Jump to content

One God Vs Three Gods - Proof The Bible Has Been Corrupted.


Sawu
 Share

Recommended Posts

Part #1

 

We have numerous statements telling us that god is not a man, in the old testament, neither a son of man. Now the argument in john 10 makes sense if jesus is claiming he ISN'T GOD, because he showed that human beings (the magistrates) are called gods. It would be an irrational thing indeed for a god to point to how humans were called god to defend oneself against blasphemy.

 

It makes perfect sense if jesus is a man, it makes no sense if he's god, especially considering the other old testament verses about the nature of god. (Mal. 3:6), 1 Samuel 15:29, Numbers 23:19. Since Paul and jesus endorse the old testament fully as gods word.

 

Not to mention no jew ever understood their god to be three people, or divisions of the substance of god, now trinitarians essentially make their god into a liar, since by necessity, claiming the trinity - they tell the jews they had been misinformed by god for 1000's of years prior (an absolute impossibility if god doesn't lie).

 

Now the unitarian argument is most easily seen to be the correct one, when considering what the jews themselves believed about god historically. If you consider jesus said that the scripture which was only the old testament at the time, 'could not be broken' - "...the scripture cannot be broken; John 10:35.

 

Next since Jesus did not know the hour of his return, he couldn't be god, you can't be co-equal, and 'truly' god and lack a property of god (that being omniscience). You can't be 99% omniscient and still have a claim on equality to being god.

 

Mark 13:32 - “... that day or that hour no one except the Father knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son,”

 

But then we find lots of weird verses like:

 

John 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!

 

Contrasted against:

 

Gospel- Mk 10:17-30 or 10: 17-27 -- As Jesus was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

 

That is certainly an odd thing for GOD to say, if he's god now isn't it?

 

Why does jesus call the father HIS GOD, why does a god pray to another god?

 

“Jesus saith unto her, ….Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God,” John 20:17.

 

Here jesus definitely has a god.

 

 

 

Part #2

 

Next the old testament specifically states in Isaiah 44:6-8

 

6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.

 

8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared [it]? ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any].

 

Then in the new testament we find that:

 

1 Corinthians 8:6 - yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

 

Here in Rev, Jesus tells us he was dead, but note in isaiah that the messiah would be NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS, i.e. a sinful man, since god is not a transgressor of his own law also note the bible's view on death as well, proving that jesus could not be god, since he would ose his knowledge and wisdom at death.:

 

Ecc. 9:10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, where you are going.

 

."I am He that liveth AND WAS DEAD".(REV. 1/18), which fulfils the prophecy by Isaiah.. "He hath poured out his soul unto death and HE WAS NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS". (IS. 53/12).

 

Contrasted against:

 

John 8 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, (A)I am."

 

Col 1. 16-17 For by Him (christ) all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

 

John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

 

As we can clearly see the schizophrenic nature of the bible because of the bias of christians that wanted to inject their own views and skew translations in favor of their favorite doctrines. Even if we assumed christianity was true for sake of argument, the early christians corrupted the new testament to support their pagan doctrines, it's highly likely that the 'true' early christians, jesus and paul were unitarian, not trinitarian considering the old testament and the history of jewish beliefs about the nature of god.

 

Next trinitarians have a problem - the old testament angels were referred to as god, and were delegated the power of god like christ in the New testament. A problem arises, if God is three persons, isn't he much more then that if you take the old testament into account? After all "the fathers name" is in the angels, this is how jesus says "the father dwells in him and performs the works". i.e. "my name is in him"

 

Angels Carrying God's Name

 

We are told in Exodus 23:20,21 that God told the people of Israel that an Angel would go ahead of them; "My Name is in Him", they were told. The personal name of God is 'Yahweh'. So the Angel carried the name of Yahweh, and could thus be called 'Yahweh', or 'The LORD', in small capitals, as the word 'Yahweh' is translated in the N.I.V. and A.V. We are told in Ex.33:20 that no man can see the face of God and live; but in Ex.33:11 we read that "The LORD (Yahweh) spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend" - i.e. in a relaxed, friendly way. It could not have been the LORD, Yahweh, Himself in person, who spoke to Moses face to face, because no man can see God Himself. It was the Angel who carried God's Name who did so; and so we read of the LORD speaking face to face with Moses when it was actually an Angel who did so (Acts 7:30-33).

 

There are many other examples of the words 'God' and 'LORD' referring to the Angels as opposed to God Himself. One clear example is Gen.1:26 "And God (the Angels) said, Let us make man in our image".

--

 

Now from the above, you can clearly see the influences of pre-concieved notions on the translators, and the corrupted nature of the bible performed by christians themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i think it is John, were Jesus says, "before Abraham was born, I Am." i think this strongly implies that he was God. and the people around must have inferred this meaning too, because thier response to it was to stone him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think it is John, were Jesus says, "before Abraham was born, I Am." i think this strongly implies that he was God. and the people around must have inferred this meaning too, because thier response to it was to stone him.

 

The problem is it has to jive with what the rest of the old testament teaches, both jesus and paul of the new testament endorsed the views of the prophets, according to the bible the argued extensively from the OT to prove jesus was the messiah.

 

You'd be saying that gods statements that he isn't a man, nor a son of man, and that he doesnt' change are untrue...

 

When you believe one verse that says jesus is god, the other pop up in the old testament of the verses you "dont believe", you can't claim to believe in a god, if gods own teachings are logically contrary to one another. It's incoherent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think it is John, were Jesus says, "before Abraham was born, I Am." i think this strongly implies that he was God. and the people around must have inferred this meaning too, because thier response to it was to stone him.

 

The problem is it has to jive with what the rest of the old testament teaches, both jesus and paul of the new testament endorsed the views of the prophets, according to the bible the argued extensively from the OT to prove jesus was the messiah.

 

You'd be saying that gods statements that he isn't a man, nor a son of man, and that he doesnt' change are untrue...

 

When you believe one verse that says jesus is god, the other pop up in the old testament of the verses you "dont believe", you can't claim to believe in a god, if gods own teachings are logically contrary to one another. It's incoherent.

 

 

i understand what you are saying, i guess i would speak for all christians (or at least my beliefs) when i say the Jesus changed the religion. he converted it from judiasm to christianity. i feel that the OT describes God during that time, and the NT describes God of this time. same God, just a different way of looking at him. i think the OT is more of history and how we got to where we are, and the NT is the way to live our lives.

 

there is more than just one verse that implies Jesus is God. your right, he never came out and said, I am God. this would have resulted in him being stoned to death. he had to be somewhat descrete about it. in 3 different places in John, he implies that he is God. also in Mat, and Luke he recieves worship as if he was God. yet doesn't rebuke them for doing so. also Jesus stated his miricales should witness to the fact of who he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think it is John, were Jesus says, "before Abraham was born, I Am." i think this strongly implies that he was God. and the people around must have inferred this meaning too, because thier response to it was to stone him.

there is more than just one verse that implies Jesus is God. your right, he never came out and said, I am God. this would have resulted in him being stoned to death. he had to be somewhat descrete about it.

Huh? :scratch::scratch::scratch: They knew what he was saying was blasphemy so they tried to stone him, but he never came out and said it so they wouldn't stone him? Did you just contradict yourself here? :grin:

 

Truth is the author of John saw Jesus as divine. But, personally, me thinks the beliefs of John were more Modelistic than Trinitarian, but that doesn't matter too much terribly as the earlier Gospels show him much more an earthly teacher sent by God. It is a fascinating study nonetheless.

 

BTW, I just noticed on the fourm here that today was your B-Day. Happy birthday. Yours is 2 days after mine! Leo's rock!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think it is John, were Jesus says, "before Abraham was born, I Am." i think this strongly implies that he was God. and the people around must have inferred this meaning too, because thier response to it was to stone him.

there is more than just one verse that implies Jesus is God. your right, he never came out and said, I am God. this would have resulted in him being stoned to death. he had to be somewhat descrete about it.

Huh? :scratch::scratch::scratch: They knew what he was saying was blasphemy so they tried to stone him, but he never came out and said it so they wouldn't stone him? Did you just contradict yourself here? :grin:

 

Truth is the author of John saw Jesus as divine. But, personally, me thinks the beliefs of John were more Modelistic than Trinitarian, but that doesn't matter too much terribly as the earlier Gospels show him much more an earthly teacher sent by God. It is a fascinating study nonetheless.

 

BTW, I just noticed on the fourm here that today was your B-Day. Happy birthday. Yours is 2 days after mine! Leo's rock!

 

its been a long weekend, you have to give a brother a break. :grin: though it sounds like a contradiction, i said he implied he was God, not outright said it. just him implying it almost got him stoned, if he would have outright said it, he would have gotten beat down for shizzle.

 

happy birthday to you too. Leo's do rock. hope yours was better than mine, been moving the past 3 days, i am broke down right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jhn 8:27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

 

I wish you could understand freeday, that Jesus was speaking about God, not claiming he was God (in the 'out there' understanding of the Jews). The Jews didn't understand this, hence the verse above.

 

Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

 

This is a reference for what Jesus said:

 

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.

 

This is the point Jesus was trying to make. We are all God's children or parts of Divine. The only difference between Jesus and the Jews was that Jesus knew he was divine. They were "of this world" spiritually, whereas he knew from where he came. They were more interested in knowing they came from Abraham (form) than from God (divine). They were also divine, but did not recognize it. They put God 'out there' somewhere. Jesus was trying to open their eyes so they could see where God dwells. To this day, many, if not most, cannot see that.

 

In the Old Testament, there are several areas where God is described as "I AM".

 

Exd 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

 

So, when you add this understanding to this verse:

 

Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

 

I am in that verse should have been capitalized then you would understand that he is speaking about the eternal God or "I AM" and contrasting it against the physical (wordly) form of Abraham. He wasn't saying that he was God in the way they understood God to be. He was contrasting their wordly focus against the spiritual focus of himself. Before Abraham's form existed, I AM was eternally present. Also, he contrasted present and past tense in that one sentence. All life is lived in the present moment for all eternity. The present is eternal. He was very enlightened.

 

I believe there has been so much misunderstanding on these issues that Jesus' message was missed. "THE GOOD NEWS" never got out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jhn 8:27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

 

I wish you could understand freeday, that Jesus was speaking about God, not claiming he was God (in the 'out there' understanding of the Jews). The Jews didn't understand this, hence the verse above.

 

Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

 

This is a reference for what Jesus said:

 

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.

 

This is the point Jesus was trying to make. We are all God's children or parts of Divine. The only difference between Jesus and the Jews was that Jesus knew he was divine. They were "of this world" spiritually, whereas he knew from where he came. They were more interested in knowing they came from Abraham (form) than from God (divine). They were also divine, but did not recognize it. They put God 'out there' somewhere. Jesus was trying to open their eyes so they could see where God dwells. To this day, many, if not most, cannot see that.

 

In the Old Testament, there are several areas where God is described as "I AM".

 

Exd 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

 

So, when you add this understanding to this verse:

 

Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

 

I am in that verse should have been capitalized then you would understand that he is speaking about the eternal God or "I AM" and contrasting it against the physical (wordly) form of Abraham. He wasn't saying that he was God in the way they understood God to be. He was contrasting their wordly focus against the spiritual focus of himself. Before Abraham's form existed, I AM was eternally present. Also, he contrasted present and past tense in that one sentence. All life is lived in the present moment for all eternity. The present is eternal. He was very enlightened.

 

I believe there has been so much misunderstanding on these issues that Jesus' message was missed. "THE GOOD NEWS" never got out.

 

everyone has thier own interpritation of this, you make a very valid point. but i will throw out the opposite of what you are say.

 

psalms

 

6 "I said, 'You are "gods";

you are all sons of the Most High.'

 

7 But you will die like mere men;

you will fall like every other ruler."

 

i think the psalmist is condeming the rulers (or gods) for not "3 Defending the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed."

 

there is a pun that Jesus was playing off of, saying that these gods (people who had revelation from God) were not following the word. then he goes on to say what about the one (Jesus) who was sent dirrectly from God, wouldn't he know God the best.

 

i don't think that Jesus was saying we are gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

everyone has thier own interpritation of this, you make a very valid point. but i will throw out the opposite of what you are say.

 

psalms

 

6 "I said, 'You are "gods";

you are all sons of the Most High.'

 

7 But you will die like mere men;

you will fall like every other ruler."

 

i think the psalmist is condeming the rulers (or gods) for not "3 Defending the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed."

 

there is a pun that Jesus was playing off of, saying that these gods (people who had revelation from God) were not following the word. then he goes on to say what about the one (Jesus) who was sent dirrectly from God, wouldn't he know God the best.

 

i don't think that Jesus was saying we are gods.

Yes, I can see why you say that and it is a common belief. I have a problem with the parts that are always saying, "They didn't understand what he spoke of" or something to that effect. If they thought he was saying that he was the one and only son of God or him and the Father were one, then they did understand what he was saying just as you understand what they Jews understood. So, what is not understood here?

 

What wasn't understood was that he was saying that all were sons of God or one with God. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

everyone has thier own interpritation of this, you make a very valid point. but i will throw out the opposite of what you are say.

 

psalms

 

6 "I said, 'You are "gods";

you are all sons of the Most High.'

 

7 But you will die like mere men;

you will fall like every other ruler."

 

i think the psalmist is condeming the rulers (or gods) for not "3 Defending the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed."

 

there is a pun that Jesus was playing off of, saying that these gods (people who had revelation from God) were not following the word. then he goes on to say what about the one (Jesus) who was sent dirrectly from God, wouldn't he know God the best.

 

i don't think that Jesus was saying we are gods.

Yes, I can see why you say that and it is a common belief. I have a problem with the parts that are always saying, "They didn't understand what he spoke of" or something to that effect. If they thought he was saying that he was the one and only son of God or him and the Father were one, then they did understand what he was saying just as you understand what they Jews understood. So, what is not understood here?

 

What wasn't understood was that he was saying that all were sons of God or one with God. :shrug:

 

i think you are correct in what you are saying, i feel we are all sons of God and one with God. but in thier culture this was not acceptable. they did not feel you could have a dirrect relationship with God. you had to use a high priest to communicate with him. i think this is where Jesus changed a lot of things about the religion. and the temple curtain tearing was the symbol that allowed us dirrect communication with God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think you are correct in what you are saying, i feel we are all sons of God and one with God. but in thier culture this was not acceptable. they did not feel you could have a dirrect relationship with God. you had to use a high priest to communicate with him. i think this is where Jesus changed a lot of things about the religion. and the temple curtain tearing was the symbol that allowed us dirrect communication with God.

Thanks for trying to understand what I am saying. :woohoo:

 

The distinction between what I think and what you think are not so far apart, but the understanding is. I just don't think that Jesus was a direct son of a distant god that was sent to save humanity. I see him as a part of God that understood his essence. Everyone has this ability, he was not special in this regard. But, he was a special person in his understandings. When the symbols are taken for truth, he becomes a direct descendant of God and everyone else is not. I don't think that is what he was teaching. I think that John verse is the only place that Jesus even mentions being God. Maybe to avoid the confusion that this would cause by the ones that think God is 'out there' somewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only real place in the NT where the trinity is introduced is 1 John 5:7, but textual critics have proven that this verse was added by redactors in the fifth century (400 yrs late).

 

As far as Jesus' claims of divinity go, why do they only appear in one of the Gospels? As the great Arius noted, who is Jesus praying to in the Garden before his capture? Is he talking to himself? Likewise, isn't a son subordinate to his father? How can God be subordinate to God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think you are correct in what you are saying, i feel we are all sons of God and one with God. but in thier culture this was not acceptable. they did not feel you could have a dirrect relationship with God. you had to use a high priest to communicate with him. i think this is where Jesus changed a lot of things about the religion. and the temple curtain tearing was the symbol that allowed us dirrect communication with God.

Thanks for trying to understand what I am saying. :woohoo:

 

The distinction between what I think and what you think are not so far apart, but the understanding is. I just don't think that Jesus was a direct son of a distant god that was sent to save humanity. I see him as a part of God that understood his essence. Everyone has this ability, he was not special in this regard. But, he was a special person in his understandings. When the symbols are taken for truth, he becomes a direct descendant of God and everyone else is not. I don't think that is what he was teaching. I think that John verse is the only place that Jesus even mentions being God. Maybe to avoid the confusion that this would cause by the ones that think God is 'out there' somewhere?

 

i can understand where you are coming from. in rereading the gospels recently, i can see that Jesus understood the relationship between humans and the father more than we do. but for now i am content with still believing him to be God reincarnate on earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only real place in the NT where the trinity is introduced is 1 John 5:7, but textual critics have proven that this verse was added by redactors in the fifth century (400 yrs late).

 

As far as Jesus' claims of divinity go, why do they only appear in one of the Gospels? As the great Arius noted, who is Jesus praying to in the Garden before his capture? Is he talking to himself? Likewise, isn't a son subordinate to his father? How can God be subordinate to God?

 

first off, welcome to the site. great bunch of guys around here.

 

the bible to my knowlege never actually says or uses the word trinity. it is something that christians inferr after reading the bible. as far as God being subordinate to God. that is very interest and perplexing. i believe that Jesus was God. but in some of the passages when he reffers to the father, he does not appear to be God. but he states that he and the father are one. i look at it as Jesus was the equivalent to God but in a different role. one role was the father, one of the son. the son of man was representing the people and showed them how to worship the father. Even though Christ is the eternal God Himself incarnate, He is still a different person from the Father. As a man and as man's representative (Son of Man), Jesus' person was dependant on the Father and, like us, looked to the Father for strength, guidance, wisdom, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think it is John, were Jesus says, "before Abraham was born, I Am." i think this strongly implies that he was God. and the people around must have inferred this meaning too, because thier response to it was to stone him.

 

Well even Satan and the other angel existed before Abraham, does that mean they are divine.

 

How does this verse prove the trinity though?

 

Without me getting into a scripture ping-pong, I hope you are aware of the important verses in the NT which contradict the notion of Jesus being divine or God being more than one.

 

BTW, in your research of the NT, could you point to a sweeping verse from St Paul books where he says that Jesus was God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for the welcome Freeday!

 

what do you think of the idea that the trinity is an appropriation from paganism/gnosticism, or that "the Holy Family" is a copy of the pagan creation myth of mother/father/child?

 

The idea of "son of God" is alot older than Jesus, and was common in the ancient Near Eastern world. Greek kings often called themselves sons of Zeus, and when the Greeks conquered Egypt, Syria and Israel they spread this form of theocratic monarchy... 300 BC. I think that if one makes the traditional claim that Jesus and God are of the same substance, this makes "sonship" moot.

 

Here's what I think happened: Jesus' sonship was a first century model for Christian piety: "Emulate Jesus, since he's God's son and therefore a proper example." This idea of Jesus is was popular in the East: Antioch and later became a Greek Orthodox motif. In Alexandria, where Athanasius was, they were more metaphysically minded than pious so they had to map Jesus' and God's relationship logically with an identity claim (homoousia). These were two competing schools of thought in the early Christian church, so the Christian position concerning the Trinity developed as a conflation/compromise. So this is why Jesus ends up being contradictory as God and God's son all at the same time... a type of historical accident.

 

i agree skeptic.

 

really the only place i can think of where paul calls jesus "god" is Phillipians 2:6, where he calls him "lord and god."

 

Paul is much more comfortable calling Jesus "Christ" and "Lord," "Christ" being the Greek equivalent to "Messiah" and "Lord" (Kurios) being a foundational concept in the Greco-Roman mystery cults. The mystery religions taught that a being of divine origin would be made "Lord" of the cosmos, and would then save them for being members of the cult. Popular mystery gods were Osiris and Hercules, but there were thousands of them. So Paul identified Jesus with this concept, calling him "Lord" and often speaking of Jesus as ruling the universe "at God's right hand."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

i agree skeptic.

 

really the only place i can think of where paul calls jesus "god" is Phillipians 2:6, where he calls him "lord and god."

 

Please explain what does Paul mean when he says

 

6Who, being in very nature[a] God,

did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

 

Aren't christian told to have christ like attitude(nature)?

 

 

So Paul identified Jesus with this concept, calling him "Lord" and often speaking of Jesus as ruling the universe "at God's right hand."

 

Indeed and the Phillipians 2:9-11 expands on more

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

and gave him the name that is above every name,

10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father.

 

God the father seems to have all the power here. If Paul thought that Jesus was God, then why does he make the father having more authority over the son?

 

Just for my info, what exactly are your beliefs? Are you unitarion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

skeptic: i normally don't quote paul that much. don't know why. i guess since rhemtron said i never quoted Jesus and was keeping tallies. i try to only quote the gospels.

 

Crunk Bishop: my opinion on the trinity if i was looking at the religion from the outside and didn't believe in it would be. christians believe Jesus to be God, and if you follow his teachings he says there is another God in heaven, but they also are monothiest. so this creates a problem. the trinity offers an explination/solution of how you can have 2 different Gods but still just have one.

 

as far as Jesus being God, in recently rereading the gospels. you really can't find a passage that flat out says Jesus is God. but i get the overall impression that the reader is to understand that he is God. i could be wrong, that is just how i feel. :shrug:

 

Crunk Bishop, you seem to be very educated in the historical aspect of the religion. this is something i am working on currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think it is John, were Jesus says, "before Abraham was born, I Am." i think this strongly implies that he was God. and the people around must have inferred this meaning too, because thier response to it was to stone him.

 

I doubt it, there are others who are spoken of as though they pre-existed, god is said to call things "as though they are" (even though they aren't YET).

 

The problem is it would go against 1000's of years of old testament teaching from god himself on his own nature in the old testament. Note that jews never understood their god to be three persons, the trinity is a result of platonic philosophy and confusing new testament verses, that people over the ages used the "new testament only" to interpret the old, but they forget the OT came first, so any doctrine being expounded should be able to be found in the old testament by itself, after all the NT is mostly abou christs commandments, the abolishment of the law, but not the teachings of the prophets, jesus said himself he came to "not to abolish, but fulfill" the law.

 

Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, and Hosiah 11:9.

 

Now to a christian, either god lied to the jews, or the bible and god is contradicting himself and therefore lying.

 

If god doesn't change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first off, welcome to the site. great bunch of guys around here.

Hey...don't forget us gals! :grin:

 

 

...as far as God being subordinate to God. that is very interest and perplexing. i believe that Jesus was God. but in some of the passages when he reffers to the father, he does not appear to be God. but he states that he and the father are one. i look at it as Jesus was the equivalent to God but in a different role. one role was the father, one of the son. the son of man was representing the people and showed them how to worship the father. Even though Christ is the eternal God Himself incarnate, He is still a different person from the Father. As a man and as man's representative (Son of Man), Jesus' person was dependant on the Father and, like us, looked to the Father for strength, guidance, wisdom, etc.

Hard to wrap your mind around that isn't it? :HaHa:

 

I would love to know how, when reading the bible, one can conclude that Jesus is God, logically. I'm not saying that I never have, because I believed that also. I put aside logic and believed what I was told. Now when I read it, I see Jesus trying to preach that God is everywhere for every person and trying to destroy the institution of religion. What happens after the man dies...an institution of religion was created. What for? To destroy a religious institution? Craziness I tell ya! His teachings were undermined by the very thing he was against and they claim to worship him...go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey...don't forget us gals! :grin:

 

sorry, down here in the south we use ya'll for the plural you, when i lived in denver, i adopted thier way of saying the plural your "you guys", so i was including everyone. never want to leave out the women. they have some of the strongest minds. :grin:

 

Hard to wrap your mind around that isn't it? :HaHa:

 

I would love to know how, when reading the bible, one can conclude that Jesus is God, logically. I'm not saying that I never have, because I believed that also. I put aside logic and believed what I was told. Now when I read it, I see Jesus trying to preach that God is everywhere for every person and trying to destroy the institution of religion. What happens after the man dies...an institution of religion was created. What for? To destroy a religious institution? Craziness I tell ya! His teachings were undermined by the very thing he was against and they claim to worship him...go figure.

 

that is a pretty good point. Jesus continously rejected the strict church practices. but we have made even more. :shrug:

 

i guess in reading the gospells the only concrete solution you could come to is that Jesus had a more knowledgable relationship with the father (creator) than we do. he spoke as one who knew from the source. but he did say he and the father are one. you could easily inferr that he was saying he was God. you could inferr that God lives inside us. who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i guess in reading the gospells the only concrete solution you could come to is that Jesus had a more knowledgable relationship with the father (creator) than we do. he spoke as one who knew from the source. but he did say he and the father are one. you could easily inferr that he was saying he was God. you could inferr that God lives inside us. who knows.

:3: You're right...who knows? I know that in my understanding (which may not be correct), this expels many contradictions and makes it so much easier to believe. Just a guy that deserved respect and even admiration because of the connection he felt to God (whatever that may entail).

 

This understanding has actually lead me back to Jesus. Not in the worshiping way, but in a way that I could actually learn from his teachings. When I had to believe all the stuff that was attributed to him, I actually found myself calling him a mad-man or a lunatic. I thought that anyone that claimed to be God and do the things he claims to have done (literally) had to be insane. Of course, his teachings and insights didn't change but my understanding of them did. It was an epiphany for me which totally changed the way I viewed him. It was me all along...

 

I have purchased more books about him than I did when I was a Christian. Actually, I never purchased anything about him when I was a Christian. I have read Is Jesus God? writen by a priest (I beleive) that was in the church for 29 years and came to understand that Jesus wasn't God. I have also ordered a couple of books that may show that Jesus was in India for those "missing years." Amazing that I am so much more interesed in him now than I was as a Christian.

 

Oh...about the you guys thing...I was pretty sure that was what you meant, but just in case.... :D I do that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i guess in reading the gospells the only concrete solution you could come to is that Jesus had a more knowledgable relationship with the father (creator) than we do. he spoke as one who knew from the source. but he did say he and the father are one. you could easily inferr that he was saying he was God. you could inferr that God lives inside us. who knows.

:3: You're right...who knows? I know that in my understanding (which may not be correct), this expels many contradictions and makes it so much easier to believe. Just a guy that deserved respect and even admiration because of the connection he felt to God (whatever that may entail).

 

This understanding has actually lead me back to Jesus. Not in the worshiping way, but in a way that I could actually learn from his teachings. When I had to believe all the stuff that was attributed to him, I actually found myself calling him a mad-man or a lunatic. I thought that anyone that claimed to be God and do the things he claims to have done (literally) had to be insane. Of course, his teachings and insights didn't change but my understanding of them did. It was an epiphany for me which totally changed the way I viewed him. It was me all along...

 

I have purchased more books about him than I did when I was a Christian. Actually, I never purchased anything about him when I was a Christian. I have read Is Jesus God? writen by a priest (I beleive) that was in the church for 29 years and came to understand that Jesus wasn't God. I have also ordered a couple of books that may show that Jesus was in India for those "missing years." Amazing that I am so much more interesed in him now than I was as a Christian.

 

Oh...about the you guys thing...I was pretty sure that was what you meant, but just in case.... :D I do that too.

 

i might have to check that out. obviously Jesus never outright said he was God. this message is more preached by paul. who is a human that had a vision. do you find the irrony in this, because in writing it, i see it. this is the exact reason i discredit muhhomad.

 

but, and a big but it is, John makes numerous refferences that Jesus is the way to God. so what did he mean by this. if he is not God, how would he be the light, the good shepard, the gate, the one that only through him is the path to the father. i can't think of any other way to look at it if he is the path to the father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but, and a big but it is, John makes numerous refferences that Jesus is the way to God. so what did he mean by this. if he is not God, how would he be the light, the good shepard, the gate, the one that only through him is the path to the father. i can't think of any other way to look at it if he is the path to the father.

Hi freeday,

 

I look at it as what Jesus had to say was the path to God. If they believed on him, or in him, then they too could find God. This wasn't to say that he was God anymore than anyone else, he was just a beacon that lead people to the light. Or actually, should have lead people to the light. What happened when he was taken as God himself, was like people praising the beacon and not ever noticing the light. They thought the beacon itself was the light when all along it was just a vessel that projects the light. I had totally rejected any belief in God until I realized what he was saying. I prayed to the beacon while the light shown over my head. I finally heard what he said and then I noticed the light. :D

 

If people did not hear what he said, they would not find the path to the father because the ones he was speaking to also thought that the way to find God was to follow set rules made by men. He was shinning his light to them. If they heard and understood what he said, they would have known that he was trying to show them that through what he had to say (have ears to hear) they could know God too. Many misunderstood what he said, IMO.

 

See, they already had the mindset that God was out there somewhere up above their heads and when he said the he was the way to God, they didn't even think that his message was that if they followed him (like a teacher) and understood what he was teaching, they could know this connection to God also. God isn't out there somewhere; God is right here within us and everywhere. They would have to understand and accept that in order to know what he was saying. I think many did understand, but not enough to overcome the ones that didn't. When he said that, "the only way to Father is through me", he didn't mean that he was God, he meant that God could be known by listening to him.

 

You know, what is great about not seeing him as God is knowing that I don't have to go by what is written in the bible alone. I can investigate any and every other souces that contain any of his teachings. Which, I am! :D I don't have to go by what the church chose and interpreted, with bias and misunderstandings. The bible is valuable of course, but I now know that if something doesn't go along with what I think he was teaching, then I can dismiss it or study it harder to see what he did mean instead of what others thought he meant. It's wonderful to have this freedom...freeday.

 

i might have to check that out. obviously Jesus never outright said he was God. this message is more preached by paul. who is a human that had a vision. do you find the irrony in this, because in writing it, i see it. this is the exact reason i discredit muhhomad.

Yes, the irony is there. Paul may have misunderstood, or we are misunderstanding Paul. I have read some things that sees Paul as more of a Gnostic.

 

Here Christos is spoken of:

 

2:16"For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him?" But we have Christ's mind."

 

Consider also the esoteric poem in Ephesians (probably not by Paul) - it seems to be a climactic prayer from the initiation ritual in the Mysteries of Christos (ch.5:14) :

 

"Therefore it is said:

Awake O sleeper,

and arise from the dead

and the Christos will shine on you"

 

This sounds exactly like an initiatory ritual - the initiate, called 'dead' in the physical body, is enticed to 'rise' above the physical so the Christos may shine on him.

 

Paul's Personal Experience

 

Paul boasts (2 Cor 12), of personal experiences - he describes a spiritual rising :

 

"I must boast; there is nothing to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord

 

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven - whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.

 

And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise - whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.

 

and he heard things that cannot told, which man may not utter... ''

 

The context has Paul boasting of his exploits (e.g. the escape from Damascus), here he establishes his spiritual credentials - literally Spiritual - the Spiritual Plane being the the 3rd Heaven. The emanationist model of the Gnostics is described here and shows how the 3rd heaven refers to the Spiritual plane.

 

Elsewhere, Paul describes a personal vision of Christ, amplified into several versions and incidents in Acts.

 

Check out this website: http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Chri...ul-Gnostic.html

 

Wikipedia also:

 

It has been suggested by scholars , such as Hyam Maccoby and Elaine Pagels - Professor of Religion at Princeton - as well as Timothy Freke, that Paul of Tarsus (the Christian Saint Paul) was a Gnostic who developed the early Christian church as a mystery religion with a Jewish flavour, and that elements of this church forgot or misunderstood the mystery elements, largely abandoned its Jewish foundation, and took up literal interpretation of the text.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism_an...e_New_Testament

 

If you look at the bible from a different perspective, your understanding changes. Maybe this is indeed what Jesus meant when he kept saying to those that "have eyes to see" and "ears to hear"???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i might have to check that out. obviously Jesus never outright said he was God. this message is more preached by paul. who is a human that had a vision. do you find the irrony in this, because in writing it, i see it. this is the exact reason i discredit muhhomad.

 

but, and a big but it is, John makes numerous refferences that Jesus is the way to God. so what did he mean by this. if he is not God, how would he be the light, the good shepard, the gate, the one that only through him is the path to the father. i can't think of any other way to look at it if he is the path to the father.

I used to believe a non-Trinitarian view of God known as modalistic monarchianism. I think that's what you were saying in your earlier views you stated in this thread. I saw God, not in three distinct persons, but in three manifestations of one God. "He was the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, the Holy Spirit in emanation (or in the Church). One God in three modes, not one God in three persons." This was a view in the early church taught by Sabellius http://www.answers.com/topic/sabellius

 

As far as the Gospel of John. Again, it really helps when reading the books of the NT to get a background on the time they were written, where they were written, and thoughts about who the author really is. I really can't back this up right now, but my impressions of "I am the way...", etc are that these were originally words of the personification of Wisdom from various religious sects that became part of the sayings documents like the Gospel of Thomas where it puts "Jesus said, " in front of the sayings of Wisdom. The Gospels then set it up with historical stage of characters and places where the sayings are injected, "and Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me." Substitute Wisdom for Jesus and re-read it. Divine Wisdom is the way to the knowledge of God.

 

(I know I've said that here elsewhere, but can't recall if I said it to you).

 

BTW, how are things going for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.