Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Are you sure? Every non-Mormon Christian I have ever talked to believes that the God of the Old Testament is God the Father, as opposed to the Son.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Jesus God?
- Thread starter Orbit
- Start date
This non-Mormon Christian believes they were all (Father, Son and Spirit) present in the Old Testament.
In Genesis, I see the Spirit moving over the deep.
I see the the Father declaring 'Let there be light'.
I see the Son breathing life into the nostrils of Adam.
I see the Father appearing in glory on the mountain as the people tremble in fear.
I see the Son walking in the furnace in Daniel.
I see the Spirit anointing the prophets to do what they must do for the glory of the Godhead.
Genesis to Revelation, I see one God in Three Persons.
outhouse
Atheistically
My only point was not all follow it.
I know many that have excellent educations like Sojourner who will warn against placing Jesus in the OT passages.
kepha31
Active Member
The Gnostics debated on the side of a spiritual resurrection, and they were not recognized as belonging to the Christian community, and Gnostic textual influence was weeded out before the canon. Huge debate? Provide the evidence.
outhouse
Atheistically
The only problem was there was no orthodox community early on. Some looked at them as heretical but there was no real structure. Just more popular versions then others.
Here is a great scholar, whom I don't always agree with. You might find the article interesting.
The Resurrection of Jesus: “Physical/Bodily” or “Spiritual/Mystical”? » Marcus J. Borg official website
I was recently invited to write an essay on whether the resurrection of Jesus was “physical and bodily” or “spiritual and mystical.”
The central meaning of Easter is not about whether something happened to the corpse of Jesus. Its central meanings are that Jesus continues to be known and that he is Lord. The tomb couldn’t hold him. He’s loose in the world. He’s still here. He’s still recruiting for the kingdom of God.
kepha31
Active Member
No doubt you do.
I'm puzzled as to what you have faith in.
You can't provide extraordinary evidence that Jesus' body was eaten by dogs, but you MAY believe it because it was invented by a heretical scholar, which no one thought of for 2000 years, who shares your agenda.
That fact that 1.1 billion people disagree with you is extraordinary evidence.
What the Church teaches today is essentially the same as what was taught, believed and practiced in the 1st 3 centuries up to today, as evidenced in the unanimous consent of the Early Church Fathers. (you know, those ignorant fools who swallowed whole every myth that came along
)I would also submit the extra-ordinary evidence of miracles, (both Protestant and Catholic) an extension of the Resurrection, occurring in every century, that are not so easily dismissed without you raising the bar.
So factually prove, with credible sources, that the Church's existence is dependent on a myth. The onus is yours, not mine. This is the fourth time I've asked you and you still come up with baseless assertions. The reason is you can't disprove one and at the same time disprove the other.
Lastly, the spiritual/mystical approach to the Resurrection is Gnosticism, similar to the Protestant approach to the Eucharist. But Gnosticism has been around since the beginning and has been refuted every which way. I wouldn't lean to much in that direction.
Last edited:
kepha31
Active Member
The Church was hierarchical according the both Oral and Written Traditions from the beginning, thus very orthodox; perhaps you can explain what was so popular about being thrown to the lions.
outhouse
Atheistically
No it factually was not.
There was no "church" for a few hundred years. They met in pater familias around a dinner table.
Christianity no matter what kind of follow was subject to persecution. But before you go off believing everything you think you know.
A friend of mine wrote a book on martyrdom The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom: Candida Moss: 9780062104557: Amazon.com: Books
You might want to pick it up.
outhouse
Atheistically
I didnt claim they did eat him. Im sure other animals could have been involved.
BUT I simply claim I don't know. because no one does.
you know, those ignorant fools who swallowed whole every myth that came along
Oh you mean people who lived over a hundred years after he did and lived mythology in every aspect of their daily lives?????
YOU claim the early followers you know little about are dependent on myth? Because I never said that.
I don't have to prove anything. Much is common knowledge. But what you fail to understand is it was not dependent on myth, because they wrote using rhetoric and mythology. It was not important to the early followers.
Their choices were a corrupt Emperor a politician worshipped as the son of god, or a man who was perceived as pure of heart who gave of himself for the good of the people,a nd they could worship him as the son of god instead of the living Emperor first worshipped as son of god.
They followed the OT. The OT is ripe with mythology. The flood, Exodus, Abraham, are all stated as mythology by credible historians. They literally quit looking to make any one of these historical a long time ago.
But what you don't know, because you refuse credible education, is that in this time period they literally thought little people ran around inside their body. The human mind was controlled by good and bad spirits. Mythology was something they woke up and slept with. Dreams and visions from hunger were considered real to these people.
Death was a huge part of their lives, because people literally died all around ten their whole lives. The context of their lives studied through cultural anthropology would blow your mind away.
kepha31
Active Member
On that ground, no one "knows" if Marco Polo went to China, or if Columbus sailed to the Americas.
Before that, and yes, them too, including the pedigree of office. If an office has no successors, it's not an office. Arguing that the office of bishopric didn't take root until somebody wrote it down is funnymentalist revisionism. The Didache comes from 70 A.D. Ignatius of Antioch wrote in 108 AD, debunked as forgeries by Protestant "scholars" who don't like the content. What you are saying is the Early Church Fathers were ignorant and gullible and fell for myths and wrote rhetoric. That's ridiculous.
You are constantly arguing that Christianity is founded on myth, and "son of god" is a commonly used for this or that person, meaning there is nothing special about who Jesus claimed to be and extant copies of the most ancient manuscripts, which we don't have, don't mean anything because they were written too far after the fact.
Is that the rhetoric and mythology you say you never said?
The onus is yours, because you are making NEW proposals contrary to 2000 year old accepted norms, so its up to you to prove the Church came about over a fake, or spiritualized, resurrection. You cannot separate the Resurrected Christ from a Living Earthly Church so you are left with trying to discredit both. It won't work.
That may be a factor regarding the conversion of Imperial Senators some 250 years later, but irrelevant to the Jewish Christians of the 1st century.
What is hidden in the Old is revealed in the New. The Bible is a religious book, not a history book, although it contains some history according to archaeologists. Credible scientists quit looking for science in the Bible a long time ago; its the same thing: a lame argument.
They lacked advanced psychiatry/psychology to discern the difference between demon possession and mental illness. Evil exists, and everyone save for a fringe minority, admits it. “THE RITE” EARNS RESPECT - Catholic League
I am aware that in our culture, death is rather sterilized.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
That's not true.
Real history was written about these people. There are many unanswered questions about each as well though.
They were not remembered by a Theology book that used as much rhetoric and mythology in its composition.
outhouse
Atheistically
No it did not. I don't know why you made this factual error. But you need to provide credible sources for your statements.
Your not really allowed to come in here and post false information without sources.
outhouse
Atheistically
Im sorry you dont know ANYTHING your debating here. Nor do you have any comprehensive skills. I never said the church fathers wrote rhetorically, nor did I say they did not.
Paul wrote using Rhetoric as all the other authors. Its not up for debate. It was the prose they learned how to wrote in. It was a combination of Aristotle's teaching that had the Roman flavor of Hellenization.
http://www.romans2000.org/Romansrhetoric2.pdf
YOU don't read much at all do you??????
outhouse
Atheistically
No it is on you to prove the resurrection was central to Christianity and its origin. And not just a spiritual resurrection, a physical one ONLY.
Good luck with that. No one has been able to do it as of yet.
Oh yes, we will be waiting holding our breath! just look for the blue people in the corner when your done.
outhouse
Atheistically
You don't know what your even debating.
Augustus was called son of god before Jesus was born. You need to pick up a book.
outhouse
Atheistically
They lacked a basic understanding of everything. They literally ran out demons for every injury they were so medically ignorant.
BUT it had nothing to do with the cultural anthropology I was discussion. You in way over your head here.
outhouse
Atheistically
Then you should stop making historical comment based on the bible you seem to know nothing about.
kepha31
Active Member
This is so misleading. They met in pater familias around a dinner table, but even then they had ordained leaders. In order to be a church, it has to have a valid priesthood offering the Eucharist. Anything less is called an ecclesial community. The Church was born at Pentacost.
Nice looking girl. But she swings the pendulum too far. There were varying pockets of persecution, with varying intensities. There were unjust land and property confiscations and enslavement, but that still counts. Have you read the Edict of Milan?
The Myth of Candida Moss | The American Catholic
Review: The Myth of Persecution (Candida Moss) | Earliest Christianity/
kepha31
Active Member
Then you should stop making ecclesiastical/theological comments about a religion you know nothing about.
outhouse
Atheistically
Who ordained them in the first century?
What you fail to know, is that there was no center that this religion grew from. It grew from many centers all over the Diaspora by communities who had little connection from one to another community.
There was no structure and no control, and no internal organization.
Do you know why Mathew is the first book in the NT ?