Clarifications on Christianity

[BrightShadow]

This doesn't make sense. The Trinity doctrine didn't come out of nothing. First there was a belief in Jesus as pre-existent Christ and it was formed very early.

If I say millions or billions of years ago - we all were created in our soul-form and we were in God's realm and then we did something wrong and God, instead of destroying us - decided to test us for a second time by erasing our memory and then send us to this world for a second shot at redemption - would you believe it?
But hints are given here and there in some monotheistic religions. But it may not be solid hints. If you research the Bible or other supporting scriptures you may find some hints of a war where devil fooled the humans!
Anyhow, I don't believe in the "original sin" to be Adam and Eve's sin of eating apple. I believe our "original sin" was something more personal where we all did something wrong in that soul-form. I think we all questioned God's absolute authority and thus insulted God.
Enough information is not given about that existence because it was "need to know" basis and maybe folks back then didn't ask Jesus or any other prophets any corresponding questions about it to investigate.
So, for sake of argument - lets hypothetically accept that scenario. Then you will see when Jesus said he knew Moses or Adam or any other prophet - he probably meant he knew them from that time in that soul-form where we all existed. Not just him!
In my opinion, when Jesus mentioned to his disciples that he knew Moses - it confused them because they couldn't comprehend how Jesus could have known Moses who came 1000 years prior to him. I think God allowed Jesus to remembered that existence because he wasn't undergoing the same test as we are. I think God erased that memory from us to facilitate our 2nd shot at redemption where we need to believe his absolute authority from our hearts without concrete evidence!

In my opinion - God is not creating souls one by one and sending them to earth. I believe all of us (including Angels) were created in our soul-form simultaneously by God millions or billions of years ago. Time works differently in God's realm, so, it could be less in years!

So, Jesus' pre-existent status that you mentioned or him remembering Moses or talking to Moses or any other prophet - doesn't mean Jesus was God or son of God IMO.

Furthermore many quotes can be found in Bible that contradicts with the trinity concept. Jesus routinely claimed he was just a messenger of God. He repeatedly mentioned on his own he can do nothing. On the cross during crucifixion he asked God if there was any other way out of that predicament he found himself in.
So, that is why I said the religion is systematically changed or corrupted to accommodate the trinity concept.
By the way, I don't believe Jesus died to erase any of his future followers sins either.
Jesus tried to exonerate himself but the predicament he found himself in was a tough one. If God had allowed him to walk out of there then Jews and Romans would actually start to believe he was God or son of god. He was charged for claiming to be son of god and he was asked to prove that and thus free himself if he could. How would he walk out of there (with or without God's help) and still prove he wasn't God or son of god? I believe he died to prove he wasn't God/god and he erased the misconception that his immediate disciples created by spreading the rumor that he was son of god. He only erased those particular sins IMO.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

When God said "Let us make man in our image and after our likeness" - we can understand more about the makeup of God by looking at the makeup of man.

Man is a three part being, a spirit that has a soul and lives in a body. Spirit, soul and body. - three parts one person (Other people us the analogy of an egg - shell, white and yolk)

Since we are in His likeness, God is three parts but one person (Father, The Word, and Holy Spirit).

Please show a scripture that says God is three parts. The scripture says God is a Spirit - not 3 parts. John 4:24 The scripture also says there is only One Spirit. Ephesians 4:4

But you think the Father is just a part of God? He is just 1/3 of God?

Now if you go to a restaurant and order an egg, are you going to be fine with them serving you the shell? I don't think so. You don't look at the shell and say there's an egg do you? Sorry but it's an egg shell. It is a part of an egg, but it is not an egg. So are you seriously going to apply this to God, and say the Father is not God, he is just part of God?

 

[PearlSeeker]

So, Jesus' pre-existent status that you mentioned or him remembering Moses or talking to Moses or any other prophet - doesn't mean Jesus was God or son of God IMO.

Furthermore many quotes can be found in Bible that contradicts with the trinity concept.

It's not just pree-existence. Christ is regarded a divine being, made equal to God Most High, agent of creation of the world... Humanity was created but Son of God (in the gospels) incarnated, "emptied himself", came from heavens ... (Philippians 2:6–10)
The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12:1-11 and in other gospels) suggests Jesus is uniquely Son of God (in a exclusive sense, also apart from other messengers - the prophets).

BTW I don't argue for belief in Trinity (because I don't believe it myself). I just defend the fact that this theological concept is based on early Christian beliefs.

 

[Kenny]

Please show a scripture that says God is three parts. The scripture says God is a Spirit - not 3 parts. John 4:24 The scripture also says there is only One Spirit. Ephesians 4:4

But you think the Father is just a part of God? He is just 1/3 of God?

Now if you go to a restaurant and order an egg, are you going to be fine with them serving you the shell? I don't think so. You don't look at the shell and say there's an egg do you? Sorry but it's an egg shell. It is a part of an egg, but it is not an egg. So are you seriously going to apply this to God, and say the Father is not God, he is just part of God?

So, when you are a spirit, a soul and a body... is your spirit 1/3 of you? Is your body 1/3 of you? When your body is rotting in a grave, it was not part of you?

Isaiah 48:16 “And now the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit.”

Zech 4:6 So he said to me, “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the LORD Almighty.

Hosea 1:7 “But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by the Lord their God.” God (Elohim) here is speaking about the Lord (Yahweh) who will save Judah. The Scripture clearly indicates here that two separate persons can be called God and Lord, that is Father and Son.

There are more as well as in the NT

 

[TrueBeliever37]

So, when you are a spirit, a soul and a body... is your spirit 1/3 of you? Is your body 1/3 of you? When your body is rotting in a grave, it was not part of you?

Isaiah 48:16 “And now the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit.”

Zech 4:6 So he said to me, “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the LORD Almighty.

Hosea 1:7 “But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by the Lord their God.” God (Elohim) here is speaking about the Lord (Yahweh) who will save Judah. The Scripture clearly indicates here that two separate persons can be called God and Lord, that is Father and Son.

There are more as well as in the NT

The scripture is clear. YHWH is God, and he is the only God. Isaiah 44:6

The Messiah was God, but NOT because there is a Trinity. The Messiah was God, because he was YHWH (the only God) here on earth dwelling in a fleshly body that he sacrificed for our sins. There are not 2 or 3 persons in the Godhead. YHWH called the body he took on his Son, because he was the father of the body. But it wasn't two different persons. It was God himself manifesting himself in the flesh.

 

[BrightShadow]

It's not just pree-existence. Christ is regarded a divine being, made equal to God Most High, agent of creation of the world... Humanity was created but Son of God (in the gospels) incarnated, "emptied himself", came from heavens ... (Philippians 2:6–10)
The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12:1-11 and in other gospels) suggests Jesus is uniquely Son of God (in a exclusive sense, also apart from other messengers - the prophets).

BTW I don't argue for belief in Trinity (because I don't believe it myself). I just defend the fact that this theological concept is based on early Christian beliefs.

Anything writings that suggest divinity of Jesus should be taken with a pinch of salt in my opinion, because the person in question has outright denied it!
In my first post (#73) in this thread - I did acknowledge that there were lots of doubts floating around surrounding Jesus' divinity and most likely that is why Constantine summoned all the well known Bishops and decided to try and have one voice on the matter. However I think he was a biased agent since he had a Pagan background. So obviously the council came to a wrong conclusion IMO. If you follow the history after the council took place - you may see many Bishops opposed their decisions and many many many were silenced if they continued to disagree. I believe the history suggests that any gospel that directly contradicted to their new creed - were hunt down and burned.
Jesus' immediate disciples had the privileges' of direct interaction with Jesus. They could have ask him anything. But despite the fact they were his immediate disciples - I still don't trust that they could be immune to being "biased" when they wrote something down for us. We also have to consider that when they witnessed an event - what they comprehended - was also subjective! I believe when they heard Jesus talking about God's realm where he meet Moses etc and then witnessed all the miracle Jesus performed in front of their eyes - they inadvertently started to associate some sort of divinity attribute to him. As a result - they sometimes slipped! But no matter how many times Jesus announced to them that he was just a messenger sent by the actual God - they probably inadvertently continued to be influenced by their own bias ideas. That is a common human trait! I believe, as a result they started the rumor about Jesus being son of god. Which took Jesus on the path to his arrest and so on and so forth.
Regarding (Philippians 2:6-10):
Who wrote this? When did he write this and where was he when he wrote this? Did he ever even meet Jesus in the flesh?
If I understand correctly Paul never even met Jesus. and if he wrote Philippian then I believe it was written at least 30 years after Jesus' departure. So, I would question its authenticity. Maybe Paul was already somehow convinced in Jesus' divinity before he wrote that?
I personally believe Paul was the primary source of all the verses in the gospels that may indicate Jesus as a deity. Take Paul and Constantine out of the equation and you may have a somewhat clearer picture of what Jesus tried to deliver. Where he would be just a messenger!
Jesus performed many miracles but I don't see anything to suggest that he did it with his own powers. On the contrary - numerous time Jesus stated that on his own he can do nothing. Everything is done by the actual God.
[John 5:30] I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
[John 8:42] Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
[John 12:49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
If you want to believe Paul then why not Luke? I don't believe he met Jesus either. But according to Luke - Jesus denied divinity in [Luke 9:20-21] and [Luke 4:11]
Moses was called son in [Exodus 4:22], Solomon was called a son in [2 Samuel 7:13-14]
So, the word son is used in a context that maybe shouldn't have but it was not only written uniquely for Jesus. If it wasn't used at all then maybe all the confusion wouldn't be there. But even then it doesn't need to be taken literally otherwise why not believe Moses and Solomon were god too?
Adam had no father and mother, so was Adam a bigger god? Of course not!
Jesus denied divinity and logic support that he couldn't have been God/god. So why believe biased messages from folks who never (in most cases) ever even met Jesus?
So, once again - I believe the trinity concept was an addition. In my opinion it was added to give a divinity status to Jesus and holy spirit.
I think holy spirit is a misunderstood concept as well. Some believe it to be a part of god and some believe it to be just a superior Angel who communicated with Jesus on God's behalf. I personally believe its something else!

 

[Kenny]

The scripture is clear. YHWH is God, and he is the only God. Isaiah 44:6

The Messiah was God, but NOT because there is a Trinity. The Messiah was God, because he was YHWH (the only God) here on earth dwelling in a fleshly body that he sacrificed for our sins. There are not 2 or 3 persons in the Godhead. YHWH called the body he took on his Son, because he was the father of the body. But it wasn't two different persons. It was God himself manifesting himself in the flesh.

I can accept that you have a different perspective... I would agree that it was God manifesting in the flesh.

I think our minds will never fully comprehend the totality of God... but none the less, as it is written:

Psalm 2: “The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, ‘Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!’ . .

Against the Lord AND against His Anointed... separate yet one.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Anything writings that suggest divinity of Jesus should be taken with a pinch of salt in my opinion, because the person in question has outright denied it!
In my first post (#73) in this thread - I did acknowledge that there were lots of doubts floating around surrounding Jesus' divinity and most likely that is why Constantine summoned all the well known Bishops and decided to try and have one voice on the matter. However I think he was a biased agent since he had a Pagan background. So obviously the council came to a wrong conclusion IMO. If you follow the history after the council took place - you may see many Bishops opposed their decisions and many many many were silenced if they continued to disagree. I believe the history suggests that any gospel that directly contradicted to their new creed - were hunt down and burned.
Jesus' immediate disciples had the privileges' of direct interaction with Jesus. They could have ask him anything. But despite the fact they were his immediate disciples - I still don't trust that they could be immune to being "biased" when they wrote something down for us. We also have to consider that when they witnessed an event - what they comprehended - was also subjective! I believe when they heard Jesus talking about God's realm where he meet Moses etc and then witnessed all the miracle Jesus performed in front of their eyes - they inadvertently started to associate some sort of divinity attribute to him. As a result - they sometimes slipped! But no matter how many times Jesus announced to them that he was just a messenger sent by the actual God - they probably inadvertently continued to be influenced by their own bias ideas. That is a common human trait! I believe, as a result they started the rumor about Jesus being son of god. Which took Jesus on the path to his arrest and so on and so forth.
Regarding (Philippians 2:6-10):
Who wrote this? When did he write this and where was he when he wrote this? Did he ever even meet Jesus in the flesh?
If I understand correctly Paul never even met Jesus. and if he wrote Philippian then I believe it was written at least 30 years after Jesus' departure. So, I would question its authenticity. Maybe Paul was already somehow convinced in Jesus' divinity before he wrote that?
I personally believe Paul was the primary source of all the verses in the gospels that may indicate Jesus as a deity. Take Paul and Constantine out of the equation and you may have a somewhat clearer picture of what Jesus tried to deliver. Where he would be just a messenger!
Jesus performed many miracles but I don't see anything to suggest that he did it with his own powers. On the contrary - numerous time Jesus stated that on his own he can do nothing. Everything is done by the actual God.
[John 5:30] I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
[John 8:42] Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
[John 12:49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
If you want to believe Paul then why not Luke? I don't believe he met Jesus either. But according to Luke - Jesus denied divinity in [Luke 9:20-21] and [Luke 4:11]
Moses was called son in [Exodus 4:22], Solomon was called a son in [2 Samuel 7:13-14]
So, the word son is used in a context that maybe shouldn't have but it was not only written uniquely for Jesus. If it wasn't used at all then maybe all the confusion wouldn't be there. But even then it doesn't need to be taken literally otherwise why not believe Moses and Solomon were god too?
Adam had no father and mother, so was Adam a bigger god? Of course not!
Jesus denied divinity and logic support that he couldn't have been God/god. So why believe biased messages from folks who never (in most cases) ever even met Jesus?
So, once again - I believe the trinity concept was an addition. In my opinion it was added to give a divinity status to Jesus and holy spirit.
I think holy spirit is a misunderstood concept as well. Some believe it to be a part of god and some believe it to be just a superior Angel who communicated with Jesus on God's behalf. I personally believe its something else!

You throw in many topics. I don't have time to address all your points at once so I will start with a few and maybe later move to the next.

1. In your example (in Luke) Jesus just tells his desciples not to speak in public that he is the Messiah. It has nothing to do with divinity or denying it.

2. You are interpreting statements in John out of context. G-John is actually the gospel where divinity of Christ is expressed all along. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..."

When Jesus speaks of doing nothing on his own, completely obeying Father etc. The relationship between Father and Son is exactly as expressed in the Trinity doctrine - everything the Trinity does is done by Father, Son, and Spirit working in unity with one will.

When then He says, "I have not spoken of myself", and again, "As the Father said unto me, so I speak", and "The word which ye hear is not mine, but [the Father's] which sent me", and in another place, "As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do", it is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation, nor yet because He has to wait for the preconcerted key-note, that he employs language of this kind. His object is to make it plain that His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father. Do not then let us understand by what is called a "commandment" a peremptory mandate delivered by organs of speech, and giving orders to the Son, as to a subordinate, concerning what He ought to do. Let us rather, in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflexion of an object in a mirror, passing without note of time from Father to Son. (St. Basil, Wiki)

Athanasius of Alexandria explained that the Son is eternally one in being with the Father, temporally and voluntarily subordinate in his incarnate ministry.(Wiki) ​

3. Jesus' immediate disciples didn't write down anything for us.

 

[BrightShadow]

You throw in many topics. I don't have time to address all your points at once so I will start with a few and maybe later move to the next.

1. In your example (in Luke) Jesus just tells his desciples not to speak in public that he is the Messiah. It has nothing to do with divinity or denying it.

2. You are interpreting statements in John out of context. G-John is actually the gospel where divinity of Christ is expressed all along. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..."

When Jesus speaks of doing nothing on his own, completely obeying Father etc. The relationship between Father and Son is exactly as expressed in the Trinity doctrine - everything the Trinity does is done by Father, Son, and Spirit working in unity with one will.

When then He says, "I have not spoken of myself", and again, "As the Father said unto me, so I speak", and "The word which ye hear is not mine, but [the Father's] which sent me", and in another place, "As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do", it is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation, nor yet because He has to wait for the preconcerted key-note, that he employs language of this kind. His object is to make it plain that His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father. Do not then let us understand by what is called a "commandment" a peremptory mandate delivered by organs of speech, and giving orders to the Son, as to a subordinate, concerning what He ought to do. Let us rather, in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflexion of an object in a mirror, passing without note of time from Father to Son. (St. Basil, Wiki)

Athanasius of Alexandria explained that the Son is eternally one in being with the Father, temporally and voluntarily subordinate in his incarnate ministry.(Wiki) ​

3. Jesus' immediate disciples didn't write down anything for us.

If Jesus was God or son of god, he obviously didn't want us to know or be aware of it.
So why try to outsmart God/god?

If he was indeed a god then a question arises - why wouldn't god want public to know who he really was? Why play hide and seek? Why tell his disciples not to tell anyone?
If you say because the public (more specifically disbelievers) would kill him then I would ask why a god can't protect himself?
So, his immediate disciples were allowed to know he was god but rest of public didn't deserve to know? The rest of the public had to figure it out like you seem to have?
To me - it doesn't sound like almighty or a fair-minded god!
A part or version of god who wouldn't claim to be he was good independently [Mark 10:18] and a god who didn't know the future [Matthew 24:36] when he supposedly came down to the world!

Regarding his immediate disciples writing down for us - I should have said - when they passed things down orally and eventually written down by future believers. Of course that increases the possibility of more distortions and more bias influence. 50-80 years before anything was first written down makes my point even better!
I think we should take from it what is believable and not try to outsmart Jesus who obviously didn't want the world to believe he was god.

 

[PearlSeeker]

If he was indeed a god then a question arises - why wouldn't god want public to know who he really was? Why play hide and seek?

It is written that he wanted to keep secret that he is the Messiah (again: this is not about being God).

"Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." (Matthew 16:20)

And after the vision on mount Tabor:

“Do not tell anyone about this vision until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” (Matthew 17:9)

So it was just a temporary demand not to make this public. It means: you can tell everything after my resurrection.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

When God said "Let us make man in our image and after our likeness" - we can understand more about the makeup of God by looking at the makeup of man.

The traditional interpretation of thse plurals by both Jews and Christians is that God is talking to the heavenly court, the angels and stuff.

 

[Kenny]

The traditional interpretation of thse plurals by both Jews and Christians is that God is talking to the heavenly court, the angels and stuff.

Having been around multiple denominational Christians and non-denominational too, I haven't found one that believes God was talking to the heavenly court. Angels don't "create", as I understand it.

 

[metis]

The traditional interpretation of thse plurals by both Jews and Christians is that God is talking to the heavenly court, the angels and stuff.

I tend to agree with you as "Elohim" can imply "together" by being plural, especially since angels do God's bidding per Torah. Some say I am one.

 

[BrightShadow]

It is written that he wanted to keep secret that he is the Messiah (again: this is not about being God).

"Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." (Matthew 16:20)

And after the vision on mount Tabor:

“Do not tell anyone about this vision until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” (Matthew 17:9)

So it was just a temporary demand not to make this public. It means: you can tell everything after my resurrection.

It is not the only setting where he denied divinity or asked to hide his (so-called) true nature.
Question still remains - why hide it even temporarily? Why not come down and declare he was god and the purpose of his visit. Why try to change minor things such as misconception about Sabbath etc. ? Why go through circumcision? (not every Christian following this ritual). What is the connection? After preaching minor things and then suddenly decide to die to erase everyone's sins?

In [Luke 22:42] he clearly shows he was in disagreement with the actual God. That would make him a self conflicting god! A God who doesn't agree with his own decision!
It makes more sense to think he was just a messenger who due to the fault of his disciples' rumors about his divinity - found himself in a predicament where only way to prove that he wasn't son of god - was to be allowed to be insulted and put on the cross.
In other words, I believe he didn't die to erase future believers' sins. If he did die to erase all sins then why his believers are not ascended back into heavens? Why make them wait and continue to be suffered on earth?
It makes more sense that he died ONLY to clear the misconception that his disciples started. So he only erased that particular sin. He most likely told his disciples that " you guys started this rumor that I am god and now I have to die to erase your sin!" (That particular sin and not all sins IMO). Then later they told others that Jesus died to erase their sin (that particular sin) and people misunderstood them and thus I believe the new rumor started that Jesus died to erase all sins! I think that's is what happened! (Just my opinion!)

 

[Muffled]

Hey guys, I'm new to this forum but I liked the idea of debating religions so I decided to join up! I'm a muslim btw.

I would like to start off my posts by a couple things I was wondering about Christianity and would be interested to hear thoughts regarding this questions.

1) Why did people believe Mary was a virgin and gave birth to Jesus through a miracle? As opposed to people saying she committed adultery which is what most people would normally assume.

2) Since Christianity is considered an Abrahamic Monotheistic religion, and since all the prophets in Abrahamic religions prior to Christianity and after (i.e. Islam) always preached that god is one, without mention of any trinity (to my knowledge), wouldn't that prove against it?

I can split these into different threads if needed.

Thank you!

1. I believe it was a fulfillment of prophecy of the messiah for God to make certain that everyone knew who He was.

2. I believe the Trinity does not change the oneness.

 

[Muffled]

Welcome to RF. Sit back, relax and enjoy the cake

View attachment 53891

Im atheist so i hope you don't mind a non christian input.
1/ why the bible account of a virgin birth seems so me a story to enhance the mystery. My view is that Mary either had an affair with or was raped by Julius Pantera. There are indications of this in non christian documents.

2/ again mystery, it makes a good, compelling story.

I believe your 1. is a fantasy.

2. I believe God is telling the truth and not a story.

 

[Muffled]

Why do Muslims believe a black stone has been sent by God? As opposed to a garden variety meteorite falling on the desert, which is what most people would normally assume?

Your answer will be in the same category of their answer.

Ciao

- viole

I believe I have my doubts about that since I don't remember anything about that in the Qu'ran.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe your 1. is a fantasy.

2. I believe God is telling the truth and not a story.

There is considerable circumstantial evidence for my belief, there is NONE that god did it

You are welcome to your belief.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Having been around multiple denominational Christians and non-denominational too, I haven't found one that believes God was talking to the heavenly court. Angels don't "create", as I understand it.

The traditional belief of the church is that the angels assisted God in creating the world. This belief has gone out of favor among Christians in more recent years, particularly protestants.

 

[Kenny]

The traditional belief of the church is that the angels assisted God in creating the world. This belief has gone out of favor among Christians in more recent years, particularly protestants.

I will wait till I meet one. That seems to be more of a Jehovah Witness position.