[Neon Genesis]

billmc, on 06 November 2009 - 02:50 PM, said:

NT Wright seems to think so, but traditional Christianity thinks that it is one's personal belief or faith in atonement theology that makes Christ sacrifice efficacious i.e. if you don't believe in it, it does you no personal good.

Bishop Spong argues in his book, Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism, that St Paul believed in the resurrection of Jesus but not the ascension of Jesus. When you stop and think about it, St Paul really never says anything at all about Jesus' physical body raising from the dead. Spong's argument was basically that St Paul believed Jesus was raised from the dead in the sense that he believed Jesus was already raised when he died and so when Jesus died, he immediately went to heaven and appeared to the apostles in forms of visions similar to his own appearance rather than the physical resurrection we typically think about.

There's also a verse in 1 Co 15 where St Paul says it's impossible for a physical body to enter heaven and he refers to us as having a physical body and a celestial body and the celestial body is what we will be raised into when we die, not a physical one. Another argument I've heard is that when Paul talks about the resurrection of the body of Christ being essential in 1 Cor 15, he's referring to the church as the Body Of Christ and that unless Christians die to their sins and resurrect the church in a new spiritual body, then Christians are to be pitied.

But I don't think St. Paul was a Gnostic because weren't the Gnostics anti-resurrection but St Paul was pro-resurrection? I also had read in Bart D Ehrman's book Lost Christianities that the Gnostics believed having sex within marriage is a sin because they believed the physical world was sinful and even having sex in marriage was a sin, but St Paul approved of sex in marriage. Of course, I don't know if different Gnostic sects believed different things about sex like in modern day churches. But I agree that speculating on the metaphysics of religion misses the point of religion and faith is about action rather than believing in a correct set of beliefs.

This post has been edited by Neon Genesis: 06 November 2009 - 05:56 PM

[Mike]

Hi David,

davidk, on 06 November 2009 - 04:01 PM, said:

It appears that not believing the Apostles could actually be saying Jesus is the incarnate God, despite the clear language of the texts of the NT, is simply because one doesn't believe it could be true.

Whether you believe He is God or not, why try to skew the writings of these men to say they are ambiguous or somehow say something they don't. If your belief is in oppostion to these eye witnesses and close companions of Jesus, then the Christian faith may not be what you believe.

Respectfully, that seems to be a loaded question, negating the possibility that it is not at all obvious to me that that is what the NT claims, and that perhaps my treatment of their writings is as honest as I know how to be. Aside from just saying 'ultimately I can't really say for sure what so-and-so believed,' I've given my shot at interpreting them in light of what I understand to be their context.
Like we already agreed, our assumptions or presuppositions are not the same, so just because mine take me to a different place does not mean I’m skewing their writings. I honestly don’t believe that Paul, the authors of Mark, Luke, Matthew considered Jesus to be God, with the possible exception of John, depending on how he’s interpreted.

Quote

How does one claim faith in a particular religion while argueing disbelief in the origins and original writings of the Faith?

I wouldn't call it an outright unbelief, but I certainly relate to the text in a way considered unacceptable to many Christians, and that can be seen as unbelief by comparison. However, I think the progressive Christian movement as a whole, and the presence of this website with everybody here, is an answer to what you are fundamentally asking. I can certainly understand your objections to it, believe me - I'm not saying my approach is a universally acceptable path, but it does work for me.

To make another point, it is my understanding that Christianity did not remain in the first century. Many Christians tend not to realize the extent to which the character of the faith they have received has been influenced by the progression of history. For instance, it may very well be claimed nigh without exaggeration, that Augustine did as much for Christianity as did St. Paul. Also, I'm not aware of any of the great theologians of Church history who were not steeped in Greek thought, and who did not subsequently redefine Christianity to accommodate Plato and Aristotle, altering the originally more Hebraic faith of Jesus.

Now, is not PC redefining Christianity in light of modern philosophy and world philosophies?

Which is the truer Christianity? Perhaps it depends on what kind of questions you ask. To me, Christianity can no more be defined exclusively by its original form any more than I am still identified by my baby pictures. That is why I insist that the meaning of Jesus is not to be found merely in the past, but right now, because that is where he has always been for the Church as a living, present reality. I say that the diverse approaches or forms of Christianity are each worthy to be studied in their own right as valid approaches to the meaning of Jesus, in the context of what we're asking about him. But taken as a whole, Christianity weaves a tapestry of many different approaches, questions, answers, meanings, and Jesus becomes like a jewel with each of the many connecting surfaces reflecting all the others, and each a valid meaning according to the need with which the question is asked. A romanticized interpretation of history? Yes, but perhaps there is just enough reality there to stick.

Quote

On another note, it seems on these pages that God and personal can't be thought of together. I contend they are instead mutually inclusive. God is the original personal. The first cause, the creator being, possessing personality. In other words, God is the personal Creator and not just a theoretical or impersonal entity or force. If God can be understood as He really is, a personal God and creator, then His having made a personal appearance on earth in the manner written in Scripture, would seem a bit more reasonable in light of the Gospel's claim.

I absolutely agree that in Christian scripture, whatever else can be said of God, he is certainly personal. My contention was the interpretation of John's Logos as a pre-existing personal being that became Jesus of Nazareth. To me the Logos is impersonal, in the sense that it is God's Word, Wisdom, and if it is personal it is in the sense that it is not truly separate from God's own self. Hence, the Word was with God, and was God. But the Logos, in my view, is not to be seen as a pre-existing being that later became Jesus, but rather as God's Wisdom, in that plain sense.
But perhaps to debate deity claims about Christ is to diverge a bit from what we were originally talking about anyway.
Thanks for the interesting discourse.

Peace to you,
Mike

[billmc]

davidk, on 06 November 2009 - 03:01 PM, said:

[font="Garamond"][size="4"]It appears that not believing the Apostles could actually be saying Jesus is the incarnate God, despite the clear language of the texts of the NT, is simply because one doesn't believe it could be true.

I suppose that is correct, Davidk, but it is not simply because I have arbitrarily chosen not to believe the "clear language", but because it doesn't make any sense if taken literally. My reasons for rejecting the doctrine that Jesus is God are many and would warrant a completely different thread. But the bottom line, for me, is that GOD is not man and man is not GOD.

Quote

If your belief is in oppostion to these eye witnesses and close companions of Jesus, then the Christian faith may not be what you believe. How does one claim faith in a particular religion while argueing disbelief in the origins and original writings of the Faith?

Again, you are correct. I don't have a "Christian faith" nor do I believe in the "Christian religion". My faith is in GOD, which transcends all human religions and concepts. And my faith is not based upon believing certain things about GOD, but in the GOD of my experiences, a GOD who is beyond creeds and doctrines but who is incarnate in compassion and justice. For me, Jesus doesn't have to be God in order for his teachings to be true. Either what he taught is wise and best or it is not, regardless of where he got his teachings and authority.

Quote

On another note, it seems on these pages that God and personal can't be thought of together. I contend they are instead mutually inclusive. God is the original personal. The first cause, the creator being, possessing personality. In other words, God is the personal Creator and not just a theoretical or impersonal entity or force. If God can be understood as He really is, a personal God and creator, then His having made a personal appearance on earth in the manner written in Scripture, would seem a bit more reasonable in light of the Gospel's claim.

As humans, we have a tendency to make GOD in our image. We are persons, so we make GOD a person or personal because that is how we relate to one another, as persons. As Spong says, "If horses had gods, they would look like horses." I agree that I often speak, write, and think of GOD as a person. But I am also aware that when I (or anyone else) make the claim that "GOD is...", I am engaging in idolatry. IMO, Christianity turned Jesus into God and thereby made an idol of him and God both. Idols are worshipped, not followed. Jesus didn't go around telling people to worship him as Yahweh nor did he recite to them everything he did as Yahweh in the OT. He seemed to shun being worshipped, but he did tell people to follow him. IMO, when Jesus is turned into God, we can disregard his teaching by saying, "He was not one of us, therefore he did what we cannot and it matters not whether we obey him, as long as we believe in him."

This goes back to the OP. Believing in Jesus is not believing certain facts about him. Jesus didn't care whether or not you called him 'Lord' if you didn't obey him. I sometimes think Christians argue over the nature of GOD and Jesus because it is easier to do that than to obey what GOD and Jesus want us to do.

[billmc]

Neon Genesis, on 06 November 2009 - 04:54 PM, said:

But I don't think St. Paul was a Gnostic because weren't the Gnostics anti-resurrection but St Paul was pro-resurrection? I also had read in Bart D Ehrman's book Lost Christianities that the Gnostics believed having sex within marriage is a sin because they believed the physical world was sinful and even having sex in marriage was a sin, but St Paul approved of sex in marriage. Of course, I don't know if different Gnostic sects believed different things about sex like in modern day churches.

The Gnostics, like most religious groups, had a wide variety of beliefs. What I was referring to, Neon Genesis, is the gnostic notion that Jesus was essentially an eternal spirit-being who took on the appearance of humanity but was not truly human. Whether it is believed that he only had an outer shell of flesh or whether his flesh was an optical illusion probably depends on which gnostic you are talking to. As I understand Gnosticism, the major theme is that Jesus was a pure spirit-being who took on flesh for a time, had that flesh corrupted by all sins being poured into it at the cross, and then left that flesh as, once again, a pure spirit-being who ascended back to heaven.

Side note: Didn't Paul say that it was not good to touch a woman? I don't know whether he qualified that by marriage or not.

My point is that, according to the apostle Paul (or most disciples of Paul, like Augustine, etc.), to be human is to be sinful, to have a sin nature. Christians insist that Jesus was not sinful, did not have a sin nature (despite Paul's assertion in Romans 3:23 that ALL have sinned). So I see no way that, in Paul's view, Jesus could be considered as being human. It is analogous to say that it is a fact that all humans have blue eyes but Jesus had brown eyes. If it is true that all humans have blue eyes, then whatever else we might say about Jesus, he was not human. For many people, this is not a problem. They do see Jesus as "God zipped up in a man suit", but I eventually faced the fact that I couldn't believe that way. I think God's spirit was in Jesus, but I don't think Jesus was God.

[Neon Genesis]

billmc, on 06 November 2009 - 11:35 PM, said:

Side note: Didn't Paul say that it was not good to touch a woman? I don't know whether he qualified that by marriage or not.

My point is that, according to the apostle Paul (or most disciples of Paul, like Augustine, etc.), to be human is to be sinful, to have a sin nature. Christians insist that Jesus was not sinful, did not have a sin nature (despite Paul's assertion in Romans 3:23 that ALL have sinned). So I see no way that, in Paul's view, Jesus could be considered as being human. It is analogous to say that it is a fact that all humans have blue eyes but Jesus had brown eyes. If it is true that all humans have blue eyes, then whatever else we might say about Jesus, he was not human. For many people, this is not a problem. They do see Jesus as "God zipped up in a man suit", but I eventually faced the fact that I couldn't believe that way. I think God's spirit was in Jesus, but I don't think Jesus was God.

But does Paul ever actually say that Jesus was perfect? I thought that was only the view of the Hebrews author who most scholars agree is not Paul that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice? And while Paul did say that about not touching women, I had always thought that was about premarital sex and not within marriage. But Paul also encourages sex within marriage in 1 Cor 7 where he says he prefers it if you remain celibate like him, and he encourages his followers to get married if they can't control their sex drives. He also says his views on sex are not commandments from God and are his own personal opinions. Interestingly, Bart D Ehrman also argues that 1 Timothy, a forgery written in Paul's name, is a refutation of Gnosticism.

This post has been edited by Neon Genesis: 07 November 2009 - 12:01 AM

[billmc]

Neon Genesis, on 06 November 2009 - 10:56 PM, said:

But does Paul ever actually say that Jesus was perfect? I thought that was only the view of the Hebrews author who most scholars agree is not Paul that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice?

Yes, you're correct, NG, that it is in Hebrews and 1 Peter and 1 John that we find statements about Jesus' sinlessness. Some scholars attribute Hebrews to Paul, some don't.

Quote

And while Paul did say that about not touching women, I had always thought that was about premarital sex and not within marriage. But Paul also encourages sex within marriage in 1 Cor 7 where he says he prefers it if you remain celibate like him, and he encourages his followers to get married if they can't control their sex drives.

Yes, how would you like to tell your fiance, "I'm only marrying you because I can't control my sex drive." That would go over like a lead balloon, wouldn't it? Paul believed people should, ideally, stay celibate. And, yes, if they can't control themselves, then get married. But with the percentage of extramarital affairs and divorces being as high in our churches as they are in secular society, Paul's view on the purpose of marriage seems outdated and ineffective. I married my wife because I love her, not because I couldn't "control myself."

Quote

Interestingly, Bart D Ehrman also argues that 1 Timothy, a forgery written in Paul's name, is a refutation of Gnosticism.

That may well be. As we have no extant manuscripts with signatures, we really don't know who wrote what. All we have is what the Church fathers decided and it is a well known fact that they had an agenda when they put the Bible together. Having read Ehrman, I'm sure you know that he lost his faith when he looked closely at the scriptures and how they were assembled/changed. IMO, this happened because Bart's faith, like many conservative Christians, was in the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures. When he could no longer believe in this doctrine, which formed the bedrock of his faith, everything came crashing down.

To be honest, I've been through a somewhat similar process. But to make a long story short, I found that I still have my experiences of GOD as compassion, justice, joy, love, peace, and life which don't require me to list a proof text for them in order that they be real and valid. For me, the Bible could not exist at all but GOD still would and we, as humans, would still find ways to relate to GOD. Likewise, the more I studied the scriptures and gave it careful consideration, the less I came to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the wargod Yahweh in a man-suit. I believe in Jesus' divinity because of his relationship with GOD and the compassion that flowed from that relationship; not because Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, God impregnanted Mary resulting a sinless Jesus, etc. My theology doesn't not require that I believe in a sinless sacrifice in order for GOD to forgive my sins. GOD forgives my sins simply because GOD, whose main character is love, is a forgiving GOD. I don't need Jesus to "buy" my forgiveness for me. GOD forgives me because I am loved, not because GOD is paidoff to do so.

All of this, of course, goes back to what it means to believe in Jesus. Because Augustinian thinking currently dominates Christianity, it is asserted that it must be believed that Jesus was a sinless sacrifice whose death appeased God's wrath towards those who believe in God holds sins against humans. All I'm saying it that, even according to Jesus' teachings, his "sinlessness" nor his death were never the point. After all the time that the disciples spent with him, when Jesus does mention his death, they rebuke him. This demonstrates to me that Jesus' gospel was never about his death as a sinless sacrifice. Christians will say that Jesus' only purpose was to come to die. But Jesus says, in the gospels, that his purpose was to preach the kingdom of God. And I find that PC, like Jesus himself, focuses more on the kingdom of God than on some schema for his redemptive death. There is little doubt that Paul, being an ex-Pharisee, saw Jesus as some kind of final sacrifice. But animal sacrifices are not part of my culture (and I would be offended at them if they were), so I find no need or desire to interpret Jesus that way.

[Neon Genesis]

billmc, on 07 November 2009 - 08:45 AM, said:

Yes, how would you like to tell your fiance, "I'm only marrying you because I can't control my sex drive." That would go over like a lead balloon, wouldn't it? Paul believed people should, ideally, stay celibate. And, yes, if they can't control themselves, then get married. But with the percentage of extramarital affairs and divorces being as high in our churches as they are in secular society, Paul's view on the purpose of marriage seems outdated and ineffective. I married my wife because I love her, not because I couldn't "control myself."

In some ways, I can understand though why Paul may have thought it was better to wait until marriage. In those days, they didn't have things like comprehensive sex ed or condoms and birth control, so it may have been more practical in those days to wait until marriage. The problem comes when literalists try to apply everything written for a first century mindset and culture to the 21st century.

Quote

Having read Ehrman, I'm sure you know that he lost his faith when he looked closely at the scriptures and how they were assembled/changed. IMO, this happened because Bart's faith, like many conservative Christians, was in the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures. When he could no longer believe in this doctrine, which formed the bedrock of his faith, everything came crashing down.

Ehrmann actually converted to liberal Christianity after he realized the bible was not the literal word of God but he deconverted to agnosticism because of the problem of evil argument.

[Mike]

Regarding Paul's attitude about marriage: I don't think Paul arrived at those conclusions because he deduced them from life principles he'd come to accept. My reading of Paul (and the entire New Testament for that matter) tells me that he thought the end of the world was at hand, now, no-time-to-waste. In fact, the entire organization and identity of the Church was sort of an emergency assembly and parenthesis between the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the world. It was supposed to be God's final call to humanity before the new age. I don't think Paul was trying to apply timeless principles in his relationship advice, but to deal with practical issues of how one is to live when Jesus is about to come back. It makes sense, then, not to bother to get married unless you absolutely have to - you can get more things done if you're not burdened by other obligations.
Of course, such expectations never materialized. And there'd be plenty less Christians in the world if they all took Paul's attitude seriously.

Peace to you,
Mike

This post has been edited by Mike: 07 November 2009 - 12:28 PM

[davidk]

Whoa, a lotta shots being fired.

Javelin- Intrigued is a good word. Puzzled also comes to mind.
Jesus taught everything hung on the 2 basic commandments. The others (I'm assuming Apostles here from your post) spoke them giving credit to Jesus, whom they regarded as having the authority to provide them in the first place. That authority, the Apostles said, was God's.
Good comment on Pauls teaching.
The blood sacrifice explanation begins in Gen 3:7,21. It solves man's way to be good vs God's way. (note: for something to live, something must die; I Cor 15:36)
Paul and the other Apostles theologies differed only by application of the same Gospel, whether to Jew or gentile.
-
Neon- Briefly, surrounding Romans 8:34, reflects some of what Paul said about Jesus death and resurrection.
It seems Spong ignores ICor 15:4.
The body of Christ in ICor 15, is not euphamistic for the church, he is speaking of the specific body of Jesus Christ (vv 4-8).

Mike- It has never appeared to me that you have been anything short of honest!
In Isaiah 9:6,7 a child is prophesied to be born and he will be the visible God. Jesus claimed to be this Messiah and it is oft repeated by His Apostles.
I think by identifying the philosophies attempting to redefine Christianity as being the world's and modern, we can see the problem. The world being corrupt, while modern secular philosphies ignore the Christian God to center on man instead.
To perhaps reclarify, nothing about God can be considered to be impersonal, including the concept of Logos. Because, as you have so astutely observed, Logos is not seperate from God. It is as innate to God as your soul is to you. Jesus is no less Jesus before or after His physical appearance. The only thing to note is that He was, for a brief time here with us to see and touch. Jesus has always existed.(Jn 17:5)

Billmc- I didn't imply that choosing not to believe was arbitrary. Simply put, the biblical Christian concept of the Triune Godhead seems as unbelievable to you as it had been for me.

Years ago, a friend asked me to ponder on Romans 1:20, and it simply says God's character can be CLEARLY seen in what He created.
"OK?" I said.
Well, I pondered. It remained an allusive concept for years. Obviously it didn't bother me much for quite a while. What finally struck me, what finally grabbed me first was a sudden visual of the universe.
Yeah, I know what that may sound like, but it came about while I was developing a plan for a sculpture for my Mom one Christmas. I was struggling around with it and realized I needed to create a model rather than just by going by my illustrations, which were totaly insufficient for the problem I was having. What struck me next was what an art teacher had told me some time ago in college. Which was... "One dimension can be imagined, but it cannot exist. With 2 dimensions- we have the same conundrum. Not until we have the 3rd dimension, can anything be fully realized."
AH! Romans 1:20!

[JosephM]

davidk wrote ..

Quote

"One dimension can be imagined, but it cannot exist. With 2 dimensions- we have the same conundrum. Not until we have the 3rd dimension, can anything be fully realized."

Why stop at three?

Joseph

[billmc]

Neon Genesis, on 07 November 2009 - 10:24 AM, said:

In some ways, I can understand though why Paul may have thought it was better to wait until marriage. In those days, they didn't have things like comprehensive sex ed or condoms and birth control, so it may have been more practical in those days to wait until marriage. The problem comes when literalists try to apply everything written for a first century mindset and culture to the 21st century.

I agree. Even on the subject of sex, if Jesus/Christ was GOD and if Paul had the "mind of Christ" (whom, according to Christians, is omniscient), then why didn't Paul initiate comprehensive sex ed or invent condoms or birth control pills?

And if Jesus was GOD, then why didn't he give us the cure for cancer or tell us how to feed all of the world's hungry or inform us that the earth was really a sphere floating in a heliocentric planetary system? With all of the world's problems and pains, Jesus' best miracles, as God Almighty, is turning water into wine and casting demons into a herd of swine? IMO, GOD is concerned with many more serious matters than making alcohol and tormenting pigs. I am not purposefully denigrating Jesus, I admire him greatly and take his teachings to heart and practice. Jesus defined God as spirit and I just don't think that "believing in Jesus" inherently means believing that Jesus was a spirit.

[Neon Genesis]

billmc, on 07 November 2009 - 03:41 PM, said:

Jesus defined God as spirit and I just don't think that "believing in Jesus" inherently means believing that Jesus was a spirit.

I agree with you and I believe the Trinity doctrine was a later addition to the Christian faith. There are even verses in the Synoptic gospels where Jesus denies he's God, like in the verse where he says not to call him good and only the Father above is good. Even if we accept John saw Jesus as existing before time as a divine being, it's still a different view than in the orthodox Christian creed of Jesus being a divine being who existed before time but was also born of a virgin as John's gospel nowhere mentions the virgin birth and seems unaware of it, so it's still a very different Christology from the modern day "orthodox" view.

It's also interesting that in 1 John, the church forced one of the scribes to add in a verse that promotes the orthodox view of the Trinity in clearer terms, even though it did not appear in any manuscripts before then and was a clear fabrication of the church. Even many modern English bibles either omit the verse or have a footnote explaining it's an addition. If the Trinity doctrine was so clearly spelled out in scripture, then why did the church have to force their own scribes to add in a verse that was never there originally?

[davidk]

JosephM, on 07 November 2009 - 02:49 PM, said:

Why stop at three?

There's no need for more. Only three dimensions are required for the physical universe to exist, to be lived in, realized, and understood.

Neon- Again, a thorough understanding of Mark will demonstrate that Jesus did not say, nor imply, He wasn't good.
With John's close affiliation with Jesus and the other Apostles, I think unreasonable to entertain the notion he was not aware of the virgin birth. His inescapable conclusion of Jesus as the Son of God carries with it a clear understanding that no mortal man had sired Him.

billmc- Perhaps you've forgotten the lame man, the blind man, the centurians daughter, forgiving sin, Lazarus...
If you're unable to glean the advice on proper behavior from Jesus and Paul, then you've obviously skipped a significant portion of what they said. If you're "not purposefully denigrating Jesus" then a rereading of His work and words might be recommended.

davidk

[Neon Genesis]

davidk, on 11 November 2009 - 10:31 PM, said:

Neon- Again, a thorough understanding of Mark will demonstrate that Jesus did not say, nor imply, He wasn't good.
With John's close affiliation with Jesus and the other Apostles, I think unreasonable to entertain the notion he was not aware of the virgin birth. His inescapable conclusion of Jesus as the Son of God carries with it a clear understanding that no mortal man had sired Him.

I wasn't saying Jesus was denying he was good. By saying only God was good, I was saying Jesus was denying he was God. But if Jesus was perfect, why did he have to be baptized by John the baptist, who performed baptisms for the remission of sins? And also, your point about John is presuming that the gospel of John is written by the apostle John but nowhere in the gospel does it say it was written by Jon and the consensus among biblical scholars is that it was written long after John and the other apostles had died and was not intended to be an eyewitness account.

[billmc]

davidk, on 11 November 2009 - 09:31 PM, said:

billmc- Perhaps you've forgotten the lame man, the blind man, the centurians daughter, forgiving sin, Lazarus...
If you're unable to glean the advice on proper behavior from Jesus and Paul, then you've obviously skipped a significant portion of what they said. If you're "not purposefully denigrating Jesus" then a rereading of His work and words might be recommended.

I've not forgotten any of those stories, David. I'm just saying that the claim the Jesus was fully GOD makes no sense. Christians claim that whatever God is, knows, and does was fully present in the person of Jesus. And with all of the problems in the world, even those in the first century, God, in the shape of Jesus, does "parlor tricks" in making alcohol and putting demons into pigs.

After all, David, there are accounts of God's prophets healing people in the Old Testament, even of people being raised from the dead. But nowhere were these prophets considered to to "God incarnate" or part of the Trinity. The church turned Jesus into God and, thereby, created an idol of worship of him. That is always our danger; to think that where God is at work is the "one and only" incarnation. The GOD I experience is incarnated everyday as we live out his love and compassion. But I'd rather drink wine and eat bacon, than do parlor tricks.

[grampawombat]

Off the subject, but relating to dimensions. For our ordinary life experiences, three dimensions, all related to distance, are all we need. However, if we look at the big cosmological picture, then there are more. Time is one, and string theory, a perspective favored by many (though by no means all) cosmologists adds about six more, though those are all found only at very small distances.

This post has been edited by grampawombat: 14 November 2009 - 04:27 PM

[JosephM]

grampawombat, on 14 November 2009 - 04:26 PM, said:

Off the subject, but relating to dimensions. For our ordinary life experiences, three dimensions, all related to distance, are all we need. However, if we look at the big cosmological picture, then there are more. Time is one, and string theory, a perspective favored by many (though by no means all) cosmologists adds about six more, though those are all found only at very small distances.

Yes, thanks grandpawombat, that was my point to suggest that there are more and just because one is aware of 3 doesn't make everything capable of being fully realized and understood as was implied.

Joseph

PS Even Plato got a glimpse of other possibilities and insight into limited views here.

[davidk]

It seems, in review, my truncated explanation of a triune universe has led to some confusion.
May I revise and extend my remarks.

The triune universe is made up of its three elements: space, time, and matter. Each of these three are also triune.

Space: height, width, and depth.
Time: past, present , and future.
Matter: mass, motion, and energy.

Each 'trinity' requires the existance of all three of it's elements in order to exist. Removing any element causes it's existance to cease. If you remove either height or width or depth from space, space cannot exist, be realized or understood. Therefore, by extension, the universe would cease to exist if any of space's 3 dimensions were removed.

God's character and His attributes are evidenced in and by His creation. The concept of His being a trinity is comprehensible by the evidence displayed in what He has created, just as Scripture reveals.
-
neon- Jesus neither denied being good nor denied being God by what he said to the young rich man. In context, Jesus was merely exposing to this young man his own insincerity.

As far as I can tell, John the Baptist did not baptize anyone for the remission of sin, but for repentance.
While some modern scholars shed doubt on the Apostle John as author of the gospel, there are numbers of scholars who dispute the criticizm. I would not be so confident to say the doubters form the consensus.
-
billmc- I'm far from being a Biblical scholar. Would you be so kind as to point out the OT Testament healings and raising of the dead by the prophets?
I'm in there with wine drinking and bacon (the candy of the meat world).


davidk

[JosephM]

davidk, on 17 November 2009 - 02:37 PM, said:

It seems, in review, my truncated explanation of a triune universe has led to some confusion.
May I revise and extend my remarks.

The triune universe is made up of its three elements: space, time, and matter. Each of these three are also triune.

Space: height, width, and depth.
Time: past, present , and future.
Matter: mass, motion, and energy.

Each 'trinity' requires the existance of all three of it's elements in order to exist. Removing any element causes it's existance to cease. If you remove either height or width or depth from space, space cannot exist, be realized or understood. Therefore, by extension, the universe would cease to exist if any of space's 3 dimensions were removed.

God's character and His attributes are evidenced in and by His creation. The concept of His being a trinity is comprehensible by the evidence displayed in what He has created, just as Scripture reveals.

There may well be more than these three you call elements that you cannot see. You may not be able to remove any of these elements and space not exist but you have in no way by your assertion proved by reason that there are not more than the three and that there is not a fourth that is also present and needed and sustaines the three you do see. In other words, our reasoning may well be limited and science seems to be adding credence to this.
-

Quote

billmc- I'm far from being a Biblical scholar. Would you be so kind as to point out the OT Testament healings and raising of the dead by the prophets?
I'm in there with wine drinking and bacon (the candy of the meat world).


davidk

Just to save him the trouble it was Elijah in 1 Kings 17:17-24 raising the dead and there were numerous OT healings recorded.

Joseph

[billmc]

JosephM, on 17 November 2009 - 06:48 PM, said:

Just to save him the trouble it was Elijah in 1 Kings 17:17-24 raising the dead and there were numerous OT healings recorded.

Yes. And Elisha heals Naaman (or rather tells him what he needs to do to be healed). There is also Elisha and the Shunammite woman's son, and Elisha's bones reviving a dead man. So the ability to heal or raise the dead does not make one GOD.

I don't mind that people believe differently than I do about Jesus' nature. Gosh, it seems Christians have argued about this almost from the start. But, for me, it is more a personal question, as if Jesus were asking me, "Who do you say that I am?" My response would be that, yes, Jesus is "the anointed one" (messiah) and that, as Paul said, "God was in Christ." That works for me.