bellorum, "War Leader".

So there was an historical "Arthur", whether his wife called him that or not is irrelevant. Whether specific stories about him are true or not, the balance of probability is that he was an historical character.

Just like Yeshua, the heretic Nazarine Rabbi.

[Adrian II]

The Pope declaring Jesus was born on the 25th of December is no more relevant to me than the Emperor of Japan declaring he was born on New Years Day.Fine, the same goes for me.

But the fact remains that the Pope chose december 25, formerly the date of the feast of Sol Invictus, a serious competitor of Christ at the time. That date became part of the Jesus legend like so many aspects that originally had nothing to do with Jewry or early Christianity.

The crucial point which you don't seem to (want to) face, is that this fuzziness applies to the gospels themselves as well. That's why they are all so different; the writers all had different motives and styles, different backgrounds, different (oral) traditions to feed from.

And once you let go of the superstitions and stop looking for silly time tables and travel directions in the bible, you discover that there are many layers to the gospels, just as there are many layers to other literary texts. One aspect is Jewish nationalism. We shouldn't forget that the Jews were upstarts in the Middle East, former herdsmen who made good. Their god (the Old Testament god) originally reflected their primitive outlook by acting like some frustrated 12-year-old in Runescape: "Baal, u noob, i'ma pwn yo acc!' The gospel writers were a new sophisticated generation, announcing to the world that the Jews were now bathed and shaven and ready to receive. Henceforth, just like all other civillised people, they too had their saviour, their 'anointed one' who sat in judgment over the world and would return in the fulness of time.

The Romans, as we know, were not amused... until they discovered the advantages of a unique god and the concomitant suppression of free conscience, intelligent debate and fun.

[Adrian II]

Saxon expansion stops dead at a certain point around 550 BC, and Maiden Castle among other fortifications show refitting and garrisoning during the period.We know there were Englishmen and Saxons in the country, just as we know there were Romans and Jews in Palestine. But a historian can say nothing of value about a possible historic Arthur. Let alone about the Holy Grail.

For the same reason nothing substantial can be said about a historic Christ. On the contrary, the fact that his story esembles all those preceding myths about 'anointed ones' in the Middle East justifies the conclusion that he was probably a Jewish adaptation of the older tales.

Now if you want to discuss the literary genius of that age in the same way in which we tend to discuss the literary genius of, say, the Homeric age, I'm all for it. Its about time we atheists teach Christians to show proper respect for their bible instead of using it as a stoopid travel directory for the here-after.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And once you let go of the superstitions and stop looking for silly time tables and travel directions in the bible, you discover that there are many layers to the gospels, just as there are many layers to other literary texts. One aspect is Jewish nationalism. We shouldn't forget that the Jews were upstarts in the Middle East, former herdsmen who made good. Their god (the Old Testament god) originally reflected their primitive outlook by acting like some frustrated 12-year-old in Runescape: "Baal, u noob, i'ma pwn yo acc!' The gospel writers were a new sophisticated generation, announcing to the world that the Jews were now bathed and shaven and ready to receive. Henceforth, just like all other civillised people, they too had their saviour, their 'anointed one' who sat in judgment over the world and would return in the fulness of time.

I appreciate what you are saying in the development of the Jewish idea of God, and elsewhere what you said about similarities between Christ and other charismatic prophets of the time. However, I think the case can also be made that the entirety of the OT is in some way related to the promise of Christ, the Gospel being not so much a sudden watershed in Jewish theology as it was the fulfilment of everything that was understood under the Old Covenant.

Even from an atheists perspective, this is something worth considering. If you wish to view the OT and NT as interesting literary works, then the relationship between them should definitely be given some thought. You indicated that the NT and its depiction of God was a watershed, renouncing the primitive OT. However, IMO the whole story of Israel in the OT is a shadow of the church in the NT. Indeed, Hebrews 7-11 uses a lot of imagery to show how the similarities between the two covenants. Also, prophecies such as the suffering servant passages of Isaiah, and comments by David and Malachi in particular indicate that Christ should not represent so much a break with ancient Jewish beliefs, as he does the fulfilment of them. This is why some Reformers argued that the old and new covenants were in fact one and the same, being made distinct not by their promise, but by their administration. So, basically, the argument is that even in the OT, all things point to Christ.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Is the debate on the Trinity still on?

[Papewaio]

IMDHO the bible is fiction.

What it shows to me is what we aspire to have in the best of humans and what we would like to have as our god.

Its a nice reflection on us that we choose those selection of books to keep in the bible to best represent us.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

IMDHO the bible is fiction.

What it shows to me is what we aspire to have in the best of humans and what we would like to have as our god.

Its a nice reflection on us that we choose those selection of books to keep in the bible to best represent us.

If the Bible is merely fiction and a reflection of who we are, we aren't worth the air we breath. The amount of cruelty, blood and slaughter is frankyl terrifying.


We know there were Englishmen and Saxons in the country, just as we know there were Romans and Jews in Palestine. But a historian can say nothing of value about a possible historic Arthur. Let alone about the Holy Grail.

For the same reason nothing substantial can be said about a historic Christ. On the contrary, the fact that his story esembles all those preceding myths about 'anointed ones' in the Middle East justifies the conclusion that he was probably a Jewish adaptation of the older tales.

Now if you want to discuss the literary genius of that age in the same way in which we tend to discuss the literary genius of, say, the Homeric age, I'm all for it. Its about time we atheists teach Christians to show proper respect for their bible instead of using it as a stoopid travel directory for the here-after.

I was going to answer this before the forum went GAH.

Arthur existed because "Arthur" is merely a title, as is "Christ". That the Dux Bellorum existed is fairly obvious, because the British got their act together, re-fortiffied their towns and settlements, and held the Saxons back for 50 years. There was a leader, that man was "Arthur".

Also, don't confuse the issue with rubbish like the grail which pops up 1,000 years or so after the fact, and was just a dish in Percival anyway.

As far as the Bible as "literature", I agree. It is a piece of literature, obviously, but so are Alfred's Law Codes, or Wulfstan's "Sermon of the Wulf". That doesn't mean they dont have extra-literary value. They, like the Bible were composed for a purpose.

The stated and explicit purpose of the Bible is the glorification of God, the books were canonised based on their percieved value in conveying God's message.

[Adrian II]

Also, don't confuse the issue with crap like the grail which pops up 1,000 years or so after the fact, and was just a dish in Percival anyway.Oops, you had better not call the grail 'crap'. I was given a warning today for calling religion 'hogwash'. I'm not going to spend any more time on discussions here if I run the risk of being banned over such trifles. Maybe some other time. You're a worthy opponent, Philipvs, that's for sure. :bow:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oops, you had better not call the grail 'crap'. I was given a warning today for calling religion 'hogwash'. I'm not going to spend any more time on discussions here if I run the risk of being banned over such trifles. Maybe some other time. You're a worthy opponent, Philipvs, that's for sure. :bow:

So are you Adrain, but, if I may, I think you have become a little over-zealous in the past six months or so. I sense your dislike of religion has become personal, if I were to guess I would say a family issue has developed.

If that were so, and I am absolutely not saying it is, there's not anything you can do about it and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Fragony]

I think you have become a little over-zealous in the past six months or so. I sense your dislike of religion has become personal

It's pretty hard to not take religion personally. I absolutely loath religion, not going to take it personally, but it really annoys me and any claim comming from it or any request for religious sensitivities won't find a very warm welcome Chez Fragony.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's pretty hard to not take religion personally. I absolutely loath religion, not going to take it personally, but it really annoys me and any claim comming from it or any request for religious sensitivities won't find a very warm welcome Chez Fragony.

I don't take your atheism personally though, I might get upset if you call me "delusional" etc., but not very much. I'm secure enough and happy enough in my beliefs that I don't need your validation.

Now, if I were saying that you, because of your atheism, were inherently evil; I could understand why that would irritate you.

[Fragony]

I don't take your atheism personally though, I might get upset if you call me "delusional" etc., but not very much. I'm secure enough and happy enough in my beliefs that I don't need your validation.


That is how we coexist, but I am not going respect it and I will tear apart everything in my way even at the slightest suggestion that I should have any sort of consideration for what I consider to be complete insanity. And I will continue to treat it with the greatest disrespect humanly possible no matter what religion someone is from.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is how we coexist, but I am not going respect it and I will tear apart everything in my way even at the slightest suggestion that I should have any sort of consideration for what I consider to be complete insanity. And I will continue to treat it with the greatest disrespect humanly possible no matter what religion someone is from.

So you want to attack me because of my beliefs?

Bully for you, Frag.

You've just done exactly what I don't, you've called me "insane". I fail to see why this is necessary, I don't think you're insane for not believing in God, I just think you're wrong. More to the point, if you are going to be deliberately disrespectful in a discussion of mutural respect we can't posssibly coexist.

[Fragony]

I fail to see why this is necessary

Well it isn't really necessary. I can respect a person but asking me to respect his/her religion is a bit too much. If someone is a christian fine, if someone is a muslim fine, or whatever bdhindus what was it, but don't ask for any special treatment and that is where things go wrong, I really don't understand it when the religious desire that, and I don't see that changing for a while. The religious should back of and mind their own business.

So you want to attack me because of my beliefs?

missed this no of course not

[Louis VI the Fat]

Are our esteemed Dutch patrons perhaps a bit touchy because of their current Christian fundamentalist government?

Gays banned yet? :sweatdrop:



Also, while Christianity's core beliefs are hogwa...erm....'not in conformance with common logic', I do not think it is insanity that makes a person believe them. People believe the oddest things. Upbringing, socialization etc.
In a hundred year's time, some of my deeply held beliefs and most fundamental thoughts will be deemed ridiculous, or shown to be completely false. Doesn't mean I'm insane.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are our esteemed Dutch patrons perhaps a bit touchy because of their current Christian fundamentalist government?

Gays banned yet? :sweatdrop:

Also, while Christianity's core beliefs are hogwa...erm....'not in conformance with common logic', I do not think it is insanity that makes a person believe them. People believe the oddest things. Upbringing, socialization etc.
In a hundred year's time, some of my deeply held beliefs and most fundamental thoughts will be deemed ridiculous, or shown to be completely false. Doesn't mean I'm insane.

If The Netherlands has a fundamentalist government this is because men of reason have abandoned God and the only followers he has remaining are the far-Right and the ignorant. When the only people supporting God are Creationists who believe that all the suffering of the world is according to some divinely ordained and irrevocable plan, then I can see why you should be scronful. Such beliefs are not, however, "core" to Christianity.

I am Anglo-Catholic, I am also Liberal. Possibly the most devout Christian I have ever met is Evangelical, and yet also Liberal. The fact is, in so far as the way the world works, we both probably agree with you on everything except the belief in a benevolant Creator.


Well it isn't really necessary. I can respect a person but asking me to respect his/her religion is a bit too much. If someone is a christian fine, if someone is a muslim fine, or whatever bdhindus what was it, but don't ask for any special treatment and that is where things go wrong, I really don't understand it when the religious desire that, and I don't see that changing for a while. The religious should back of and mind their own business.

So you want to attack me because of my beliefs?

missed this no of course not

I don't want special treatment, I want the same respect as anyone else. I am my religion, call my beliefs "insane" is calling me "insane".

[Fragony]

I don't want special treatment, I want the same respect as anyone else. I am my religion, call my beliefs "insane" is calling me "insane".

You will just have to live with that, sorry but it's kinda silly. You can get my respect as a person, but not as a christian, it's simply impossible.

[Rhyfelwyr]

When the only people supporting God are Creationists who believe that all the suffering of the world is according to some divinely ordained and irrevocable plan, then I can see why you should be scronful.

Determinism is in no way related to ignorance or a lack of theological understanding, as you probably know.

Most fundamentalists nowadays do not believe in a deterministic worldview, the Evangelical Christianity seen in the US is overwhelmingly Arminian in its outlook.

In fact, Reformed theology has always had a focus in individual education. Reformed churches have traditionally worked to increase literacy so that people could study the Bible and theology, as part of their plan to free them from all the "trappings of Popery". Granted, this is probably somewhat due to the regions in which the Reformed religion could thrive (usually amongst the rising merchant class in places like the Netherlands and England), but nonetheless it carries this association somewhat even today.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You will just have to live with that, sorry but it's kinda silly. You can get my respect as a person, but not as a christian, it's simply impossible.

I am a Christian Frag, that is the type of person I am. So you're saying you can't respect me.


Determinism is in no way related to ignorance or a lack of theological understanding, as you probably know.

Most fundamentalists nowadays do not believe in a deterministic worldview, the Evangelical Christianity seen in the US is overwhelmingly Arminian in its outlook.

In fact, Reformed theology has always had a focus in individual education. Reformed churches have traditionally worked to increase literacy so that people could study the Bible and theology, as part of their plan to free them from all the "trappings of Popery". Granted, this is probably somewhat due to the regions in which the Reformed religion could thrive (usually amongst the rising merchant class in places like the Netherlands and England), but nonetheless it carries this association somewhat even today.

Calvinism is, as I have said, an elegant and coherent system, I just think it's completely wrong.

It is not, however, the only form of determinism. Calvinism, "light" is really what most fundamentalists ascribe to it's Armenian in theory but Calvinistic in practice. This being because although you make your own choices, God already knows those choices. So, there is no divine intervention, and yet the whole of history is exclusively providential.

Totally incoherent and intellectually dishonest.

As far as Reformed education, here's something to ponder. If Calvin was really into education he would have taught everyone Greek and Hebrew and forbidden any form of translation on the grounds that translation of the scripture out of its original language, and then investing the translation with authority, was Papist.

He didn't, he maintained the seperation between Laity and Clergy by making the Laity beholden to the Clergy for the translation, rather than direct interpretation; thereby merely obscuring the division rather than eliminating it.

[Hax]

This is useless. Judge people from their actions, not from their religion.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Calvinism is, as I have said, an elegant and coherent system, I just think it's completely wrong.

It is not, however, the only form of determinism. Calvinism, "light" is really what most fundamentalists ascribe to it's Armenian in theory but Calvinistic in practice. This being because although you make your own choices, God already knows those choices. So, there is no divine intervention, and yet the whole of history is exclusively providential.

Totally incoherent and intellectually dishonest.

Sorry for jumping to conclusions, in that case I couldn't agree more (apart from the bit where you say Calvinism is wrong :tongue2:)

The incoherency of standard Evangelical beliefs are IMO going to be largely responsible for the collapse of Christianity in America.


As far as Reformed education, here's something to ponder. If Calvin was really into education he would have taught everyone Greek and Hebrew and forbidden any form of translation on the grounds that translation of the scripture out of its original language, and then investing the translation with authority, was Papist.

He didn't, he maintained the seperation between Laity and Clergy by making the Laity beholden to the Clergy for the translation, rather than direct interpretation; thereby merely obscuring the division rather than eliminating it.

Of course, Calvin himself wasn't a product of the 'radical Reformation', he still supported the idea of a clergy with. Also, he was a fan of rituals to an extent, for example he wanted to have weekly communion services at Geneva but his counterparts were worried it might resemble the Mass. He wasn't even that puritanical, he was payed partly in wine and enjoyed fine music, in contrast to those who came to see them as the devil's buttermilk and worthy of outright banning respectively (well in England the higher-up Puritans that made the more restrictive laws actually thought opera was virtuous, but generally speaking).

But I don't understand the problem with issuing translated Bibles. Generally speaking, they are sufficient for growing in the faith and understanding doctrines. Of course, I realise it is not ideal that the average person must rely on those above them to make a translation, but at least by giving an honest translation Calvin did the next best thing. When he worked with Knox and others to make the Geneva Bible, they even passed a law in Scotland to ensure every household would have enough money to buy one. In fact, King James I saw the Geneva Bible as a threat to the established order, and (with great irony in hindsight) created the KJV in order to replace it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is useless. Judge people from their actions, not from their religion.

In Christian, and hence Western, thought we judge someone's actions in two ways. By the action itself, and by the intention. Since I am nothing more and nothing less than a servant of my Lord God, all my actions must be judged against this.


Sorry for jumping to conclusions, in that case I couldn't agree more (apart from the bit where you say Calvinism is wrong :tongue2:)

The incoherency of standard Evangelical beliefs are IMO going to be largely responsible for the collapse of Christianity in America.

Personally, I'm more worried about the affect it has on young people, especially the emotional suffering it causes, not only because of the way it views non-Christians, but also because of its corrupted doctrine of Total Depravity.

I looked this up, and polemic aside, Calvin's doctrine was nothing more than the belief that no part of human experience is entirely free from corruption. That's a far cry from, "we are all filthy worthless scum". It's not as original, but he was one of the first to manage to widely propogate it.


Of course, Calvin himself wasn't a product of the 'radical Reformation', he still supported the idea of a clergy with. Also, he was a fan of rituals to an extent, for example he wanted to have weekly communion services at Geneva but his counterparts were worried it might resemble the Mass. He wasn't even that puritanical, he was payed partly in wine and enjoyed fine music, in contrast to those who came to see them as the devil's buttermilk and worthy of outright banning respectively (well in England the higher-up Puritans that made the more restrictive laws actually thought opera was virtuous, but generally speaking).

But I don't understand the problem with issuing translated Bibles. Generally speaking, they are sufficient for growing in the faith and understanding doctrines. Of course, I realise it is not ideal that the average person must rely on those above them to make a translation, but at least by giving an honest translation Calvin did the next best thing. When he worked with Knox and others to make the Geneva Bible, they even passed a law in Scotland to ensure every household would have enough money to buy one. In fact, King James I saw the Geneva Bible as a threat to the established order, and (with great irony in hindsight) created the KJV in order to replace it.

There's nothing wrong with a translation, but the idea that the "bare text" can be best accessed through translation reveals exactly the same prejudice among the reformers as among their oponents.

If scripture is God, then the people should be brought to scripture, not scripture to the people. Rather than translate the Bible, they could have reformed society.

[Fragony]

I am a Christian Frag, that is the type of person I am. So you're saying you can't respect me.

Not as a christian nope can't do, that is asking way too much. Haxie got it just right for me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not as a christian nope can't do, that is asking way too much. Haxie got it just right for me.

If that's the way you want it.

[Fragony]

If that's the way you want it.

You are offended. What if someone comes to you and demand respect because he is a lawyer, and a strict one of that he really believes in law. And is sensitive about it. He is offended when you disagree with the law. And he really is a lawyer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are offended. What if someone comes to you and demand respect because he is a lawyer, and a strict one of that he really believes in law. And is sensitive about it. He is offended when you disagree with the law. And he really is a lawyer.

I can respect his point of view, it's philosophically consistant. Lawyers are not inherently bad, and one who genuinely defends the law rather than using it is a good thing. So, whatever target you're aiming it, you haven't hit it.

[Papewaio]

If the Bible is merely fiction and a reflection of who we are, we aren't worth the air we breath. The amount of cruelty, blood and slaughter is frankyl terrifying.


Redemption, the hope for better then what is. The aspiration to be more.:angel:

The amount of cruelty, blood and slaughter makes a very good contrast to the message. :devilish:

Anyhow to answer the original question of the Trinity existing. It exists just as much as the other 3 orphans Luke Skywalker, James T. Kirk and Frodo. They exist in the hearts of fans and these fans are prone to wearing robes at conclaves too, where they discuss with much sincerity the merits and powers of all three.

I would not be surprised that in 2000 years time there would be some sort of mashed Jedi~Trek~Ring religion that picks bits and pieces from each and merges with other local pagan festivals. That any of them may lack internal consistency and already have contradictions will not stop the believers fantasying about how better the world will be if it was Trek like or Jedi like, and the various denominations bitterly debating or worse fighting over each others nirvana.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Redemption, the hope for better then what is. The aspiration to be more.:angel:

Redemption requires a redeemer, in Christianity that redeemer is outside the self of the believer. If you rob Christianity of its concrete nature it become merely another new-age self-help dogma where executives go on retreat in order to feel good about themselves.

The redemption you are thinking of is irrelevant to Christianity, because it's not about redemption in that sense, but about forgiveness.

If anything, Christianity is about feeling good about other people and the nature of the universe, not yourself. However, in order for this to be so the universe must be ruled and regulated by a benevolant King.

Without God, Christianity doesn't mean anything.

[Papewaio]

The good that I see is that we are a fan of this fiction. I do not actually believe there was a historical Jesus nor is there any concrete proof in a God, god, Horus, Set, Zeus, Animalism etc.

What I am happy is what we as a group think what would be good attributes in a God.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The good that I see is that we are a fan of this fiction. I do not actually believe there was a historical Jesus nor is there any concrete proof in a God, god, Horus, Set, Zeus, Animalism etc.

What I am happy is what we as a group think what would be good attributes in a God.

They're only good attributes if God exists and is all powerful. If he's a lie it's just an excuse to cut people's heads off.

[Viking]

What I am happy is what we as a group think what would be good attributes in a God.

Very low requirements for the job, then. If I was in control of the universe and was looking to hire a god; I'd as a minimum require that he created his underlings in heaven, and not some half good/half bad world created as test which they have to pass. All the Tellurian gods are really poor applicants. :shame:

[Papewaio]

They're only good attributes if God exists and is all powerful. If he's a lie it's just an excuse to cut people's heads off.

Surely good should be good regardless of the power level of the individual?

Or are you asserting that might is right?

[Papewaio]

Very low requirements for the job, then. If I was in control of the universe and was looking to hire a god; I'd as a minimum require that he created his underlings in heaven, and not some half good/half bad world created as test which they have to pass. All the Tellurian gods are really poor applicants. :shame:

If I was a car manufacturer I would test drive my prototypes in the harshest conditions in which my customers would be using them regularly. So production/test drive on Earth would be expected of at least some of my underlings, particularly those that need to learn the business from the entry level up.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Surely good should be good regardless of the power level of the individual?

Or are you asserting that might is right?

We've had a slight failure of communication.

God is conceived of as "All Mighty", this means much more than brute strength. His power is unlimited both in strength and breadth of application. God is never wrong, that which he destroys has no desire to be redeemed. The point is made very early in Genesis, when Abraham asks God if he will spare Sodom and Gomora for the sake of one man, and God replies he will; then destroys both cities for their iniquity.

Good in Christianity is defined as that which accords with the will of God, power is irrelevant. The idea that good can exist without God is anathema, it isn't part of Christian belief. This, incidently, brings us to Hell as the absense of God, and therefore the absense of all good experience and comfort.

As to your "test drive" suggestion, that is also incompatable with Christian belief. God never makes mistakes.

[Papewaio]

The argument is circular. It also does not disprove the might is right.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The argument is circular. It also does not disprove the might is right.

Please elaborate.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Where did people get this idea that God gave us our lives on earth for a test anyway?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where did people get this idea that God gave us our lives on earth for a test anyway?

I think it came in with Augustinian Determinism. The pre-Augustinian Fathers tended to focus much less on the "who goes upstairs" issue. Augustine was reacting to the refusal of many Christians to undergo Baptism until just prior to death because they feared they would go to Hell if they sinned subsequently.

A concept notably picked up by the Cathars, and possibly originating with Constantine.

Augustine's solution was, of course, to say that God had determined who was going to Heaven or Hell, and that this life was a sort of proof of that choice.

As I'm utterly incapable of understanding the deterministic doctrines none of it makes any sense to me anyway.

[Viking]

If I was a car manufacturer I would test drive my prototypes in the harshest conditions in which my customers would be using them regularly. So production/test drive on Earth would be expected of at least some of my underlings, particularly those that need to learn the business from the entry level up.

Let's view it from another angle:

as an omnipotent god, the universe is not something that is handed out to you, it is something which you define yourself. So, by not defining bad, everything is good; and nothing needs a test. The word "define" might as well mean "create"; but also, a god would obviously be the one defining what is sinning and what isn't. Therefore, he may chose not to define sin or a similar concept at all. He does not need to punish nor filter if he does not create or define a need for it.

Edit: Uhm, I suppose you were still referring to gods reflecting ideals that are best for life as it is on Earth, which, ok; granted, makes sense. My personal requirements do go a little beyond, though..

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think it came in with Augustinian Determinism. The pre-Augustinian Fathers tended to focus much less on the "who goes upstairs" issue. Augustine was reacting to the refusal of many Christians to undergo Baptism until just prior to death because they feared they would go to Hell if they sinned subsequently.

A concept notably picked up by the Cathars, and possibly originating with Constantine.

Augustine's solution was, of course, to say that God had determined who was going to Heaven or Hell, and that this life was a sort of proof of that choice.

As I'm utterly incapable of understanding the deterministic doctrines none of it makes any sense to me anyway.

I don't think the determinism v free will dynamic really comes into this. Certainly, according to Calvinist thought, there would be little point in making life a test since we would all fail anyway.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think the determinism v free will dynamic really comes into this. Certainly, according to Calvinist thought, there would be little point in making life a test since we would all fail anyway.

No, my point is that Augustine started the debate by making the world deterministic.

[Hooahguy]

glad i came back in time to read this.
by the way Karl, how does your conversion into Judasim going? :2thumbsup:

[Papewaio]

Surely good should be good regardless of the power level of the individual?

Or are you asserting that might is right?


God is conceived of as "All Mighty", this means much more than brute strength. His power is unlimited both in strength and breadth of application. God is never wrong, that which he destroys has no desire to be redeemed. The point is made very early in Genesis, when Abraham asks God if he will spare Sodom and Gomora for the sake of one man, and God replies he will; then destroys both cities for their iniquity.

Good in Christianity is defined as that which accords with the will of God, power is irrelevant. The idea that good can exist without God is anathema, it isn't part of Christian belief. This, incidently, brings us to Hell as the absense of God, and therefore the absense of all good experience and comfort.

Circular because "He is Good because he is God." Okay what is good "Whatever God states is Good".

The debate should not be limited to Christian definitions. I'm pretty sure we apply our ethics to other gods and how they were worshiped. Anyone else see the wrong in ritualized killings to let the Sun come up another day? You have not disproved that you are asserting that might is right, if anything you have agreed to it. It would seem that the Christian god is old school red in tooth and claw, and top of the food chain.

I assert that good should be good regardless of the power level of the individual. Power not just limited to brute strength but in other characteristics IQ/EQ/Bureaucratic etc.

If someone is good it should be good. My assertion is if the Bible is a guide to living a good life then that goodness should be independent of who wrote it. What is good for a peasant should be good for a king or a god/gawd/God. So if the Bible has any use other then a great work of fiction it should have some guide to a good life.

I'm not maintaining that the way into heaven is through good works. But I do not believe that good is good just because the biggest and nastiest says so or conversely the smallest and meekist. Actions and deeds should be measured against the same parameters. To say 'It is so, because we say it is so' is not really an answer, it is avoidance.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Circular because "He is Good because he is God." Okay what is good "Whatever God states is Good".

The debate should not be limited to Christian definitions. I'm pretty sure we apply our ethics to other gods and how they were worshiped. Anyone else see the wrong in ritualized killings to let the Sun come up another day? You have not disproved that you are asserting that might is right, if anything you have agreed to it. It would seem that the Christian god is old school red in tooth and claw, and top of the food chain.

I assert that good should be good regardless of the power level of the individual. Power not just limited to brute strength but in other characteristics IQ/EQ/Bureaucratic etc.

If someone is good it should be good. My assertion is if the Bible is a guide to living a good life then that goodness should be independent of who wrote it. What is good for a peasant should be good for a king or a god/gawd/God. So if the Bible has any use other then a great work of fiction it should have some guide to a good life.

I'm not maintaining that the way into heaven is through good works. But I do not believe that good is good just because the biggest and nastiest says so or conversely the smallest and meekist. Actions and deeds should be measured against the same parameters. To say 'It is so, because we say it is so' is not really an answer, it is avoidance.

Totally missing the point Pape. God created the universe, he not only defined Good, he created it. It has it's being in him. God is not Good in that he possesses the quality, he is Good in that he is Good.

It has nothing to do with how poweful God is, it has to do with there being nothing without him. God is not the "biggest and nastiest" he is the only.

Following on from this, the Bible is only a good guide to how to live life if that consists of obedience to God. Otherwise, it's an excuse to do a whole lot of pretty awful stuff.

[Papewaio]

Still a circular argument. :oops:

Big Bang, Light, Heat, Mass Condensates... Ratio of Protons: Neutrons explained by the difference in decay rates, explains why the universe is 99%+ Hydrogen. etc :book:

Not everyone believe's in god, gods, God, LoTR or Trek. :pokemon:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Still a circular argument. :oops:

Big Bang, Light, Heat, Mass Condensates... Ratio of Protons: Neutrons explained by the difference in decay rates, explains why the universe is 99%+ Hydrogen. etc :book:

Not everyone believe's in god, gods, God, LoTR or Trek. :pokemon:

It's an argument that begins and ends with God, but it's not really circular.

As far a philosophical pluralism goes, if you want to argue that system has any merit you'll first have to demonstrate that telling lies is a good thing; as you appear to believe in an objective Good (albeit one without a source).

[Papewaio]

It's an argument that begins and ends with God, but it's not really circular.

"He is Good because he is God. Whatever God states is Good" is at least elliptical. Not that I think that a circular argument is wrong of itself, its just not particular informative or enlightening.

It is because it is, doesn't really explain much.



As far a philosophical pluralism goes, if you want to argue that system has any merit you'll first have to demonstrate that telling lies is a good thing; as you appear to believe in an objective Good (albeit one without a source).

"Does my butt look big in this." What is your survival strategy?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"He is Good because he is God. Whatever God states is Good" is at least elliptical. Not that I think that a circular argument is wrong of itself, its just not particular informative or enlightening.

It is because it is, doesn't really explain much.

No, not, "He is Good because he is God", more like, "Good is Good because He is God". I said in another thread, the only description of God that suffices is, "Is", or "I am".

God is God, he is only one and therefore does not require definition because there is nothing to define him in relation to, because he has no relation.

"Does my butt look big in this." What is your survival strategy?[/QUOTE]

Tell the truth, either she has a "big butt" or she doesn't. If she's asking me she wants to know what the dress etc. actually looks like, otherwise she'd ask someone else, all my female friends know this about me.