Excuse me while I whip this out

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:52 am

Interesting topic eh?

We get into some pretty interesting topics here on the DBB concerning religion. But there are quite a few questions when it comes to the different Christian religions and their beliefs, despite the fact that they all use the bible. Which I find quite interesting. I find these views interesting, but people often have different answers and teachings concerning these subjects. These questions are for the christians on this forum.

What is the overall theme of the bible?

what scriptures prove that there is a hell?

What scriptures prove that humans go to heaven?

If God is a loving god, then why are sinners condemned to a "hell" for eternity? Seems a little harsh doesn't it?

Why do we celebrate Christmas? And is it truly Christ's Birthday? And how did this holiday originate?

What truly happens to the dead?

What's up with the speaking in tongues? What purpose does it serve?

What is God's Kingdom?

What is God's name? Why do some religions emphasize his name while others do not?

Why are religions so involved in political affairs? Especially war? If the bible is always talking about loving thy neighbor.

What is the book of Revelations all about? What does it mean?

What is the book of Danial all about? What does it mean?

What is the purpose of the pope?

How does the bible justify positions like the pope's?

Is Christ God? Or is he god's son?

What scriptures prove the existence of a "Trinity"?

I'm quite sure I'll have additional questions later on, but I'll start off with this. I'm not anti Christian religion, but there seems to be some "discrepancies" in the different beliefs.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:13 am

Thrawn, I think you would be better off under the realization that, since it's birth, organized religion has been the primary tool involved in one group of mankind controlling another group(s).

(At least you'll have less questions

)

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:41 am

So you exercise in order to control people will?

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:18 am

I'll post a detailed discussion of this in a few minutes, let me finish my homework here. Most, if not all of these questions, I have studied in the past. I have a bit of schoolwork to do before I start writing here, but I'll start typing up an answer after that.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:18 am

Ok... Starting with some background:

There are 3 distinct types of religions that believe in the Christian concept of God. Islam comes close to these, and indeed recognizes the Christian Bible as an excellent source book for morals and teachings, but they deny Israel's role as the chosen of God in the Old Testament. This stems from another long debate that I will talk about after answering your questions here. In essence, I do not group them with te three "Christian" religions because their God has a different name, different characteristics, and has a different "holy book". All three will probably tell you that members of the other 2 beliefs are not "saved" and will not be allowed into heaven. Within each of these 3 types, there are individual sects, which, depending on their views, range from thinking that only their particular denomination of their branch of religion will be allowed into heaven, to more inclusive groups that believe that simply being a good person is enough to get you into heaven.

1. Protestantism.
This is the most familiar of the bunch to many people, although Catholicism comes in a very close second. I am most experienced in Protestant theology. Protestantism was the most recent branch of the Christian religion to appear, coming into existence after many of the abuses of the Catholic Church between 1200 and 1600 A.D. The original Pilgrims were Protestants.

2. Catholicism
Catholicism is the second oldest of the three, with roots going back to as early as 300 A.D. The Catholic religion as we know it has been in existence since Rome declared Christianity as the "state religion", and has been undergoing a gradual evolution ever since. Originally, it was very close to the early Christian theology, but as time progressed it separated farther and farther from the original roots of Christianity--a movement which Protestants attempted at first to halt, then, when they failed, they split off from the church entirely and formed their own church.

3. Judaism
Judaism is the old religion of the Jews, God's chosen people, dating back since before the birth of Christ. Judaism denies the entire New Testament's record, and the Jews claim that they are still waiting for the Messiah, whom God promised would come sometimes in the future multiple times in the Old Testament. I don't know much about the various sects of Judaism; someone else more knowledgable might be able to give you more info about this particular branch of the religion.

Admiral Thrawn wrote:What is the overall theme of the bible?

There are two distinct parts of the Bible in my mind--the Old Testament, which is universally recognized by all branches of the Christian religion, and the New Testament, which Judaism denies. The themes of these two portions of the Bible vary significantly.

The Old Testament is, for the most part, a record of how humanity has messed up what was originally a perfect world, and God's attempts to fix it using mankind. Since mankind has a fallen, imperfect nature, these attempts failed. God is perfect, and cannot stand the sight of sin--thus, when humans failed and sinned, as they often did, God punished them, often severely. At one point in the Old Testament, God threatened to destroy this Israelites entirely, but Moses requested that God stay his hand--but that's outside the pale of this discussion.

The New Testament is a record of how God sent a part of himself, his Son, to earth in human form to die and pay the penalty for our sins. A single sin is meritorious of death, and our human nature causes each of us to sin constantly. The penalty for this would be that each and every human on this earth is worthy of death. However, God sent his Son to die--since his Son was perfect, being a part of God himself, he was a valid sacrifice to pay the debt of sins of all mankind. There was still a caveat, however--humans still had to trust in God and the sacrifice God provided in order to be saved from the eventual destruction of the earth and everything in it.

Admiral Thrawn wrote:What scriptures prove that there is a hell?

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?boo ... text=verse
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?boo ... text=verse
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?boo ... text=verse
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?boo ... text=verse

There are many, many more--I'd suggest that you search a bit on that website to find more references.

Admiral Thrawn wrote:What scriptures prove that humans go to heaven?

Admiral Thrawn wrote:If God is a loving god, then why are sinners condemned to a "hell" for eternity? Seems a little harsh doesn't it?

It seems harsh to humans because we don't fully understand him. However, think of it this way:

You give your child, whom you dearly love and have given everything that he could ever want, a brand new beach ball. This ball was your grandfather's ball when he was a child, and your grandfather passed it on to you (I'm exaggerating things a bit here, but bear with me for a minute). The first thing your child does is walk over to the nearest sharp object and stab the ball repeatedly with it, destroying it beyond all repair. Think of how you would feel if that happened--your child, who you had been so kind to and had carefully raised from infancy, simply destroys a precious thing that you had given to him, knowing its value. Then multiply the feeling by an infinite amount. Ticked off yet? So is God.

God gave us everything we have when he made our world. He made us in his image, giving us personalities, free will, and the ability to do as we please. There is one thing that he didn't want us to do, however, as outlined in Genesis. Humans went and used their gift of free will to do the one thing God told them not to do, introducing the element of sin into the world. God is understandably ticked off when we sin, abusing the gifts he's given us--it's a wonder that he didn't condemn every single person on the earth to hell in that moment. In a way, he did--but he also gave us a way out, a way to atone for our sinfulness. When humans failed to obey his commands given to us in several agreements in the old Testament, he gave us a new way, a way that is perfect, that doesn't require animal sacrifices and other practices we consider abhorrent today, in the New Testament.

I'll post more later; I've got to eat now. This should give you a bit to chew on for a while.

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:43 am

I've read through those versus, and there are some things that are still "questionable". I'll post those comments when I get back home this evening.

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:12 pm

Korrupt wrote:What truly happens to the dead?

At death, the consciousness and subconscious separate. The computer is a good analogy when comparing the two. The consciousness is like RAM, which temporarily stores information, and the subconscious is the hard drive, which is hidden and never forgets anything. As you think and act out your life, you experience that in its immediacy, and at the same time, you are writing to disk (the subconscious), which permanently stores those experiences. You can see glimpses of it in your dreams but that is usually all that people ever see.

At death, only the subconscious (the Shadow), which is the observer in every person and is certainly not within you physically (the reason why they haven't found it), remains, in a mirror world that is similar to but not the same as ours. The more love/softness/yin you have when you die, the less likely you are to be hauled off by the things that reside there. Humans are multidimensional and always have been.

Will_Kill wrote:organized religion has been the primary tool involved in one group of mankind controlling another group(s).

Now there is someone who truly understands religion. In a universe truly free of control and hate, religion will not exist.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:08 pm

Ok... continuing with the thread...

Admiral Thrawn wrote:Why do we celebrate Christmas? And is it truly Christ's Birthday? And how did this holiday originate?

Christmas is used today to celebrate the birth of Christ. Since we don't know the exact age of Christ at any one point in history, it is futile to say that any particular day is Christ's birthday. At best, there is a 1/365 chance that Christ was born on a December 25th. We celebrate Christmas because we like to remember Christ's birth--and, it's a socially accepted way for companies to sell lots of stuff.

"Christmas" probably originated in the Dark Ages under the rule of the Catholic Church--we don't know that much about its origins, but it is commonly thought that it was put in place by the Catholic Church to replace a pagan holiday that customarily took place on the same date, thereby turning it into a "Christian" event. The holiday spread throughout Catholicism, and thus our holiday today. It's similar to the reason we celebrate St. Patrick's Day. It's a social matter, not necessarily a Christian one.

Think of it this way: If tomorrow, every Christian on the planet renounced Christmas, would the holiday disappear? Of course not. Companies make too much money off it. Christians celebrate Christmas, these days, since the rest of the culture does. It's part of America's lifestyle.

Admiral Thrawn wrote:What truly happens to the dead?

That's an interesting question. The short answer is, there's a lot of answers depending on your denomination and branch of Christianity. It's also an incredibly complex thing that the Bible never really sets out in a defined place--I.E. "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DIE. 1. blahblah 2. yakyak etc."

Basic Catholicism dictates (and I may be way off base about this, please correct me if you know more than I) that when you die you go to Purgatory, a sort of "minor hell" for Christians, in which place you stay until your sins that have not been purified on earth have been atoned for. Catholics believe that these sins can be atoned for in Purgatory, contrary to the Protestant belief that a sin can only be atoned for through Christ's death. After the Christian has atoned for his sins, he will enter heaven; non-Christians will go to hell. Like I said before, I've never studied this too much, and my sources may have been wrong on this one. If anyone knows more on this than I do, by all means, correct me.

Basic Protestantism has 2 mainstream beliefs, each backed up by its own scripture verses: 1. we go straight to judgement when we die, and are sent from there either directly to heaven or to hell, and 2. we stay dead, in essence in a state of sleep, until the end of the earth, when Christ returns for the second time. Then all men are judged together, at the same time.

Skyalmian has one thing right in my mind--there is more to a person than the simple 3-dimensional being that we see. God is spirit, and cannot be seen by us. He is not visible in our world--yet we were made "in his image". Being made in the image of a spirit, it would seem that though we have physical bodies, we also have a spiritual body, one that cannot be seen by our senses. Again, this is my thoughts only, and I would be considered a heretic by some denominations for my beliefs--but it is extremely obvious, to my mind, that there is more to this universe than the 4 dimensions we know of (the 4 dimensions of space, and the dimension of time).

Admiral Thrawn wrote:What's up with the speaking in tongues? What purpose does it serve?

This is almost an entirely Protestant question, and one with which I am fairly familiar. Different denominations have different views on speaking in tongues, ranging from considering you a heretic if you have spoken in tongues to considering you a heretic if you haven't spoken in tongues at least once before.

Speaking in tongues is considered by most a gift of the Spirit, the third "part" of God. The knowledge of the idea of speaking in tongues came from Pentecost, where 5,000 people came to believe in Christ after the apostles, speaking about Christ, began speaking languages of which they had no knowledge. Every man in the audience could hear his own language, according to the passage, despite the fact that the apostles knew probably only three or four languages.

This implementation leads me personally to believe that speaking in tongues is a practical thing that would occur only under inspiration of the Spirit.

Just to point out some interesting things:

The Bible talks in several places about crying out to the Lord, and of various people who tried to express their feelings about God, but couldn't because of the restraints of language. "Groanings of the heart" I believe was a phrase used in one of these instances. Modern-day speaking in tongues isn't really practical since no person can really understand what is being said, but it gives vent in a way to these "groanings of the heart", in a way that Charismatics believe God can understand.

Admiral Thrawn wrote:What is God's Kingdom?

Short answer: There are two possible understandings of God's Kingdom, both valid in a way. It can be used as a reference to Christians around the earth, or it can be used to refer to the kingdom Christ is expected to set up at the end of the world, over which he will rule, and which will consist of all his "children" (Christians). In either case, it's mostly used to refer to a body of believers.

Admiral Thrawn wrote:What is God's name? Why do some religions emphasize his name while others do not?

This is where things get interesting. Judaism takes very, VERY seriously the command in the Old Testament of not taking the Lord's name in vain. They won't write or speak any name of God, abbreviating the word God when it must be written as G-d.

Catholicism and Protestantism are a little looser, speaking freely of God, but in each case God does not simply have a name--this is why we call him God. The name primarily used to refer to God outside of the word God itself is Yahweh, though there are literally hundreds of other names used to refer to God. Elohim, Redeemer, Lord, God, El Shaddai, Adonai, Jehovah, Shepherd, Judge, El Elyon, Abhir, Branch, Alpha and Omega, and many, many others.

This site has a fuller list.

God's name is so hard to pin down since God is so hard to pin down--there's no name that can really describe all of God--except, perhaps, the name God.

Admiral Thrawn wrote:Why are religions so involved in political affairs? Especially war? If the bible is always talking about loving thy neighbor.

An excellent question. I'm running out of time here before I have to leave again, but for now let me just say that in the New Testament, Jesus condemned most violence. He healed the soldier hurt by Peter when he was arrested to be crucified. Jesus talks--a LOT--about loving your neighbors, enemies, and everyone in general.

God, in the Old Testament, commands the Israelites to take a land, and kill everyone in it. Israel failed in that assignment, but that doesn't remove the fact that God commanded it. Some Christians use this as the reason they thing it is ok for Christians to go to war. Other Christians use the commandment "Thou shalt not murder" to condemn war, but this also fails to address the subject fully because "murder" in this case is talking about an unjustified killing of another person.

Christians are told, many times, not to use violence in the New Testament. Personally, I think violence is justified in certain circumstances of self defence, but I do not think that war is always the answer to a problem. In fact, it is very, very rarely the answer to a problem.

I've got to leave now, but I'll post more on your questions later.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:15 pm

I just thought I'd post a one-liner because all the huge blocks of text are hurting my head...

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:38 pm

Stryker wrote:God is spirit, and cannot be seen by us. He is not visible in our world--yet we were made "in his image". Being made in the image of a spirit, it would seem that though we have physical bodies, we also have a spiritual body, one that cannot be seen by our senses.

I'm inclined to politely disagree. My recent opinion is that "god" can be seen by any of us and is in fact not human or remotely like it, but a large cloud all made up of little orange molecules of human emotion. That people think of themselves as being in god's image serves only to make them feel special, which is a very dark act.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:43 pm

And here I was thinking this was a topic about Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles!

I'll avoid thisone like the plague: there's no suger here for me.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:48 pm

Man, I am SOOOO tempted to drill some holes in some of these lame arguments - it'd be too easy! But frankly, it'd be a waste of my time. I wouldn't convince anyone of anything.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:54 pm

SilverFJ wrote:I just thought I'd post a one-liner because all the huge blocks of text are hurting my head...

Haha, I know what you mean. I'd be disinclined to read the large blocks of text I'm writing myself... Unfortunately, they're rather necessary to describe very detailed, complex things in our language. It might be easier in Greek...

Admiral Thrawn wrote:What is the book of Revelations all about? What does it mean?

That's an extremely deep subject--The overall gist is that Revelations is the last book of prophecy, and is almost entirely metaphorical. It is one of the least understood books of the Bible, primarily because not many of the events described therein have occurred yet.

Admiral Thrawn wrote:What is the book of Danial all about? What does it mean?

According to this site...

Authorship and Origin:
The says that it is written by a youth taken from Judah in the deportation around 605 B.C.. The book includes stories of Daniel's training and rise to power in the Babylon empire's administration.
Overview and Significant sections
This book records the personal history of Daniel, and his prophetic visions of the future. His visions include near time events to occur and events in the very distant future. He predicts political history from Babylon's rule to New Testament times. The book can be easily divided into two distinct sections; Daniel's life and work (chapters 1-6), and his vision's and prophecy (chapters 7-12). The book gave confidence to the people of his day, as it can today, that God is in control, and in charge of history.

Admiral Thrawn wrote:What is the purpose of the pope?

Ahh, yes... the Pope. First off, only Catholics recognize the Pope, and some branches of the Catholic Church (the Anglican Church of England) don't recognize him. This dates back to conflicts in the Middle Ages, when Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife, but the Pope wouldn't let him, so Henry created the Anglican Church, which responded to no one but the King of England--but that's beside the point. The end result is, the Pope is supposed by Catholics to have the power of interpreting scripture, and he is supposed to "speak for God". Now, obviously, many popes have been outright bad, and all of them sinned. Some were little better than glorified bandits--especially near the time of the Crusades, the Pope was more of a political figure using religion as a tool than a religious figure. Today, the Pope's word carries great weight with Catholics, as it once did, and Popes are (for the most part) godly men. The pope is supposed to be the leader of the Catholic religion, but for the most part, only matters of extreme religious significance warrant input by the pope today.

Admiral Thrawn wrote:How does the bible justify positions like the pope's?

Depending on whether you ask a Protestant, Judaist, or Catholic, the Bible might justify a Pope or it might not. The verses used to justify the Pope's position by Catholics are rather obscure verses that seem to suggest an "apostle" (as the Pope is supposed to be) should be a leader of the church at all times. It's really, really hard to pin down a Biblical basis for the Pope. Nowhere in the Bible will you find the word "Pope".

Admiral Thrawn wrote:Is Christ God? Or is he God's son?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: God's Son, Jesus, whatever you want to call him, is a part of the Trinity, which is God himself. Jesus, in his form on earth, was both 100% man and 100% God. We don't know how this works, and we won't until we reach heaven and are given that knowledge. I could give you some interesting theories involving multiple dimensions, but I couldn't tell you anything absolutely certain on this point. Scientists have things they don't know about their field of study--so do theologians.

Admiral Thrawn wrote:What scriptures prove the existence of a "Trinity"?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=31;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?bo ... text=verse
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?bo ... text=verse
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?bo ... text=verse
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?bo ... text=verse
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?bo ... text=verse

There are many more references, but the general point is that Jesus clearly refers to himself as being divine, and the Spirit and Father themselves are both clearly divine and mentioned as being separate entities in the same passages. Yet in multiple places in the Bible, it talks about the oneness of God. This leads naturally to the conclusion that while God is one, he is three. Again, this is really weird, and I could hit you with some interesting multidimensional theories, but the end result is the same: we won't really know until we have all knowledge.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:01 pm

Did I just see Mobius post twice in a religious thread that might contain debate?

Maybe we'd better call the NZ ambulance service to see if he's ok...

Skyalmian wrote:I'm inclined to politely disagree. My recent opinion is that "god" can be seen by any of us and is in fact not human or remotely like it, but a large cloud all made up of little orange molecules of human emotion. That people think of themselves as being in god's image serves only to make them feel special, which is a very dark act.

I say that we are made in God's image because of Genesis 1:26--"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.""

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:03 pm

Actually getting serious for a second(

), I believe that the god form in all religons is a misconstrued representation of the link between ourselves and fellow man. Most contain a thought pattern and/or lifestyle that would help us all become one unified conciousness, basically, "it's the thought that counts."

But then again I'm a rebellious minister's son out to destroy Christianity.

bitches.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:24 pm

Iceman wrote:So you exercise in order to control people will?

good question tho'...in a manner of speaking I suppose you could say I do. I would have to say that the 'look' I have is at least partially responsible for how I get certain 'things' that I want. By introducing certain dominating characteristics into everyday happenings, I project my will upon those who I come into physical contact with. From the sexy lil' thing at the conveinance store who I wanna' err..uhm....take out for a nice dinner

all the way up to my boss who I will eventually get that dollar raise from

.......

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:21 pm

I'm sure that sexy lil thing at the convinience store is much more interested in your stunning personality, will.

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:21 pm

Okay, I'm home. Here I go

First Topic, Hell

Wikipedia has some interesting information on this. Here's the url

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell#Origins

Now, as far as my opinion. The notion that a "loving" god would torture humans forever and forever is completely ludricous.

You give your child, whom you dearly love and have given everything that he could ever want, a brand new beach ball. This ball was your grandfather's ball when he was a child, and your grandfather passed it on to you (I'm exaggerating things a bit here, but bear with me for a minute). The first thing your child does is walk over to the nearest sharp object and stab the ball repeatedly with it, destroying it beyond all repair. Think of how you would feel if that happened--your child, who you had been so kind to and had carefully raised from infancy, simply destroys a precious thing that you had given to him, knowing its value. Then multiply the feeling by an infinite amount. Ticked off yet? So is God.

God is a perfect being. And the bible also refers to him as being motivated by love. As a matter of fact, the very personification of love. I find it pretty obsurd that a perfect being would be so sadistic toward those. Heck, being on fire for 24 hours straight will turn a LOT of people. The teaching of hell basically accuses god of Overkill.

I've also done research on hell and it's original translations. Hades and Gehenna means a deathlike state. A "sleep" type state. There are also scriptures that contradict a hell teaching.

Ecc 9:5,10 mentions that the dead are concious of nothing at all. This would contradict a person being "aware' in a fiery hell

Psalms 146:4 states that when a person dies, that his thoughts "perish". This also contradicts the teaching of hell as an eternal place of torture

25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 2

David was speaking concerning Jesus and mentioned that God did not leave Jesus in hell. If hell was a place of torture and eternal torment for evildoers, then why was Jesus there. This further supports the fact that hell was not a literal place of fire, but as a "state of death".

As far as the heavens, I see proof that the heavens exist. I never doubted, that, but I wanted scriptures saying that God intended for all humans to go to heaven.

At death, the consciousness and subconscious separate. The computer is a good analogy when comparing the two. The consciousness is like RAM, which temporarily stores information, and the subconscious is the hard drive, which is hidden and never forgets anything. As you think and act out your life, you experience that in its immediacy, and at the same time, you are writing to disk (the subconscious), which permanently stores those experiences. You can see glimpses of it in your dreams but that is usually all that people ever see.

At death, only the subconscious (the Shadow), which is the observer in every person and is certainly not within you physically (the reason why they haven't found it), remains, in a mirror world that is similar to but not the same as ours. The more love/softness/yin you have when you die, the less likely you are to be hauled off by the things that reside there. Humans are multidimensional and always have been.

Where in the bible does it state this?

Kill Will was actually right in man's use of religion as the primary method in which mankind controls and subverts other groups.

Christmas is used today to celebrate the birth of Christ. Since we don't know the exact age of Christ at any one point in history, it is futile to say that any particular day is Christ's birthday. At best, there is a 1/365 chance that Christ was born on a December 25th. We celebrate Christmas because we like to remember Christ's birth--and, it's a socially accepted way for companies to sell lots of stuff.

"Christmas" probably originated in the Dark Ages under the rule of the Catholic Church--we don't know that much about its origins, but it is commonly thought that it was put in place by the Catholic Church to replace a pagan holiday that customarily took place on the same date, thereby turning it into a "Christian" event. The holiday spread throughout Catholicism, and thus our holiday today. It's similar to the reason we celebrate St. Patrick's Day. It's a social matter, not necessarily a Christian one.

Think of it this way: If tomorrow, every Christian on the planet renounced Christmas, would the holiday disappear? Of course not. Companies make too much money off it. Christians celebrate Christmas, these days, since the rest of the culture does. It's part of America's lifestyle.

You basically said that the Christmas holiday originated with man and that it was converted from a pagan holiday. I did some looking and found this on wikipedia

Historians are unsure exactly when Christians first began celebrating the Nativity of Christ. However, most scholars believe that Christmas originated in the 4th century as a Christian substitute for pagan celebrations of the winter solstice. (See also the introduction of Customs and celebrations below.)

The Romans honored Saturn, the ancient god of agriculture, each year beginning on December 17 in a festival called the Saturnalia. This festival lasted for seven days and included the winter solstice, which at that time fell on 25 December (today, following calendar reform, it falls on 21 December). During Saturnalia the Romans feasted, postponed all business and warfare, exchanged gifts, and temporarily freed their slaves. With the lengthening of daylight, these and other winter festivities continued through January 1, the festival of Kalends, when Romans marked the day of the new moon and the first day of the month and year.

By the fourth century another factor was also at work. Many Romans also celebrated the solstice on December 25th with festivities in honor of the rebirth of Sol Invictus, the "Invincible Sun God", or with rituals to glorify Mithra, the ancient Persian god of light (see Mithraism). Sol Invictus was a cult to which both Constantine himself before his confession of Christianity, and his predecessor Diocletian who had rebuilt the Roman Empire, were especially devoted, and to whom they had attributed their military successes. Constantine is therefore assumed to have found it convenient to find a common major festival for both Sol Invictus and Christianity.

So basically, in order to get more people to come over to Christianity, they "converted" a PAGAN holiday and made up a date for Christ's birth. Which, by the way, is in the beginning of WINTER. Wouldn't it be a bit chilly for a baby in a manger and for shepards to be out? Your pretty much right about the commercialism of Christmas though. Even if it was celebrating Jesus's birth, wouldn't it's pagan origins and strong ties to materialism pretty much invalidate the fact that they are honoring Jesus? Besides, where in the bible does it say "Celebrate my birthday!"

As far as Tongues, they were used to preach in other lands. Tongues would serve no purpose in a church where everyone speaks the same language. Also, 1 Cor 13:1, 8 mentions that the gift of tongues will "cease".

As far as political involvement, Jas. 4:4 actually speaks against taking sides with the world. 2 Cor. 4.4 mentions the "God of this system of things" blinding the minds of unbelievers so that the news of Christ might not shine though. It's obvous that the person it's talking about is Satan and it's stating that this world is influenced by Satan. So wouldn't deep involvement in world politics actually be getting involved in "Satan's system of things"?

Concerning the bible book of Daniel, I noticed an interesting part. The interpretation of Daniel's dream basically fortells the dominant empires/governments on this earth and that has been pretty dang accurate I might say. But it talks about God's kingdom doing away with the governments of this world. Why don't I ever see this preached? And how would the goverment's react to Christianity putting emphasis on this teaching?

As far as your scriptures of the Trinity, I see no solid evidence saying "Jesus, God, and the holy spirit are all one being" as a matter of fact, your scriptures actually contradict a trinity teaching. Jesus standing at the right hand of god? Yea, that definately sounds like we are looking at one being. Also, when Jesus was baptized, God spoke from heaven saying "This is my son". If they are one and the same, why would he say that? Of course, a lot of pagan religions depicted their gods in a trinity form. Considering what happened with the whole Christmas bit originating from Pagan origins, this teaching wouldn't surprise me either as having a pagan origin.

Concerning the pope

It's really, really hard to pin down a Biblical basis for the Pope. Nowhere in the Bible will you find the word "Pope".

ExACTLY! Why is why I question his "Authenticity" according to bible teaching. Not surprising since the Catholic church actually executed people for having a bible at a certain time in it's history. I guess they were pretty scared about people reading the bible and finding it's true teachings.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:30 pm

SilverFJ wrote:I'm sure that sexy lil thing at the convinience store is much more interested in your stunning personality, will.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:40 am

Thrawn wrote:God is a perfect being. And the bible also refers to him as being motivated by love. As a matter of fact, the very personification of love. I find it pretty obsurd that a perfect being would be so sadistic toward those. Heck, being on fire for 24 hours straight will turn a LOT of people. The teaching of hell basically accuses god of Overkill.

[edited typo]

I'm inclined to agree. If God is all-powerful and all-loving, then God would at the very least have the capability and the obligation to raise hell's temperature a few degrees, much less abolish hell all together.

Flatlander · Post by **Flatlander** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:10 am

Stryker wrote:
It seems harsh to humans because we don't fully understand him. However, think of it this way:

You give your child, whom you dearly love and have given everything that he could ever want, a brand new beach ball. This ball was your grandfather's ball when he was a child, and your grandfather passed it on to you (I'm exaggerating things a bit here, but bear with me for a minute). The first thing your child does is walk over to the nearest sharp object and stab the ball repeatedly with it, destroying it beyond all repair. Think of how you would feel if that happened--your child, who you had been so kind to and had carefully raised from infancy, simply destroys a precious thing that you had given to him, knowing its value. Then multiply the feeling by an infinite amount. Ticked off yet? So is God.

Ah, but you just happen to be omniscient (all-knowing) and know what your kid is going to do in advance - so why do you bother giving him the beach ball in the first place, eh?

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:37 am

Here's another question

Why does god allow suffering? What is the REAL issue at hand? I have your answer, but I'll see what some of you guys have to say first.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:20 pm

Admiral Thrawn wrote:Concerning the pope
It's really, really hard to pin down a Biblical basis for the Pope. Nowhere in the Bible will you find the word "Pope".
ExACTLY! Why is why I question his "Authenticity" according to bible teaching. Not surprising since the Catholic church actually executed people for having a bible at a certain time in it's history. I guess they were pretty scared about people reading the bible and finding it's true teachings.

Please show me where the Bible states, in clear and unequivocal terms, that the Bible is to be the sole rule of faith. The answer is that it does not. Since the canon of the Bible was written (in some cases), selected and approved of as canonical over the several hundred years after the death of Christ, it could not have been the case.

I know of heretics who were executed. Who was executed for simple Bible ownership? Where? When? Can you be more specific?

Since the Catholic Church has always taught from the Bible, it is silly to assert that they were afraid to let Catholics read it. Scripture is the essence of every Church service.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:43 pm

Admiral Thrawn wrote:Here's another question

Why does god allow suffering? What is the REAL issue at hand? I have your answer, but I'll see what some of you guys have to say first.

I don't believe in the concious Christian god, but if I did, I would say that without pain, injustice, and suffering, there could be no love, kindness, or charity.

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:47 pm

Admiral Thrawn wrote: As far as your scriptures of the Trinity, I see no solid evidence saying "Jesus, God, and the holy spirit are all one being" as a matter of fact, your scriptures actually contradict a trinity teaching. Jesus standing at the right hand of god? Yea, that definately sounds like we are looking at one being. Also, when Jesus was baptized, God spoke from heaven saying "This is my son". If they are one and the same, why would he say that? Of course, a lot of pagan religions depicted their gods in a trinity form. Considering what happened with the whole Christmas bit originating from Pagan origins, this teaching wouldn't surprise me either as having a pagan origin.

There is a slight flaw in your argument Admiral.

The offical doctrine of the Trinity does NOT say the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same "being." It says they are three different "persons" in one "GOD."

So from this perspective the Father could speak from heaven as the Son was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended: different actions by the three different "persons" who make up the complete "God."

The real argument to disprove the unscriptural nature of the Trinity, aside from examining its historical (or is that "hysterical"?) development, is to compare what the Bible says about each "person." For example: If they are truly equal, as the Trinity implies, then they would all posses the same qualities, attributes and knowledge. An honest examination of these things prove the unscriptural nature of this doctrine - its pagan origin is undeniable.
Even the Jesuit Scholar, John L. McKenzie, wrote in his "Dictionaty of the Bible, that "The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of "person" and "nature" which are Greek philisophical terms: actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitatian definitions arose as the result of long contraversies in which these terms and others such as "essense" and "substance" were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:16 pm

It says they are three different "persons" in one "GOD."

Umm, still doesn't prove my point. The bible clearly illustrates, that there is a God, his Son, and the holy spirit which is God's active force. I don't see anyting proving without a doubt that they are "One God"

Who was executed for simple Bible ownership? Where? When? Can you be more specific?

When Latin died out as an everyday tongue, new translations of the Bible were needed. But the Catholic Church no longer favored this. In 1079 Vratislaus, who later became king of Bohemia, asked the permission of Pope Gregory VII to translate the Bible into the language of his subjects. The popeâ??s answer was no. He stated: â??It is clear to those who reflect often upon it, that not without reason has it pleased Almighty God that holy scripture should be a secret in certain places, lest, if it were plainly apparent to all men, perchance it would be little esteemed and be subject to disrespect; or it might be falsely understood by those of mediocre learning, and lead to error

The Catholic Church's Real motive was to fossilize the bible. In 1199 Pope Innocent III wrote such a strong letter to the archbishop of Metz, Germany, that the archbishop burned all the German-language Bibles he could find. In 1407 the synod of clergy summoned in Oxford, England, by Archbishop Thomas Arundel expressly forbade the translating of the Bible into English or any other modern tongue. In 1431, also in England, Bishop Stafford of Wells forbade the translating of the Bible into English and the owning of such translations.

Individuals suffered terribly for the â??crimeâ?

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 10:33 pm

Admiral Thrawn wrote:
It says they are three different "persons" in one "GOD."
Umm, still doesn't prove my point. The bible clearly illustrates, that there is a God, his Son, and the holy spirit which is God's active force. I don't see anyting proving without a doubt that they are "One God"

Ummm . . . What? I suggest you sit back from your understanding for a minute and read my post again. You obviously didn't comprehend what I said. The point is this: If you want to argue against the Trinity, then fine, but do it in an intelligent manner - your statement is a misunderstanding of what the Trintiy doctrine implies.

I see no solid evidence saying "Jesus, God, and the holy spirit are all one being"

Again, the trinity doctrine never states that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are the SAME being, or person. It clearly identifies three distinct beings or persons in one GOD (that's the supposed mystery). To reveal the fallacy of this doctrine, focus on how the Bible describes each "person" of the trinity and it will crumble under the weight of truth.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 9:26 am

Admiral Thrawn wrote:It wasn't until the Protestant rebellion that the Roman catholic church was forced to produce bibles in the everyday languages of the people.

Not quite.

"If we count just printed versions (Johann Gutenberg, a Catholic, produced the first printed Bible - with Church approval- in 1455; Luther was born in 1483), eighteen German editions of the whole Bible appeared prior to the posting of Luther's Ninety-Five Theses (1517), which signaled the break with Rome. The first of these was printed in 1466. The first printed Flemish edition appeared in 1471. A Catalan Spanish edition came out in 1478. The first printed edition in Polish was made in 1516, a year before Luther posted his these. The earliest English edition was printed in 1525." - source Karl Keating, "What Catholics Really Believe", p. 31

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:06 pm

Stryker wrote:the Old Testament... and the New Testament... The themes of these two portions of the Bible vary significantly.

The theme of both the old and New Testaments is salvation through the death of Christ. The difference is that the old testament is looking FORWARD to the death of Christ, and the new Testament is experiencing that death and then looking back.
From the pronouncement in the Garden of Eden that a descendant of Eve would one day crush the serpents head, through the sacrificial system of the Sanctuary, and right on to the prophecies of Daniel, Isaiah and the rest, Christ and his sacrifice is the theme of the Old Testament. Note that the new Testament points this out. Heb 11 makes clear that the people of old testament times were saved by the same faith as those of new testament.

Admiral Thrawn wrote:If God is a loving god, then why are sinners condemned to a "hell" for eternity? Seems a little harsh doesn't it?

Gotta agree with the Admiral's post on this. Christians try and try to find excuses for this monstrous doctrine, but there can be none. Do we worship a God who runs his own torture chamber for ever and ever? How could you love a God who did that? If humans recognize "cruel and unusual punishment" as wrong, how can we excuse it in God?

The important thing to note here, is that the Bible does NOT say that God tortures people for all eternity in Hell. Quite the contrary.
Some more text on this topic:

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Ezek 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Psalm 37:20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.

Psalms 37:38 But the transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut off.

Malc 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

Pslm 145:20 The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.

Pslm 21:9 Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them.

For more info you might try going to this site:
http://www.amazingfacts.org/items/study_guides.asp
and clicking on the "Is the Devil In Charge Of Hell" study

Admiral Thrawn wrote:What is the book of Revelations all about? What does it mean? What is the book of Danial all about? What does it mean?

A lot of Daniel is very straight forward, much of it is self-interpreted. Revelation isn't nearly as complicated as it seems. Good study guides on Daniel and Revelation can be found at:

http://www.amazingfacts.org/school/af_logon.asp
http://guide.discoveronline.org/discove ... /hello.htm
http://www.prophecyspeaks.com/sermons/index.html

Kilarin

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:52 am

Shoku wrote:
Admiral Thrawn wrote:
It says they are three different "persons" in one "GOD."
Umm, still doesn't prove my point. The bible clearly illustrates, that there is a God, his Son, and the holy spirit which is God's active force. I don't see anyting proving without a doubt that they are "One God"

Ummm . . . What? I suggest you sit back from your understanding for a minute and read my post again. You obviously didn't comprehend what I said. The point is this: If you want to argue against the Trinity, then fine, but do it in an intelligent manner - your statement is a misunderstanding of what the Trintiy doctrine implies.

I see no solid evidence saying "Jesus, God, and the holy spirit are all one being"

Again, the trinity doctrine never states that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are the SAME being, or person. It clearly identifies three distinct beings or persons in one GOD (that's the supposed mystery). To reveal the fallacy of this doctrine, focus on how the Bible describes each "person" of the trinity and it will crumble under the weight of truth.

Okay, so since I'm "misunderstanding" the definition of the trinity as either God, Christ and Holy Spirit in "one form" or the 3 acting as "One God" why don't you go ahead and explain it to me. Either way, the teaching of the Trinity is very flawed and contractics the scriptures of the bible. Here's a another good link on this

http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity.htm

All I'm asking is that you quit letting yourself get brainwashed by what your preacher says and discern for yourself what the scriptures say. There is only 1 god. There is Christ, and there is the holy spirit, but they are NOT one being, and they do NOT function as one God. The Father and Son are two distinct beings with 2 distinct roles. And the holy spirit is God's active force.

As far as the German copies of the bible, if you look at the date mentioned in my post, you can see that German language copies of the bible DID exist before the Protestant rebellion, but they were NOT approved by the Roman Catholic Church. The church was aggressively opposed to copies of the bible that people could read in a language they understood. To do so would allow people to discern and see what the bible ACTUALLY said and would have taken power away from the church.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:41 am

Admiral Thrawn wrote:As far as the German copies of the bible, if you look at the date mentioned in my post, you can see that German language copies of the bible DID exist before the Protestant rebellion, but they were NOT approved by the Roman Catholic Church. The church was aggressively opposed to copies of the bible that people could read in a language they understood. To do so would allow people to discern and see what the bible ACTUALLY said and would have taken power away from the church.

Again, the historical facts speak otherwise, as you can read about here
and here. There was a policy certainly to get rid of Bibles that were full of mis-translations and errors. I hope that you would not consider that to be an activity worthy of rebuke.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:05 pm

Christmas was originally a pagan holiday to celebrate the winter solstice (when the sun stopped sinking in the sky and started it's upward trend towards the summer's solstice). Christians incorporated it as their own, as well as a number of other holidays.

(I didn't read anything in the thread, so this might have been answered)

Teddy · Post by **Teddy** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:45 pm

Admiral Thrawn wrote:The text Mr. Blobby wrote would go hereConcerning the bible book of Daniel, I noticed an interesting part. The interpretation of Daniel's dream basically fortells the dominant empires/governments on this earth and that has been pretty dang accurate I might say. But it talks about God's kingdom doing away with the governments of this world. Why don't I ever see this preached? And how would the goverment's react to Christianity putting emphasis on this teaching?

I dont think they care, as most christians believe this kingdom is set up after the end of the world(rock cut with out hands comes down and crushes the image=end of world)

For more info you might try going to this site:
http://www.amazingfacts.org/items/study_guides.asp
and clicking on the "Is the Devil In Charge Of Hell" study

Admiral Thrawn wrote:What is the book of Revelations all about? What does it mean? What is the book of Danial all about? What does it mean?

A lot of Daniel is very straight forward, much of it is self-interpreted. Revelation isn't nearly as complicated as it seems. Good study guides on Daniel and Revelation can be found at:

http://www.amazingfacts.org/school/af_logon.asp
http://guide.discoveronline.org/discove ... /hello.htm
http://www.prophecyspeaks.com/sermons/index.html

Kilarin

X2 Great post... these links have the best explination i've ever seen on these topics.. Get out your bible and history books and check these links out! These perfectly show how God has laid out the future for us all to understand.

The theme of both the old and New Testaments is salvation through the death of Christ. The difference is that the old testament is looking FORWARD to the death of Christ, and the new Testament is experiencing that death and then looking back.
From the pronouncement in the Garden of Eden that a descendant of Eve would one day crush the serpents head, through the sacrificial system of the Sanctuary, and right on to the prophecies of Daniel, Isaiah and the rest, Christ and his sacrifice is the theme of the Old Testament. Note that the new Testament points this out. Heb 11 makes clear that the people of old testament times were saved by the same faith as those of new testament.

I agree 100%

Admiral Thrawn wrote:If God is a loving god, then why are sinners condemned to a "hell" for eternity? Seems a little harsh doesn't it?

Kilarin wrote:Gotta agree with the Admiral's post on this. Christians try and try to find excuses for this monstrous doctrine, but there can be none. Do we worship a God who runs his own torture chamber for ever and ever? How could you love a God who did that? If humans recognize "cruel and unusual punishment" as wrong, how can we excuse it in God?

The important thing to note here, is that the Bible does NOT say that God tortures people for all eternity in Hell. Quite the contrary.

Again i agree 100%, I remember back in 7th grade religion class when i was attending catholic school, Sister mary margret was telling us about how christians have a very diffrent belief then the Jews did in Jesus's time. The jews believed that the soul is simply an alive human, this is taken from the creation story earth+breath of life+soul. Being that many of christians beliefs came from judism I always wondered where the eternal soul belief came from.

From everything i've read Jesus even stood behind this belief... remember when he raised his friend Lazarus? He stated that Lazarus was asleep!! when the disaples didnt catch on... he said that he was dead(confirming the belief that death is like a sleep).
The biggest argument for this is the Second comming itself... the bible states that the dead will rise first.... why bother to come back to raise the dead if they are already in heaven?

This being said, remember there are over 50 diffrent events in the old testiment that use the word forever that have ended or are no longer going on. In fact when it was used in the story of samual, it gave us it's definition... samual was to serve the lord forever.. then a few verses later it said he would serve the lord till his life ended... So this will tell us how long those in hell will burn... till thier life ends.. which will probably be of varing amounts of time according to the amount of evil deeds done.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:24 pm

Thrawn, your questions look like something out of some Jehovah's Witness literature

The fact is, different translations can seriously change the meaning of various scriptures. That is one of the many reasons I cannot believe in any organized religion today - it's too subjective. It can be translated any number of ways. And from those translations, completely different meanings can be gleaned.

Hahnenkam · Post by **Hahnenkam** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:42 pm

Mobius wrote:. . .there's no suger here for me.

whoa

I can't believe the grammar police got away with that typo without harassment

sorry . . . carry on.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:01 pm

Beowulf wrote:The fact is, different translations can seriously change the meaning of various scriptures

That's why I always study with multiple translations, and a Strong's Exhaustive concordance at hand. Using Strongs you can look up the definitions of the greek and hebrew words and see if you agree with the translators. Not that this eliminates the translation issues, but it does help. For online study I recommend http://www.searchgodsword.org/ It's great because you can pull up a text in "King James with Strongs Numbers" and click on any word to bring up the Greek or Hebrew dictionary definition of that term. VERY nice.

Teddy wrote:remember when he raised his friend Lazarus? He stated that Lazarus was asleep!!

Yep. Also, I think Lazarus would have had some legitimate complaints if he had been enjoying himself up in heaven and was suddenly dragged back down to earth to have to live in a sin filled world and die all over again eventually anyway. Christ wouldn't have exactly been doing him a favor.

Admiral Thrawn wrote:The Father and Son are two distinct beings with 2 distinct roles.

This is not actually in conflict with the idea of the Trinity. C. S. Lewis discussed it in "Mere Christianity". A cube is a "higher" shape than a square. It's 3D form actually incorporates 6 squares. The squares are unique individual squares, and yet together they make one cube. This idea would be completely incomprehensible to a Square that lived in a 2D world. If God is really God, then he is much further beyond us than the cube is beyond the square, and so it shouldn't actually surprise us if he is so much more of a "person" then we are that, just like a cube is made up of six squares, that God's personality is made up of three persons. Three unique persons, one God, no contradiction, but also beyond our understanding.

Or, to put it into terms that will make sense to all of us: Our personalities are Ground Pounders, very limited. But God's personality is Descent-Like and has more degrees of freedom.

Now, of course, that is a nice philsophical (or Gaming) answer, but we would prefer an answer out of the Bible. And we have several things that Jesus said that lead directly to the doctrine of the Trinity.

John 10:38 ...the Father is in me, and I in him.

John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

But, you can argue around those, perhaps he was speaking metaphorically? After all, many text say that we are in Christ, but we are NOT Christ.

BUT, there is still a stronger text.
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Now the "New World Translation" sticks an "A" in there, so that the text reads "and the Word was A God", but the experts seem to agree that the structure of the Greek simply does not support that construction. Also, it doesn't make sense in context.

But wait, there's more!

John 8:57-58 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Now this is a VERY important text, and to understand it you need a bit of background. When Moses asked God for His name, God replied, "I AM"

Exodus 3:13-14 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

I AM is the word we translate as Yahweh (Jehovah sometimes, although Yahweh is closer) This is the Holy Name of God. It was so holy to the Jews that they would not speak it or write it down. When Christ said, "Before Abraham was, I am", He was claiming to be the very same God who spoke to Moses in the desert. And make no doubt that the Jews KNEW that was what He meant. That's why, in the very next verse, they attempt to stone him. Stoning was the penalty for Blasphemy. Of course, it was only Blasphemy if it wasn't TRUE.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:33 pm

Who else thinks that this thread needs a Lothar or Drakona uber-post in the worst way?

I'm tempted to try to give input to at least some of the points that Thrawn/others have put forward, but there's just too much flying around.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:49 pm

Posts that long I don't even bother to read...Not that I'm not interested, I'm just not that patient

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:14 pm

Admiral Thrawn wrote:Okay, so since I'm "misunderstanding" the definition of the trinity as either God, Christ and Holy Spirit in "one form" or the 3 acting as "One God" why don't you go ahead and explain it to me. Either way, the teaching of the Trinity is very flawed and contractics the scriptures of the bible. Here's a another good link on this

http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity.htm

All I'm asking is that you quit letting yourself get brainwashed by what your preacher says and discern for yourself what the scriptures say. There is only 1 god. There is Christ, and there is the holy spirit, but they are NOT one being, and they do NOT function as one God. The Father and Son are two distinct beings with 2 distinct roles. And the holy spirit is God's active force.

OK, you really do need to pay closer attention. I was trying to help you dude, not argue with you. Read my posts again; do I say anywhere that I belive in the Trinity? NO. But I do say the doctine will crumble under the weight of truth. You need to pay closr attention. If you want to "witness" about your beliefs, first make sure you really understand what it is you want to debate. And if you want to successfully "reason upon the Scriptures" with people, stick to one subject at a time. This post is rambling everywhere.

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:58 pm

Kilarin wrote:BUT, there is still a stronger text.
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Now the "New World Translation" sticks an "A" in there, so that the text reads "and the Word was A God", but the experts seem to agree that the structure of the Greek simply does not support that construction. Also, it doesn't make sense in context.

Actually the Greek does support that construction. There is no indefinate article (a) in greek. There is only the definate article (the). Literally, in Greek, the scripture says:

"In beginning was the Word (ho Logos) and the Word (ho Logos) was toward the God (ton Theon) and god (theos) was the Word (ho Logos)."

The word order does not match the english, but greek word order rarely does and here, like most places, that doesn't mean much. The important factor to consider is the absence of the definate article (ho) before the second use of "god" (theos). This makes the second theos indefinate, which makes it a descriptive, indefinate, adjectivial term, which implies that the Word was god-like, not a specific God. This is why other bible scholars translate the last phrase of John 1:1 as follows:

"and the word was a god" - NT, an Improved Version.

"and the Logos was a god" -The Gospel History.

"and a god was the Word" - the Emphatic Diaglott.

"and the Word was divine" An American Translation.

"The Word was with God and shared his nature." The Translators New Testament.

While in english we use the article "a" to define indefinate nouns, in greek it is simply implied by two things:
1. the absence of the definate article.
2. context.

In this first chapter of John's gospel, the context fits with the above translations. How? Well, consider this:

If the Word is the God - equal to the Father in every sense - then what John says about God here must apply to the Word. People saw Jesus (the Word), and yet John says in verse 18 that "No man has seen God at any time!"

John explains that "the only-begotten god, who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one who has explained him (the Father)."

This "begotten" god is Jesus, the one who is god-like and in a very close relationship (bossom position) with the Father, as a true son would be. The fact that John refers to Jesus as "begotten" indicates that he was created, so he could not be equal to the Father, because God, the Father, was not created.