Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Jesus did not know of a trinity...

NONSENSE! He prayed to His Father (#1), and He said anyone who committed blasphemy of the Holy Spirit would never be forgiven (#2).

You can only commit blasphemy against God.

That's two persons of the Godhead Jesus acknowledged as existing. The Trinity was present at His baptism, where the Father was present calling from heaven and the Holy Spirit.

See that doesn't even make sense...

You can only commit blasphemy against God... But the holy spirit is God according to Trinitarians...

Just because Jesus acknowledges the holy spirit does not show he considered it to be a part of a three in one God...

that IS nonsense...

Just face it man.... the trinity is a fabrication... I think deep down most Christians know it too, but are terrified to admit it...


EDIT:: !!
Wait... I'll rephrase that... Most Christians don't even know their own book so that's not right...

Many Christians who actually read the bible know the trinity is not something that was taught by Jesus... but are afraid to admit to it

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I said "dormant".

Yes he awakened it in them after he ascended.

No he never said it was the first time it happened to anyone.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

and what is blasphemy of the holy spirit? i would just look it up, but everyone has a different answer and they are all right. and everyone else is wrong.

...catch 22, really.

a reply to: Akragon

Take into account the fact that he wasn't ever actually called any of those titles until waaaaaay after the fact...

So prophecy fulfilled. Isaiah didn't say it would be when He was alive. I think most of the disciples realized He was God in the flesh after the resurrection. Certainly His half-brothers James and Jude did, they weren't followers until the resurrection.

the bible itself is not Trinitarian

It's all through the Bible, it's subtle in the OT and overt in the New. "Elohim" is a plural Hebrew word for the title "El" (god). But when it is used in the OT to refer to the true God it always appears in a singular context, when it refers to false gods it appears in a plural sentence construct.

It's a grammatical error in the Hebrew. It would be similar to me saying in English:

"I went to the Ford dealer today and bought myself one bright red new trucks."

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: NOTurTypical

and what is blasphemy of the holy spirit? i would just look it up, but everyone has a different answer and they are all right. and everyone else is wrong.

...catch 22, really.

I think the context of the chapter is pretty clear, which is attributing the miracles done by the power of Holy Spirit to satan/demons.

“Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they shall have blasphemed: but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin: because they say, ‘He has an unclean spirit’” ~ (Mark 3:28-29)

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I said "dormant".

Yes he awakened it in them after he ascended.

No he never said it was the first time it happened to anyone.

That's inaccurate, Jesus said He would be "sent" to man after He ascended.

To summarize the discussion:

JUhrman gets it.

NOTurTypical is a prime example of a Christian fundamentalist, albeit more knowledgeable than the typical fundie.

Krazysh0t is fighting a frustrating yet pointless battle against the fundies while also misinterpreting JUhrman's points... but I think he now understands what JUhrman was trying to say.



To JUhrman, bravo sir.

To NOTurTypical, it is clear that you will not be persuaded by anything posted in this thread but I ask you to please consider what JUhrman has been saying about the actual words of Jesus and consider the possibility that his words were misinterpreted... not only by theologians, scholars, and his own followers but by the very people who persecuted Jesus. Jesus' message was "god is part of all of us, the path to knowing god is within us, we are to love one another and not hate others just because they're different." Jesus was a mystic who knew the truth about spirituality (that we are all "god" and "god" is us... a collective spiritual consciousness) but his words were misinterpreted due to the prevailing beliefs of the time. Jesus was the first hippy and his views threatened the established order which is why he had to go. Later, his story was embellished by those who didn't truly understand his message. Jesus, if such a man did exist, is probably spinning in his grave at the notion of being held up as a deity and a "way to get into heaven" as that was the exact opposite of his message.

To Krazysh0t, I understand your battle but arguing the legitimacy of The Bible with a Christian fundamentalist is as productive an endeavor as teaching piano to a goat.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Nothing more then semantics bro...

There was no trinity in the OT... and it wasn't taught in the NT either...

Even Paul knew nothing of a triune God...

The Israelites worshipped ONE God, not a three in one God... it was the early Christians to came up with such things... and ever since the earliest years of the church they've been coming up with defences for something that never existed until they fabricated it...

I realise you'll never figure it out... Neither will most Christians... but its a fact, always has been

Jesus did not teach a trinity... Neither did any of his early followers...

Most scholars know this... Even many hardcore Christian scholars know this but will never admit to it

a reply to: Akragon

You can only commit blasphemy against God

Correct.

So that's two, the Father and the Holy Spirit.

but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin:

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Like, in a box or something?

Since he was obviously not sent physically, it was an allegory, and allegories are subject to interpretation. You have your own, which is particular to Christians, I have mine, which is based on universal concepts found in all spiritual traditions and religions.

Let's agree we can't go further than there through discussion.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

You can only commit blasphemy against God

Correct.

So that's two, the Father and the Holy Spirit.

but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin:

LOL

So blasphemy against one part of God is Ok... just not against the other part...

You're an intelligent guy my friend... why can't you see how ridiculous the whole argument is?

a reply to: Akragon

Nothing more then semantics bro...

It certainly isn't. Elohim is the plural of "El" (god). In Hebrew nouns are made plural by an "him" or "Im" ending, just as we add an "s" ending in English. Some examples:

1 - Seraph
2 or more - Seraphim

1 - Cherub
2 or more - Cherubim

a reply to: Akragon

So blasphemy against one part of God is Ok... just not against the other part...

No, God works through men by the Holy Spirit. So when people saw Jesus performing miracles they attributed the miracles as being done by satan. The reason why is He was demonstrating Himself as the Messiah, and the mockers knew from the OT that only God could do these things He performed, yet instead of repenting they just said it was the devil.

You're an intelligent guy my friend... why can't you see how ridiculous the whole argument is?

Nobody said it was simple, it's probably the hardest doctrine to grasp. And probably we still won't know it precisely until the resurrection.

Hey, read this whenever you have some time:

In Mark 14, Jesus stands accused at His trial before the High Priest. “Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61-62). Here, Jesus is harking back to the Old Testament book of Daniel where the prophet Daniel states, “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed" (Daniel 7:13-14).

In this reference to Daniel's vision, Jesus is identifying Himself as the Son of Man, a person who was given “dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve Him.” The Son of Man has a dominion that is everlasting and will not pass away. One immediately wonders what kind of person has a dominion that is everlasting. What kind of a person is given a kingdom and will have all men serve Him? The High Priest, who immediately recognized Jesus’ claim to divinity, tore his robe and declared Jesus guilty of blasphemy.

Here

a reply to: JUhrman

Since he was obviously not sent physically

I don't exactly know what to say to that. He was sent literally, but not physically, He is a Spirit.

Well, Let's see...not sure where to begin. First of all I would like to address what I would term to be a negative slant toward "religious " people found in the OP. I have rubbed shoulders with what I would term to be very religious people for many yrs. And I can tell you that most of them are very pleasant people and responsible citizens. And most are very genuine in their beliefs. Their is no doubt that there are fanatics and overzealous believers in most belief systems yet i feel strongly that the vast majority are good hearted people in search of the truth.
It was only until the last 8-10yrs that i have been able to view the bible from a different perspective then the one I was taught ( SDA ). I feel that the Bible does contain much deep wisdom as seen from various belief system perspectives. I feel that the principles taught ( ten commandments ) are a solid foundation for a peaceable society. The problem comes ...when we try to apply those principles in our daily lives we end up not always knowing what is right in a particular situation. We have conflicting priorities and the absoluteness with which God's commands are given leaves little wiggle room. I often resort to some of my favorite verses when I start getting down on myself too much. Eze 36:25-27 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be clean: I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and all your idols. 26 Moreover I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you. and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put my spirit within you and 'cause' you to walk in my statutes and you will be careful to observe my ordinances. Here is another. Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good and what does the Lord require of you; but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.
You may not believe or appreciate those verses but I feel that they are about as good as any words that could be written to us. Maybe many of the people on here are unable to believe in God....but, we should be able to believe in 'Ideals'. 'God' for any person is only what that person is able to conceive of "God" as being. I mean... whatever I am able to believe about God is based on my own limited experience/knowledge...and that is true no matter what belief system we have. Having said that we must ask ourselves what is our best conception of God for us. If you were the God you believe in how would you live if you decided to become a man or a woman ? What if you suddenly realized that 'you' were God..what would you think of yourself ? I think that is a valid question to ask anyone that claims to believe in God.
And for the people that don't believe in God I would say...what are your Ideals ? What type of mindset do you feel represents those Ideals and what type of Government would reflect them ?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

No, God works through men by the Holy Spirit. So when people saw Jesus performing miracles they attributed the miracles as being done by satan. The reason why is He was demonstrating Himself as the Messiah, and the mockers knew from the OT that only God could do these things He performed, yet instead of repenting they just said it was the devil.

Hate to say it man... But Jesus was not the only person performing miracles in his day...

that argument holds no water... not even a drop...

Nobody said it was simple, it's probably the hardest doctrine to grasp. And probably we still won't know it precisely until the resurrection.

its hard to grasp because it makes no sense...

This is the same argument all Christians try to pull... We don't understand it but just accept it because it must be true because the early church taught it... more like made it up to appease the romans more then likely...

Its not complicated if you just read what Jesus said...

there is ONE God... Not three in one.... Not three equals one... just ONE

His Father... NOT His Father, and his son, and the Holy spirit....

ONE... and ONLY ONE

and you can come up with as many proof texts as you want... it doesn't change the fact that there was only one God... The Father which Jesus taught about...

Period...

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: NOTurTypical

and what is blasphemy of the holy spirit? i would just look it up, but everyone has a different answer and they are all right. and everyone else is wrong.

...catch 22, really.

I think the context of the chapter is pretty clear, which is attributing the miracles done by the power of Holy Spirit to satan/demons.

ah, so blasphemy is a symptom of competition and therefore evil.

a reply to: Answer

Thank you.

I can only credit the divine to make me experience its presence after I, the puzzled agnostic scientist, boldly claimed all I wanted was to make sense of all this seemingly contradicting mess, if there was even something greater than me and if it even cared about us.

It was quite humbling. It was difficult to integrate. It was terribly beautiful and almost impossible to contemplate for too long without starting to desire to simply merge with it.


But most of all, I quickly learned that, being ineffable, it would also be the source of a great frustration when people wouldn't receive this experience I was trying to share, incapable of truly picturing it unless they experienced it too.

Hopefully I also learned that such an experience is best shared not with explanations, but with emotions; with art, with poetry, with care, with forgiveness. That it's useless to tell when all you have to do is to show.

I wish I could just show to the people in this thread

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: NOTurTypical

and what is blasphemy of the holy spirit? i would just look it up, but everyone has a different answer and they are all right. and everyone else is wrong.

...catch 22, really.

I think the context of the chapter is pretty clear, which is attributing the miracles done by the power of Holy Spirit to satan/demons.

ah, so blasphemy is a symptom of competition and therefore evil.

Here is the precise definition from Webster:

: great disrespect shown to God or to something holy

: something said or done that is disrespectful to God or to something holy

a reply to: Akragon

its hard to grasp because it makes no sense...

I don't have trouble with it, but I also admitted in another threat it probably due to my understanding of advanced mathematics where three separate infinite numbers are all equal. Infinity