AngularSaxophone
Banned
Is Christ the Father?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Christianity [OT] The Word became flesh and dwelt among us
VAL0R
Banned
Christ is one in being with the Father, but different in person.
"I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made [...]
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets."
The Son of God, the Son of the Father. This is not like a literal human father/son relationship. But God uses anthropomorphic language to help us understand who He is. God tells us to call Him Father, because to His unknowable and infinite mind we are like little ignorant children who can hardly understand. Like a good Father he loves us, he gives us good gifts, he teaches us the right path, provides for us and protects us and he never lies to us. So, he says to call him our Father who is in Heaven because we will understand what he means, even in our ignorance. Jesus is called the Son because he comes from the Father, is "born" from the Father.
We say he was eternally born of the Father. "God [born] from God", "Light from Light." The divine nature is such that the person we call "Father" eternally has "begotten" or "born" another person we call "Son." A third person in this Trinity, the one we call "Holy Spirit", "proceeds from [both] Father and Son." So the one begets the second and from both proceeds a third. Because the divine nature is eternal and unchangeable, by logical necessity all three persons have co-existed eternally in one being.
"I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made [...]
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets."
The Son of God, the Son of the Father. This is not like a literal human father/son relationship. But God uses anthropomorphic language to help us understand who He is. God tells us to call Him Father, because to His unknowable and infinite mind we are like little ignorant children who can hardly understand. Like a good Father he loves us, he gives us good gifts, he teaches us the right path, provides for us and protects us and he never lies to us. So, he says to call him our Father who is in Heaven because we will understand what he means, even in our ignorance. Jesus is called the Son because he comes from the Father, is "born" from the Father.
We say he was eternally born of the Father. "God [born] from God", "Light from Light." The divine nature is such that the person we call "Father" eternally has "begotten" or "born" another person we call "Son." A third person in this Trinity, the one we call "Holy Spirit", "proceeds from [both] Father and Son." So the one begets the second and from both proceeds a third. Because the divine nature is eternal and unchangeable, by logical necessity all three persons have co-existed eternally in one being.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
So if you get that part, then why is it so hard for you to understand that Christ didn’t always exist? If something needs to be brought forth from or begotten, that means it wasn’t always there. As far as the oneness part goes, does scripture not say when a man and woman are married they become one? I and my wife were born of seperate parents and are two beings but we are one according to God. Same with The Father and the son.
When it says in the beginning was the word...can you agree that that beginning refers to the beginning of creation?
When it says in the beginning was the word...can you agree that that beginning refers to the beginning of creation?
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
See what happens when you get into scripture as soon as you wake up 
AngularSaxophone
Banned
One of my favorites as well. I think the ones that truly seek get led to the removed scriptures anyway. You can’t hide truth. They were gonna toss revelation too. 
Last edited:
Thurible
Member
Hello,
As the name suggests I am a Roman Catholic and I am rather new to this forum. I look forward to discussing about the faith with you guys.
No offense, but I'm pretty sure the Gospel of Thomas is not included in Catholic and Protestant canons is because the Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic gospel. You see the Gbostics were a group of heretical Christians who really liked to focus on supposed "secret truths" that only a select few know. It claimed salvation only came to a few who knew these secrets and this message contradicted the actual message of Christ. Also, the gospel of Thomas is not confirmed to be from the Saint himself, it is unknown who exactly wrote it with what intentions. I quickly gave it a glance (I'm no expert on it) but much of the material seems pretty... unique. Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
Another one is "Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the (Father's) kingdom."
They said to him, "Then shall we enter the (Father's) kingdom as babies?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."".
This one is pretty strange as well, becuase it seems to claim that the trinity is actually three gods. "Jesus said, "Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, I am with that one.""
This one seems to advocate violence and theft, "Jesus said, "One can't enter a strong person's house and take it by force without tying his hands. Then one can loot his house.""
It is also worth noting that in the infancy thomas gnostic gospel Jesus as a child apparently killed people. "1 But the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and he took a branch of a willow and dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered together. 2 And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. 3 And straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Joseph's house. But the parents of him that was withered took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and accused him 'for that thou hast such a child which doeth such deeds.' IV. 1 After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died."
Honestly it makes a lot of sense why the gospel of thomas isn't included. I do think it raises some interesting questions by talking about books in different Christian Canons (Not the gnostics). For example, did you know that there is a third and fourth maccabees?
As the name suggests I am a Roman Catholic and I am rather new to this forum. I look forward to discussing about the faith with you guys.
One of my favorites as well. I think the ones that truly seek get led to the removed scriptures anyway. You can’t hide truth. They were gonna toss revelation too.
No offense, but I'm pretty sure the Gospel of Thomas is not included in Catholic and Protestant canons is because the Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic gospel. You see the Gbostics were a group of heretical Christians who really liked to focus on supposed "secret truths" that only a select few know. It claimed salvation only came to a few who knew these secrets and this message contradicted the actual message of Christ. Also, the gospel of Thomas is not confirmed to be from the Saint himself, it is unknown who exactly wrote it with what intentions. I quickly gave it a glance (I'm no expert on it) but much of the material seems pretty... unique. Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
Another one is "Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the (Father's) kingdom."
They said to him, "Then shall we enter the (Father's) kingdom as babies?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."".
This one is pretty strange as well, becuase it seems to claim that the trinity is actually three gods. "Jesus said, "Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, I am with that one.""
This one seems to advocate violence and theft, "Jesus said, "One can't enter a strong person's house and take it by force without tying his hands. Then one can loot his house.""
It is also worth noting that in the infancy thomas gnostic gospel Jesus as a child apparently killed people. "1 But the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and he took a branch of a willow and dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered together. 2 And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. 3 And straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Joseph's house. But the parents of him that was withered took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and accused him 'for that thou hast such a child which doeth such deeds.' IV. 1 After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died."
Honestly it makes a lot of sense why the gospel of thomas isn't included. I do think it raises some interesting questions by talking about books in different Christian Canons (Not the gnostics). For example, did you know that there is a third and fourth maccabees?
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
They are three Gods. 
God is just a title. We can all agree that God’s name isn’t “God”, right? There’s nothing heretical about it. Here’s Hebrews 1 again.
“But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.””
Hebrews 1:8-9 NKJV
The Father isn’t just the Father of Christ, He’s his God. That’s why Christ never put hisself above his Father. He never even put himself on the same level as he was here to do HIS FATHER’S Will, not his own. That’s why it says about Christ’s return, not the angels know, not the son, ONLY the Father. If they were all the same they’d all have the same knowledge. Christ will only return when His Father, “God” wills it.
And most of those quotes are parables. No different than any of the other parables in scripture. As far as secret truths, the Vatican has a basement full of them. Come on now.
God is just a title. We can all agree that God’s name isn’t “God”, right? There’s nothing heretical about it. Here’s Hebrews 1 again. “But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.””
Hebrews 1:8-9 NKJV
The Father isn’t just the Father of Christ, He’s his God. That’s why Christ never put hisself above his Father. He never even put himself on the same level as he was here to do HIS FATHER’S Will, not his own. That’s why it says about Christ’s return, not the angels know, not the son, ONLY the Father. If they were all the same they’d all have the same knowledge. Christ will only return when His Father, “God” wills it.
And most of those quotes are parables. No different than any of the other parables in scripture. As far as secret truths, the Vatican has a basement full of them. Come on now.
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
Think about this. There was no letter J 400 years ago. But yes. We’ve been taught “God” is Jehovah and His son is Jesus. Those are both what they call guess names. It’s Yahweh or Yahawashai for God and Yeshua for Jesus. What I don’t get is what’s the need for name changes when we can pronounce either one fine. I think they were trying to remove power from the names. If you’re calling your “god” Billy and that’s not his name, how can you say you truly know him? Part of me thinks that comes with seeking.
Last edited:
hecatomb
Banned
That doesn't mean anything, people could still make j sounds from their mouth. Just like how there is no J in japanese alphabet, it still doesn't mean they can make J sounds.
I doubt anyone will ever find the old language that all humans used at one point, since they were all split up after the fall of the tower of babel
I doubt anyone will ever find the old language that all humans used at one point, since they were all split up after the fall of the tower of babel
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
What I’m saying is exactly that. People make the Y sound perfectly fine and Y existed so there was no need to change it. Doesn’t make any sense. And yes in Japanese if something doesn’t exist they don’t just make a new word. They’ll leave It untranslated from what I’ve seen. Now I wonder what Japan was called. 
Was it Nippon?
Was it Nippon?
Last edited:
hecatomb
Banned
Its because you are trying to translate languages, some words just don't translate well. So you have to translate the word into English so people will understand it.What I’m saying is exactly that. People make the Y sound perfectly fine and Y existed so there was no need to change it. Doesn’t make any sense. And yes in Japanese if something doesn’t exist they don’t just make a new word. They’ll leave It untranslated from what I’ve seen. Now I wonder what Japan was called.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
Everyone should be able understand Yahawashai and Yeshua just fine. There are far more difficult names in scripture.
VAL0R
Banned
- be·get
[bəˈɡet]
VERB
literary
begets (third person present) · begot (past tense) · begat (past tense) · begetting (present participle) · begotten (past participle)
give rise to; bring about.
"success begets further success"
synonyms: cause · give rise to · lead to · result in · bring about · create · produce ·
Imagine a fire that is burning from all eternity. The fire never started burning, it was always burning. From this eternal fire flows light. Because the fire has been burning for all eternity, the light that it has begotten has been shining from all eternity. There was never a instant the light did not exist. The eternal fire has born an eternal light. Even though it's proper to say the light "comes from" the fire, it's improper to say that either had a beginning. Both the fire and the light share eternality.
The divine nature has no beginning and is perfect and unchangeable. So if the divine Son is begotten from the Father, this would be an eternal begetting, with no beginning and no end. As a part of the very nature of God, the Father gives rise to the Son and from both proceeds the Spirit. A triune being God was, is, and ever shall be.
No I think John is poetically using the word "beginning" to refer to that timeless state where God alone existed, before creation. The Word (Son) was with God, and "was God", as John says, in that reality. Then "through him [the Word] all things were made." All things. You can't make yourself. The Son pre-existed creation and made all things. John makes this even more clear by saying "apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." John is literally saying that all created reality was made by the Word. Because everything but God has "come into being."
Here's a simple argument. I think you can agree that my three premises (below) are scriptural (1,2) or knowable by reason (3). If you accept these three premises it seems to me that you must accept my conclusion, that the Word is eternal.
Premise 1: God alone is eternal and never came into being
Premise 2: The Word created everything that has come into being
Premise 3: It is logically impossible to cause yourself to come into being
Conclusion: The Word is God and is eternal and never came into being
If the Word created all things that have come into being, and you cannot create yourself, then the Word, by logical necessity, has never come into being. The only one that has never come into being is God. Therefore the word is eternal God.
Last edited:
VAL0R
Banned
Or look at it this way...
Question: How can the Word both exist and have caused everything to come into being, that has come into being?
Answer 1: The Word exists by self-creation, causing itself to come into being. (Logically impossible)
Answer 2: Something other than the Word caused the Word to come into being. (Impossible if the Word caused all things that have come into being, to come into being.)
Answer 3: The Word exists eternally and never came into being.
Question: How can the Word both exist and have caused everything to come into being, that has come into being?
Answer 1: The Word exists by self-creation, causing itself to come into being. (Logically impossible)
Answer 2: Something other than the Word caused the Word to come into being. (Impossible if the Word caused all things that have come into being, to come into being.)
Answer 3: The Word exists eternally and never came into being.
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
Show me in scripture where it says he was eternally begotten. It doesn’t say that anywhere.
Last edited:
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
I've conceptualized the Trinity this way before. I think if you understand biology it makes the Trinity a bit easier to grasp, but of course it's never something we can fully understand.
A Man and an Amoeba get into a conversation (somehow). The Amoeba marvels at the size of the Man, of course, but especially all of its constituent parts. The Man is composed of billions of cells, all sharing the same DNA. And crawling over every inch of Man's skin are trillions more bacteria and fungi and creatures scraping out a living on Man's "body", all with their own DNA.
"Hi there, Amoeba," the man says. "How are you?"
"I'm great," the Amoeba says. "How are all of you today?"
"All of me?" the man asks quizzically.
"Yes, all of you! All the billions of you. Look at you. All those single-celled organisms working together and competing and speaking to one another-"
"Speaking? I think you're mistaken, Amoeba. I'm the only one who can speak."
"What do you mean? Everyone knows that single-celled organisms communicate through a variety of ways, usually through chemical transactions. Isn't that what's going on inside your body?"
"Uhh, I suppose that's true," admits the human.
"And your cells are dying and dividing and reproducing, shaping new parts of your limbs as you grow and age?"
"Yeah".
"So I don't get it. What do you all mean when you say 'I'? You can't possibly mean to tell me that one person is in control of all that? Hah! Anyway, nice to see you Planet Human."
And off the Amoeba slithers. To the human, this seems like utter nonsense, but from the perspective of the amoeba it makes sense. There is no "self" in the world of single-celled organisms. There is no superimposing "I" that coordinates the actions of trillions of cells. The idea would be completely foreign to them. You could never convince an Amoeba of your own singular personage. All it would see is billions of cells coordinating to move huge jaws, expel air from the huge lungs, controlling the wind with vocal cords which are in turned controlled by the nervous system. Of course it would never truly "hear" you or understand you anyway, but that's how it would look to it.
Each human is one unified "I". Or you could argue it's one superimposing "I" floating above a sea of conflicting desires and motivations. In either case, it makes no sense to us that you could have three unified "I"s at the same time. How could that work? Who is in charge? Who was born first? That's why we ask these questions, because a multi-personed being is just not something we can grasp. The notion of a multi-personality being that is beyond space and time also being One simply doesn't mesh with our way of thinking. "Doesn't the Son come after the Father? I mean, it's kind of in the name..."
God is both "I am" and "come let us make them in Our Image". God's nature is unusual to us because He is a being that we have never truly encountered. "No one has seen the face of God and lived" and "My ways are higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts".
This analogy is of course imperfect, but it helps me understand the mystery a bit better.
A Man and an Amoeba get into a conversation (somehow). The Amoeba marvels at the size of the Man, of course, but especially all of its constituent parts. The Man is composed of billions of cells, all sharing the same DNA. And crawling over every inch of Man's skin are trillions more bacteria and fungi and creatures scraping out a living on Man's "body", all with their own DNA.
"Hi there, Amoeba," the man says. "How are you?"
"I'm great," the Amoeba says. "How are all of you today?"
"All of me?" the man asks quizzically.
"Yes, all of you! All the billions of you. Look at you. All those single-celled organisms working together and competing and speaking to one another-"
"Speaking? I think you're mistaken, Amoeba. I'm the only one who can speak."
"What do you mean? Everyone knows that single-celled organisms communicate through a variety of ways, usually through chemical transactions. Isn't that what's going on inside your body?"
"Uhh, I suppose that's true," admits the human.
"And your cells are dying and dividing and reproducing, shaping new parts of your limbs as you grow and age?"
"Yeah".
"So I don't get it. What do you all mean when you say 'I'? You can't possibly mean to tell me that one person is in control of all that? Hah! Anyway, nice to see you Planet Human."
And off the Amoeba slithers. To the human, this seems like utter nonsense, but from the perspective of the amoeba it makes sense. There is no "self" in the world of single-celled organisms. There is no superimposing "I" that coordinates the actions of trillions of cells. The idea would be completely foreign to them. You could never convince an Amoeba of your own singular personage. All it would see is billions of cells coordinating to move huge jaws, expel air from the huge lungs, controlling the wind with vocal cords which are in turned controlled by the nervous system. Of course it would never truly "hear" you or understand you anyway, but that's how it would look to it.
Each human is one unified "I". Or you could argue it's one superimposing "I" floating above a sea of conflicting desires and motivations. In either case, it makes no sense to us that you could have three unified "I"s at the same time. How could that work? Who is in charge? Who was born first? That's why we ask these questions, because a multi-personed being is just not something we can grasp. The notion of a multi-personality being that is beyond space and time also being One simply doesn't mesh with our way of thinking. "Doesn't the Son come after the Father? I mean, it's kind of in the name..."
God is both "I am" and "come let us make them in Our Image". God's nature is unusual to us because He is a being that we have never truly encountered. "No one has seen the face of God and lived" and "My ways are higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts".
This analogy is of course imperfect, but it helps me understand the mystery a bit better.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
And I’ll keep posting for the sake of those who you wish to mislead. I ask the simplest questions and they bother you. Imagine asking God a simple question and him being bothered? The Christ of the Catholic Church is not the Christ God sent here.
“Oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly—and indeed you do bear with me. For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!”
II Corinthians 11:1-4 NKJV
Last edited:
Airola
Member
Airola , I would be careful not to speak of God as having "parts", as one might speak of a material object. God has no parts, but is one in being, a "simple" spirit. How one being can exist as three distinct "persons" is a profound mystery of our faith, as you know. And shouldn't we expect the nature of the eternally necessary being to be far different than ours and mysterious to our intellects?
I would say this is a thing where things get lost in translation, so to speak. I'm not a native English speaker so saying "part" doesn't necessarily mean anything physical to me. It's kind of like how I could say part of my thoughts concern of something. And as I mentioned God not being subject to space and time I kinda assume people would understand I'm not talking about anything physical or material.
What comes to expecting the nature of eternally necessary being to be far different than ours, yeah, I agree but I think it has been set up in the Bible clearly enough and the people who've studied about that nature and written about it the past nearly 2000 years have been clear enough what comes to the idea of Trinity. And I don't think any semantics about what "parts" might mean are enough to pull the idea apart. Three are one. That's the whole thing in three words. That's the nature explained in the simplest way possible. I don't think it matters if one talks about those three things as parts or whatever else as long as the core of that thinking is that "three are one."
Airola
Member
You'd better learn to write in the original Hebrew language before you go and talk about things like that. The people who first wrote the name you think God's name is didn't know any of the letters that form the word Yahweh or Yahawashai or Yeshua. Every single letter is different from what you have read in whatever Bible you read. Yahweh is written the way it is because it sounds like what the original Hebrew word sounds like. I bet you are not even pronouncing those Yahawashais and Yahwehs the way the Hebrew language sounded like.
This is just another piece of complete nonsense you have written here. Total and utter nonsense.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
The Catholic Church constantly diddling kids yet claiming to be the “true church” is utter nonsense too but none of you seem to want to address that.
If a word has the same letters it sounds like then you aren’t changing the pronunciation. If you’re supposed to be able to call upon the son of God and the pronunciation is all messed up then how’s that supposed to work? God brought things fourth with his word. Words have power. Stop being so stiff necked, hard hearted and listen.
Last edited:
Airola
Member
The Catholic Church constantly diddling kids yet claiming to be the “true church” is utter nonsense too but none of you seem to want to address that.
1. Some people aren't addressing what you are writing because they don't think you want to really discuss about anything and have put you on ignore, so they don't even know what you are writing here. And trust me, they haven't put you on ignore because they don't want to talk about that specific issue. There are plenty of other reasons they have chosen to not have a discussion with you.
2. I have addressed it. I'm not Catholic. I don't think the Catholic Church is "the true church" as I don't think ANY organized church is "the true church."
Plus, it's not "The Catholic Church" that is constantly diddling kids. It's some of the people in power that do it. And some of the people in power are hiding it. There are Catholics who do not accept this, some of them are just church members and some have more power. But you shouldn't lump the whole thing with all of its members to be people who are constantly diddling kids.
So you think God doesn't understand what you mean if you say Jesus or Jehovah? If you have a brain damage and start to call chair a table, God certainly knows what you mean even if the word you say is completely different. And do you think the words you speak are the same thing as God's words? And are you really sure you are saying those words the way they are said in Hebrew? If you say Yahweh, how close to the original language the word that comes through your mouth has to be? Can you say Yahweh in a way an American would say it? Or how a Finnish person would say it? Or how a Japanese person would say it? They all surely say it different ways. Should we accept that word to be said in a way a person from some other part of the world would say it based on how it is written? Or should everyone learn to pronounce the word exactly the way the Hebrews say it? Where's the threshold in that? How much different is still an ok amount of difference?
Are words powerful only in spoken form or are they also powerful in written form? Would you accept that word written in our style (for example Yahweh) instead of using the Hebrew letters even though none of the letters in Yahweh have existed when that word was originally said and written?
You are not helping your cause at all with an attitude like that. Yeah, I know, it probably is annoying to read someone calling what you write "nonsense" but that is still all about the content of what you have written. Here you go and make judgments about other people's hearts.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
All I can say is that if you’re studying scripture these are questions that should be coming to mind at some point. If you’re not questioning things then are you really seeking? Are you really getting to know? How would you know you aren’t being fooled by the deception mentioned in scripture?
Airola
Member
I think questioning things is good as long as one is also willing to question the things he comes up by questioning things, but I think we should also remember that the original questioner was the snake in the Garden.
I used to be into some Gnostic stuff like the Gospel of Thomas but once I saw how the thing was written in a way that is more into making people think they are now onto some secret knowledge than actually telling any real truths I lost interest. It is formed in a way that takes advantage of people who are seeking and desperately looking for something to cling on to. It worships knowledge and not God all the while perverting knowledge into being something mystical that gives people the power of God. I wouldn't be surprised if you would end up believing the Old Testament God is an evil demiurge and the snake was only trying to help. That's where the road of Gnosticism leads to. And that's pretty much the ultimate form of "questioning" things; one ends up turning the whole Bible upside down while trying to seek knowledge and it feels really good to think I have finally found the truth people have been trying to hide from our views. It feels really good to look at a holy text and think I am one of the rare ones who truly gets it. That's what the snake wanted Adam and Eve to feel like too.
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
To echo what
Airola
said, there is vanity lurking at the upper reaches of "study". At a certain point you can become more fixated on learning "the secrets" instead of carrying out the Christian walk. And since most Christians for the first ~1,900 years of Christianity didn't have access to the Bible to study in the way you're describing, I can't help but imagine that maybe we have commoditized Bible Study like yet another miracle diet (or something).Of course, that isn't to say Bible study is useless. Far from it. I say this as someone with decades of extensive hermeneutic training, study of apologetics, and the study of Scripture. It's not all in vain, but there is an upper limit.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
When everything is found in scripture goes though, is that a bad thing? Using scripture to verify scripture is ultimate proof and understanding and I really don’t go outside of scripture much unless it’s looking at the original texts to compare.
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
Since you missed it in my post, I'll repeat it:
How do you rationalize the first 1,900 years of Christian history where the vast majority of believers didn't have direct access to Scripture?
I think it's great that you are reading Scripture. I'm just wondering how you view other practices that Christians have used over the centuries to learn more about God.
Sola scriptura is not actually in the Bible, yet you cling to it firmly.
hecatomb
Banned
a lot of stuff wasn't answered in the Bible like how dinosaurs were wiped out, and other things. Though it mentions God himself was showing up to people and talking to them like Moses. We can only assume that God was trying to talk with other people before Jesus showed up, and other people who knew about him were trying to get other people to believe in him. Theres also more about it here
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/fa...nly-way/what-about-those-who-have-never-heard
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/fa...nly-way/what-about-those-who-have-never-heard
Bolivar687
Banned
Acts 8:30-31
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
Checkmate.
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
Checkmate.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
John 14:26
“And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:”
Acts 2:17-18
The word dinosaur didn’t exist until the 1800s. Dragons on the other hand are in the Bible as well as “mythical” history and I’d assume most were wiped out in the flood. Another one is unicorn. When you go to the Greek they were actually talking about a rhinoceros.
People of the past had a far greater connection spiritually than we do today. We’re far too distracted at minimum. Think of the “native Americans” and how spiritual they are considered and that was only a few hundred years ago. People in biblical times had a greater connection to each other. Things were passed down and taught and without all the BS we have today, I’m certain they knew who God was.
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
Some are still here. Some were here after the flood.
“Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps:”
Psalms 148:7 KJV
Does this look 110 million years old to you? No. They mess with numbers to fit a narrative.
Here’s another older one
Last edited:
hecatomb
Banned
I think that humans were living with dinosaurs, but I think they were wiped out before the flood happened. There is some mention of giant animals in the Bible like a leviathan or a behemoth. Like when it mentions a behemoth having the tail of cedar. Elephants, rhinos, and hippos don't have tails like that.
And leviathan mentions its in the sea, alligators or crocodiles are not really in the ocean.
And leviathan mentions its in the sea, alligators or crocodiles are not really in the ocean.
Last edited:
Thurible
Member
I think you may be taking some of scripture a little to literally. Some of the language and context of scripture is non-literal and should not be taken as scientific or historical fact. There are many books written with historical narratives in mind with others being more allegorical. The story of creation and Noah's Ark is largely thought to be more of a spiritual lesson on the origins of man and the nature of God's relationship with man. For example, we know through the story of the creation of man that we are marked with original sin and fell from grace with God. The story does not however mean that God literally created man from Earth and that the earth is young. We know through science that the earth is (I want to say about) 4 billion years old and we also know that evolution and natural selection has shaped the formation of organisms and their ecosystems. Dinosaurs did not exist during the time of man, they existed millions of years before. I want you to also know that the story of Noah's ark is largely derived from other creation myths of different culture's like the mesopotamians (particularly the Epic of Gilgamesh's flood story), this is a fact. The hebrews took these myths and adapted them into their own culture. They used these creation myths to tell a story about Man and God (Namely that man has become wicked and it shows God establishing his first covenant with man and working towards salvation) and gave it great spiritual truth.
Also consider the fact that the Bible is not meant to be the answer to how the universe took place, but it is more of a tale of salvation history that sometimes uses different literary devices (some literal, some metaphorical) to get it's point across. I can't look at the bible and know how mitosis works.
Are you a young earth creationist? I don't want to be rude but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest the earth is only a couple thousand years old. Science and Faith can coexist and compliment each other. Many achievements in science were made by Christians trying to understand God's universe better. Did you know the man who came up with the Big Bang Theory was a catholic priest, and that Gregor Mendel (who some would consider the father of modern genetics) was a monk?
AngularSaxophone
Banned
The leviathan is a water creature. Could be the Loch Ness monster
Here’s more on “dinosaurs” in later times
http://www.forbidden-history.com/marco-polo.html
As far as the behemoth, I want to say there’s scripture on that one in jasher but i can’t recall right now. All I’ll say about that are national parks have a lot of stuff not accessible to visitors for a reason. Same with a big chunk of the Grand Canyon being closed.
Let me add something for all Christians here though. Something I’ve been thinking about lately. When Christ was here his most preached messages were on not sinning and turning away from sin. I think we lose sight of that. He died for our sins so in the end does anything matter besides that part of the gospel? Flesh keeps us in sin but the spirit can overcome the flesh. May all of us seeking reach a place where our spirit overcomes flesh so we can truly be one with the spirit and truly do the will of the Father.
Yep. Young earther here. The Hebrew calendar is only at 5778. I don’t subscribe to the whole allegory angle nor do I believe that scientific theory mixes with scripture at all. Science was called philosophy at one time.
“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.”
Colossians 2:8-10 NKJV
Here’s more on “dinosaurs” in later times
http://www.forbidden-history.com/marco-polo.html
As far as the behemoth, I want to say there’s scripture on that one in jasher but i can’t recall right now. All I’ll say about that are national parks have a lot of stuff not accessible to visitors for a reason. Same with a big chunk of the Grand Canyon being closed.
Let me add something for all Christians here though. Something I’ve been thinking about lately. When Christ was here his most preached messages were on not sinning and turning away from sin. I think we lose sight of that. He died for our sins so in the end does anything matter besides that part of the gospel? Flesh keeps us in sin but the spirit can overcome the flesh. May all of us seeking reach a place where our spirit overcomes flesh so we can truly be one with the spirit and truly do the will of the Father.
Yep. Young earther here. The Hebrew calendar is only at 5778. I don’t subscribe to the whole allegory angle nor do I believe that scientific theory mixes with scripture at all. Science was called philosophy at one time.
“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.”
Colossians 2:8-10 NKJV
Last edited:
hecatomb
Banned
I mean for all you know God could have created the big bang and evolution, it even says God was around before anything, he could have used a big bang to create the universe. Though I don't believe humans came from apes, cause it mentions how they were made.
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
There was no Big Bang. And for GamerGuy, Saying a Catholic priest came up with it just gives me more reason to dislike the Catholic Church and their misteachings. Its right in scripture.
“For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”
II Peter 3:5-7 NKJV
Same goes for evolution. You can’t believe the book of genesis and its creation story yet also say you believe in evolution. That’s two totally different belief systems. One from man and one from God. Genesis is quite clear on when what and what day everything was created on.
Last edited:
hecatomb
Banned
I don't think the Bible explains how the universe was put into place, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” (Genesis 1:1) Doesn't explain how the whole universe was made and put into place, and we weren't there, so God could have used the big bang to put the universe together and set it in place.
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
Sure it does. You just have to look. This is only a few
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
John 1:1-3 KJV
I was there when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, When He established the clouds above, When He strengthened the fountains of the deep, When He assigned to the sea its limit, So that the waters would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth, Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him,”
Proverbs 8:26-30 NKJV
“He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble; He commands the sun, and it does not rise; He seals off the stars; He alone spreads out the heavens, And treads on the waves of the sea; He made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south;”
Job 9:6-9 NKJV
If you want to go deeper I’d suggest the book of Enoch.
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/ethiopian/enoch/1watchers/watchers.htm
btw when you observe an explosion, what do you see? Everything projects outward, correct? Every image of the universe we see looks like a whirlpool. Water going down a drain vs. water being splashed. Just a thought.
Last edited:
hecatomb
Banned
I mostly talking about the creation of the whole universe not really Earth. Though I think humans at the time didn't have a lot of knowledge of the Universe. Like how John the Apostle wrote the book of revelation, and I remember when it mentions the end times and peoples flesh melting off their body. And of course we have weapons that can do that now, like nukes. But he might have seen people being hit by nukes had no idea what nukes were, and other weapons he was seeing used to kill other people.
Last edited:
All Hail C-Webb
Hailing from the Chill-Web
God Warrior
Ok, since this thread opened with an inflammatory statement, I guess it's open for discussion?
Christianity always struck me as the easiest, in terms of rules that believers need to follow. so I got to give you guys props on choosing that one. Very little fasting, easy forgiveness, plenty of happy holidays, as long as you don't get one of 'those' priests.
Still don't understand how adults believe in certain fairy tales, but not others, especially when the religious ones are the most outrageous. I understand that it can make difficult times easier, but I guess I'm not capable if turning off the rest of my brain. Maybe when I'm older?
Ok, since this thread opened with an inflammatory statement, I guess it's open for discussion?
Christianity always struck me as the easiest, in terms of rules that believers need to follow. so I got to give you guys props on choosing that one. Very little fasting, easy forgiveness, plenty of happy holidays, as long as you don't get one of 'those' priests.
Still don't understand how adults believe in certain fairy tales, but not others, especially when the religious ones are the most outrageous. I understand that it can make difficult times easier, but I guess I'm not capable if turning off the rest of my brain. Maybe when I'm older?
AngularSaxophone
Banned
I still don’t know what a gorgyle or a slagat is
There really are no Christian fairy tales unless you’re referring to parables. The rules actually aren’t easy at all. To enter heaven you have to come to know Christ and eventually STOP SINNING but we’re born into sin and become addicted to it. I’m still trying to break my porn habit. I understand why it’s so bad and what goes on behind it but I’ve been doing it for years chasing the dragon so to speak. Fasting is super powerful. Closest I’ve been to God and understanding. You truly see how the world works and how everything is intertwined. No coincidences.
Last edited:
hecatomb
Banned
I mean thats your opinion they are fairy tales, ok lets say for example there is no God. Ok so humans themselves make up what they think is right or wrong, ok? So you are now just trusting other humans beliefs and your own, not some higher being that knows what is good and evil. Also its a lot easier to choose not to believe in God, cause people can't see him. And also its in the Bible that humans rather follow their own path and not listen to him. Its even in the Bible that humans saw miracles they still gave up on him, and chose to give up on him, thats why they ended up wandering through the desert.
The whole Bible is about forgiveness and loving God. While man is all about just doing whatever you want, and thinking you know whats right, and thinking there will be no consequences when you die.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
God always is and always was so you could say there was “time” before earth but time doesn’t exist in His realm because there is no beginning or end. The spirit of the sun and moon were both in existence before Christ was. Before earth even. Read revelation 12. It’s a period of time before creation where God, “stars”, the sun, moon and a mystery woman all exist in His realm and the war in heaven also takes place after Christ was born. The Devil was jealous that Christ had become heir being the Son. Throw in legions of angels that probably outnumber the stars (more angels) in the sky and you really get a picture of how small we are yet how loving God is.
Last edited:
hecatomb
Banned
I have my own reasons not believing in the book of Enoch, but I do believe that God made everything.Sure it does. You just have to look. This is only a few
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
John 1:1-3 KJV
I was there when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, When He established the clouds above, When He strengthened the fountains of the deep, When He assigned to the sea its limit, So that the waters would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth, Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him,”
Proverbs 8:26-30 NKJV
“He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble; He commands the sun, and it does not rise; He seals off the stars; He alone spreads out the heavens, And treads on the waves of the sea; He made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south;”
Job 9:6-9 NKJV
If you want to go deeper I’d suggest the book of Enoch.
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/ethiopian/enoch/1watchers/watchers.htm
btw when you observe an explosion, what do you see? Everything projects outward, correct? Every image of the universe we see looks like a whirlpool. Water going down a drain vs. water being splashed. Just a thought.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
Do tell. Anything past the 1st is usually deemed suspect but I haven’t come across anything in the first to make me not believe. What blew my mind is that it’s the first mention of the term “son of man”. Although I haven’t gotten to all of it, pretty much anything I’ve read from the Dead Sea scrolls has been Spirit filled. It all reads like it’s the same author and again I can’t say the same about say 2nd and 3rd Enoch. Parts just had me NOPEing right out of it. Not at all with others or the apocrypha.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked