Do u beleave in God

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

On some he was expanding the original teaching of Moses, on some he was correcting.

So you're basically saying that if anythng JC said _later_ in the Bible contradicts with what JC said before, he is correcting/expanding his (or someone's teaching), right?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

On some he was expanding the original teaching of Moses, on some he was correcting.

So you're basically saying that if anythng JC said _later_ in the Bible contradicts with what JC said before, he is correcting/expanding his (or someone's teaching), right?

I think JC corrected some common misunderstandings of Mose's teachings and Levitical law. I'm not aware of him correcting himself in the NT. Maybe you can enlighten me on that. I'm not aware of any of JC's sayings in the OT.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

Are jesus and the god of the Ot one and the same or not?

[steveorino 7]

The trinity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is a long an interesting bit of theology.
But in a quick answer ... no. There are incidents of the preincarnate Christ in the OT, but JC is not God the Father.

steveOrino

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

The trinity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is a long an interesting bit of theology.
But in a quick answer ... no. There are incidents of the preincarnate Christ in the OT, but JC is not God the Father.

I think the correct answer is - "Depends on who you ask"

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

I think the correct answer is - "Depends on who you ask"

Yep, you're right. There are many interpretations to the Trinity. True to His nature, the omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent God believes it is better to give Man free choice than to supernaturally instill in him some knowledge that cannot be rejected.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

Well its interesitng you say god and jesus are not the same, many Christians disagree with you.Maybe this is because in John 1, 10 it says" He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."
Maybe this is a metaphorical world or maybe made doesnt really mean made. If there really was a jesus who has whatever you think he is maybe he could have explained things better. Its not a question of having free choice, just state plainly what it is you are claiming to be, thats not asking to much.We can still reject your claims.
On the issue of god wanting man free choice why then did god give us insticts? Why did he give some different instincts to others?

[hairyjuan 0]

the trinity is the oldest PAGAN idea on the planet, it did not exist until 325 CE.



THE ONLY THING THAT A 'BELIEVER' CAN DO IS DENY THE TRUTH, WHEN IT IS PRESENTED

a 'fundamentalist southern baptist' told me this two days ago." the baptist church is the ONLY "true christianity". if you don't believe in the inerrancy of God'd word, you will burn in hell forever. i dont even decide when to go to the bathroom.







www.truthbeknown.com
www.toolsforfreedom.com/?click=29870






www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU5X-mYio2

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[steveorino 7]

First, I didn't say JC wasn't God. I said JC was not God the Father. BIG difference in the theology of the Trinity. There are "oneness" Christian denominations that make no distinction from JC and the Father, but orthodox Christianity teaches a triune godhead.

The Hebrew word for God the Father was El. The Hebrew word for the Triune Godhead was Elohim. The Genesis account said "Elohim" created the heavens and the earth. Some English translations will read "Let us make man in our image..." in the Genesis account.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

the trinity is the oldest PAGAN idea on the planet, it did not exist until 325 CE.

Yes, it did!

evidence of the doctrine of the trinity through of plural references to God:

Two plural nouns are applied to God: God and Lord, are almost always plural when applied to God. These two plural nouns (God - elohim, Lord - adonai) are the two most frequently used nouns of God in the Old Testament.

Three plural pronouns, (We, Us, Our) used 6 different times in four different passages: Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8.

Five plural verbs are applied to God: creates, makes, wanders, reveals, judges. In English, these plural verse do not indicate a plural persons, "God creates". But the plurality of Hebrew verbs follow the noun. This is not the case in English. This plurality of verbs associated with God, is most striking and unusual to those who read Hebrew.

Plural adjectives that describe God: "holy". Again, this is a function of Hebrew grammar that does not exist in English. The plurality of adjectives is tagged to the associated noun, which in this case is God. It is most unusual to have a plural adjective describing God.

Single verses that contain both singular and plural references to the same person.
B. Why this is proof of Trinity in the Old Testament:

Anti-Trinitarians and Unitarians alike, try to explain away the plural references to God in the Old Testament: "Let US make man in OUR image". (Gen 1:26)

While Trinitarians expect to find such plural pronouns and verbs used in reference to God at face value, anti-Trinitarians fall all over themselves trying to find a way to avoid the obvious truth that there are three persons in the one God.

The trinity was hidden in the Old Testament until Christ came and the earliest Christians began to "search the (Old Testament) scriptures daily" (Acts 17:11) to see if Paul's claim that Jesus of Nazareth, was the direct subject of prophecy. We have no doubt that Paul would point out the six passages where God is refereed to with plural pronouns. (We, Us, Our)

God’s oneness is conveyed by personal pronouns like He, Him, His, I, Myself, Me. The trinity is witnessed in the Old Testament by personal pronouns like We, Us, Ours.

LONG BEFORE 325 CE HAIRY

C. The apostolic Fathers unanimously taught that the "we" in Gen 1:26, refers to the trinity:

74 AD Epistle of Barnabas: "For the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son, "Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness" (Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter VI.—The Sufferings of Christ, and the New Covenant, Were Announced by the Prophets.)

150 AD Justin Martyr: Speaking of Jewish theologians Justin calls the Jewish teaching that God spoke to angels a hersey: "In saying, therefore, ‘as one of us, ’[Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which is said to be among you (The Jews had their own heresies which supplied many things to the Christian heresies) is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that [God] spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures." (Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew: Chapter LXII.—The Words "Let Us Make Man")

180 AD Irenaeus "It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness; " [Gen. 1:26]" (Against Heresies 4:20:1).

200 AD Tertullian: "If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; " whereas He ought to have said, "Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness," as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, "Behold the man is become as one of us," He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make; "and, "in our image; "and, "become as one of us." (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter XII. Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.)

200 AD Tertullian: Tertullian rejects the idea that God was speaking to Angels because our head is the creator, not a creature: "Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness"), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? For if I am the image of the Creator there is no room in me for another head" (Tertullian, Book V, Elucidations, Chapter VIII.—Man the Image of the Creator, and Christ the Head of the Man.)

200 AD Tertullian: "In the first place, because all things were made by the Word of God, and without Him was nothing made. Now the flesh, too, had its existence from the Word of God, because of the principle, that here should be nothing without that Word. "Let us make man," said He, before He created him, and added, "with our hand," for the sake of his pre-eminence, that so he might not be compared with the rest of creation." (Tertullian: On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Elucidations, Chapter V.—Some Considerations in Reply Eulogistic of the Flesh. It Was Created by God.)

Origen: "it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." (Origen Against Celsus, Book V, Chapter XXXVII)

steveOrino

[hairyjuan 0]

right, the corection is that the trinity did not exist in christianity untul 325 ce, making the idea the oldest 'PAGAN' idea on the planet.


the dolphins are the oldest sentient beings on the planet
www.consciousmedianetwork.com


podcast-Our link to the dolphins

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[steveorino 7]

Quote

right, the corection is that the trinity did not exist in christianity untul 325 ce, making the idea the oldest 'PAGAN' idea on the planet.


the dolphins are the oldest sentient beings on the planet
www.consciousmedianetwork.com


podcast-Our link to the dolphins

Hairy, I just pointed out some early Christian fathers that obviously taught the tinity before 325 AD.

Paul also spoke of the trinity as well as the gospels themselves. Even the most liberal biblical scholar would not put the gospels or Epistles after 325 CE Just admit your plethora of "Jesus did not exist" and other atheist websites are wrong on this account.

steveOrino

[hairyjuan 0]

prove it with something other than the bible is the word of god, if it is then the Koran, bagavadGhita, etc. are equally, divine inspired words of god



What christian prosoletizers do:


www.video.google.com/videogvp/KissingHanksAss.gvp?docidid=6632687078883055082



www.alliesofhumanity.org

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[philh 0]

Nice slight Steve
Lets just recap here.
I asked
Are jesus and the god of the Ot one and the same or not?
you answer
But in a quick answer ... no. There are incidents of the preincarnate Christ in the OT, but JC is not God the Father.
I then point out many Chrsitians belive he is and it implies that in John you then say:
First, I didn't say JC wasn't God. I said JC was not God the Father

Are you still claiming the bible is clear in its message? Still claiming its consistent?Think by adding the word father at the end it all makes sense? i dont think so. i dont accept your translations either. Most biblical scholars refer to different names for god Jahwi and Elohim as referring to the same god but written by two different authors. They even refer to these two different authors as J and E naming them after which word they use for god. So to suggest there is consistent message with one language implying two different beings is rather misleading. If indeed that is what you are suggesting, quite frankly i find the Christian theology so inconsistent that its sometimes ahrd to make sense of what Chrsitians are even claiming and you wonder why they often fight each other, oh sorry i forgot that for greed and power never over doctrine.
In all my years of hebrew study I have never heard of there being more than one form of god. There is only one god in Hebrew theology and if Christians are claiming that god of hebrew theology is also Jesus in human form then it was Jesus who commanded all the death and destruction found in the OT. So Ill ask you again Steve are Jesus and the god of the OT one and the same or not?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

prove it with something other than the bible is the word of god,

What does the writings of the early Christian Fathers have to do with the bible???

YOU said the doctrine of the trinity was not in Christianity until 325 CE.

I proved you wrong not only by the epistles & gospels (which were written as early as 50 AD or 150 AD - depending on which scholar you believe) but also the writings of early church fathers. They wrote about the trinity as early as 100 -200 years before your claim about Christianity adopting the pagan polytheism doctrines in 325 CE.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

I then point out many Chrsitians belive he is

No, "many" Christian don't believe what you say apart from small unorthodox sects. Many Christian do believe JC is part of the triune God head, but they DO NOT believe JC is the same as the Father.

Ask any minister who is orthodox (not unitarism, Jehovah's witness or Oneness Pentecostal)

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

There is only one god in Hebrew theology

You are correct. They do not believe JC was divine. In fact jews believe he was a heretic. But ask a Hebrew scholar why they used the plural form of God (Elohim) in the Genesis account rather that the singular form (El)

Quote

and if Christians are claiming that god of hebrew theology is also Jesus in human form then it was Jesus who commanded all the death and destruction found in the OT. So Ill ask you again Steve are Jesus and the god of the OT one and the same or not?

I've answered the part about the destruction in the OT in a page or two back.(post 766) Yes, mine is a theology that is not iniversally accepted by fundamental Christians, but it is accepted by many scholars. The fundamentalist will have to defend their beliefs not mine.

steveOrino

[hairyjuan 0]

please read 'god as verb'

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[steveorino 7]

Quote

please read 'god as verb'

Please change your statement that Christianity adopted the trinity doctrine after 325 CE

steveOrino

[philh 0]

I just reread your post annd Im still not clear.
Do you defend the genocide found in the OT?
Is Jesus and the god that commaded, condoned or caused the genocides the same being?
If you cant give a clear answer then please dont give us the argument that people have fought over Christian theology because of their own failings, maybe you should consider it is the texts themsleves that are at fault.

[hairyjuan 0]

can't and won't, the historical record is clear- Gnosticism was the ONLY form of christianity in existence prior to 325CE

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[steveorino 7]

Quote

can't and won't, the historical record is clear- Gnosticism was the ONLY form of christianity in existence prior to 325CE

Then who did Nero blame?

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

I just reread your post annd Im still not clear.
Do you defend the genocide found in the OT?
Is Jesus and the god that commaded, condoned or caused the genocides the same being?
If you cant give a clear answer then please dont give us the argument that people have fought over Christian theology because of their own failings, maybe you should consider it is the texts themsleves that are at fault.

I think the Jews wrote their history while in babylonian captivity from oral traditions. I believe they attributed many things to God that fit with their worldview

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

I just reread your post annd Im still not clear.

And this must be my fault?

Quote

Do you defend the genocide found in the OT?

No

Quote

Is Jesus and the god that commaded, condoned or caused the genocides the same being?

God did not give that order. Israel wrote their history in hindsight Why did they continually have problems with Canaanites? Disobeying a command from God to commit genocide would have made sense to them for the reason they continued to be harassed by the Caananites.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

Given that you dont defend the genocide in the OT, I presume you agree that genocide is immoral. Given there is genocide in the bible (not just described but glorified) isnt it reasonable to conclude the bible is immoral?
An example:
So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.
Joshua 10:40
Now either they were lying when tey say god commanded it, in which case the bible is not reliable or he did command it and in that case it is immoral.
But we also have the acts carried out by god himslef. One obvious example is the massacre of the Egyptian first born.

Exodus 12
29And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

So if Jesus is god then jesus goes around killing children, not sure I want to worship that kind of being. Why didnt he kill the Pharoh?