Jesus (pbuh) - failed Prophet

[madeinrussia89]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Unless I'm mistaken, that was in the fourth century, almost 300 years since the communities brought forth by Paul, Peter, James and John. Unless the early church's oral tradition was strong, its essential meaning would almost certainly have withered away in the 300 years through to the Council of Nicaea. Traditions passed on from generation to generation will almost always lose their essential meaning. What "preserves" Christianity is the New Testament. The New Testament is our chance to rediscover the past. The traditions we've been following in the last 2,000 years are not "oral tradition" but dogmatic tradition, which doesn't have the same essential meaning as "oral tradition." We are missing a vital piece of the so-called "mystery." When we rediscover the essential meaning of our faith, it won't be a mystery anymore. We will actually understand it. That is the challenge that we face. We're on a quest to solve a 2,000 year mystery.

The tradition was strong and didn't wither away. The sacred tradition of the Orthodox Church includes the Bible, I would hardly call that incomplete.

Well, that's at least the theory I have. I just don't think it was meant to be a mystery. Jesus went around telling people that the Kingdom of God was near, that God was accessible. He was telling people that they could actually see the Kingdom. The point was that you could connect with God, connect with the Kingdom if you did it with your heart not your head. You'd then be able to actually feel God, to feel the Kingdom. God and the Kingdom would become a reality.

Of course you can see the kingdom, the kingdom is in you. And you talk to God through prayer. So, I fail to see how the point has changed.

Hey, just because the Bible is "fallible," doesn't mean everything in it becomes invalidated. Yes, it says Jesus is Logos. So why don't we use that? I am sure we can find a hundred other important sayings in the Bible that can help us find God. The Bible is not a machine that falls apart just because one part is faulty. Does God need a machine to take us up to heaven? Infallibility and fallibility should not be a concern. The important thing is content. What does it say? What can it tell us? How can it help us? What did the people back then do so that we can follow in their footsteps?

If you say the Bible is faulty, and the Bible is the Logos, and Jesus is the Logos, then.... that is calling Jesus flawed. No way to get around it.

And if one part is faulty, then you might as well not put any real meaning into the rest, because if one part is messed up, how do you know the rest isn't as well?

But anyhow, a belief system should not be treated as like a machine that is broken and useless just because one part is "faulty" or "flawed." Imagine that. You had to get the whole machine working otherwise God wouldn't love you. What kind of religion would that be? Do you see Christianity as a machine that you have to get working for you to be one of God's people?

The Bible isn't a machine and Christianity isn't either, and it really is ridiculous to term it as such. Sorry, but it is.

The point here is that God values our innocence. Do you see what I mean? I don't think God even cares whether we get the so-called "Trinity" right or whether we even believe in the Trinity. The important thing is that we are at peace. The reason why we defend the Trinity is to protect others who believe in it. We don't want their innocence violated. At the some time, however, strict conformity and insistence on adherence to a Trinity doctrine could violate the innocence of other people's relationship with God. We've just got to be flexible.

Innocence? What innocence? You mean ignorance? And God most certainly cares if you believe in the trinity, because denying a part of it or the entire thing is denying God and that is blasphemy. Nottttt good.

I was not making a point of the Trinity being "wrong." Don't get the wrong idea. My point was that it not be regarded as essential. I would have no problem if all Christians believed in the Trinity.

All Christians do believe in the trinity, and all you have been saying is that it doesn't matter if the trinity is wrong and that it is a temporary solution, so just stop beating around the bush and come out with it already.

What innocence do you think mankind has left? Babies?

When you spread heresy (not you personally), you are bringing people into confusion. Not only is that disrespecting them, but lying, and a whole host of other sins. So hardly is spreading the trinity violating anyone of their innocence, but giving them truth. Real truth.


" People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them. "

Did the disciples not learn from this incident? Of course they did, they were still walking with Jesus. They figured it out in the end.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

Innocence? What innocence? You mean ignorance? And God most certainly cares if you believe in the trinity, because denying a part of it or the entire thing is denying God and that is blasphemy. Nottttt good.

I am ignorant? I submit to G-d, I am His servant, I love and respect the Prophet Jesus (pbuh), as all the Prophets (pbut) and I am ignorant? (LMAO I have just read the other thread where you are getting annoyed at the use of the term ignorant!!)

I have to disagree very strongly. Denying partners with G-d is NOT denying G-d, quite the opposite it is placing G-d in His rightful place, as Lord of the Universes, with no partners. He is One.

Jesus (pbuh) himself, according to the Bible, said to only worship G-d so I cannot see how G-d would consider me ignorant and blasphemous for following His instructions and those of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh).

[madeinrussia89]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I am ignorant? I submit to G-d, I am His servant, I love and respect the Prophet Jesus (pbuh), as all the Prophets (pbut) and I am ignorant? (LMAO I have just read the other thread where you are getting annoyed at the use of the term ignorant!!)

I'm not even talking about ignorance in that context (but let's not get into that). I'm just saying mankind has no innocence left other than in children. We are not innocent, mankind sins every single day, know it's wrong, and does it anyway. We bring about our own destruction so how can anyone call us innocent?

Which other thread was that? The one where Bob called the Bible a dead book or the nuclear one or...? There are so many!

I have to disagree very strongly. Denying partners with G-d is NOT denying G-d, quite the opposite it is placing G-d in His rightful place, as Lord of the Universes, with no partners. He is One.

God is one in the trinity. There are no partners in God because the persons in the trinity all have the same essence, and I know I've said this a few times before so it's nothing new. This is the Christian faith, I realize it is not your belief, but this is our (meaning Christians in general) faith, and denying a part of God is blaspheming because it is dishonouring Divinity, a sin against God. I am fully aware (believe me, I really am) it is not the same in Islam, but this isn't in an Islamic forum.

Jesus (pbuh) himself, according to the Bible, said to only worship G-d so I cannot see how G-d would consider me ignorant and blasphemous for following His instructions and those of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh).

The Bible shows us that Jesus is indeed God, several times.

" I and the Father are one. " John 10:30.

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God...All things were made by him...He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not...And the Logos was made flesh, and dwelt among us" John 1:1, 3, 10, 14

"Jesus saith...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" John 14:9

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

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory " 1 Timothy 3:16

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I am ignorant? I submit to G-d, I am His servant, I love and respect the Prophet Jesus (pbuh), as all the Prophets (pbut) and I am ignorant? (LMAO I have just read the other thread where you are getting annoyed at the use of the term ignorant!!)

I have to disagree very strongly. Denying partners with G-d is NOT denying G-d, quite the opposite it is placing G-d in His rightful place, as Lord of the Universes, with no partners. He is One.

Jesus (pbuh) himself, according to the Bible, said to only worship G-d so I cannot see how G-d would consider me ignorant and blasphemous for following His instructions and those of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh).

Ah, but there is one unforgivable sin...to blaspheme the Holy Spirit...so right there is acknowledgement of more than one part to God.

just a thought.

v/r

Q

[China Cat Sunflower]

If God is one in the trinity then the trinity is one God, not three Gods. Aspects, essences...whatever, still just one mechanism. Am I a different person than, say, my influence? Here's an apple. I cut the apple into thirds. Now I have three apples, right? But for the sake of convenience it's often useful to stop somewhere short of the ultimate, indescribable Almighty and divide It into smaller pieces for the sake of discussion. Christians stop at three, neo Pagans and Hindus dice it into more pieces. So long as we don't idolize these constructs what's the difference?

Wouldn't it be simpler and more accurate to say that the only unpardonable sin is to dismiss the Holy Spirit?

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

If God is one in the trinity then the trinity is one God, not three Gods. Aspects, essences...whatever, still just one mechanism. Am I a different person than, say, my influence? Here's an apple. I cut the apple into thirds. Now I have three apples, right? But for the sake of convenience it's often useful to stop somewhere short of the ultimate, indescribable Almighty and divide It into smaller pieces for the sake of discussion. Christians stop at three, neo Pagans and Hindus dice it into more pieces. So long as we don't idolize these constructs what's the difference?

Wouldn't it be simpler and more accurate to say that the only unpardonable sin is to dismiss the Holy Spirit?

Chris

Indeed Chris. But in the case of the Holy Spirit, I believe the sin is "taking credit" for what the Holy Spirit does (which would amount pretty much to a dismissal)...

As far as others "dicing" up the apple even more so...I fail to see the corralation, since the Christian faith can not exist without considering the three as a whole, Jesus as the focus (Word), Father as the thought, and Spirit as the action, of God (the One). In Christianity, none work without the others. In other faiths, the diced up parts are independent and separate from the One. They make up a "collective whole", but that's like saying God is a puzzle of independent parts that may or may not move together (as is often the case in the various histories of gods).

In Christianity, not once as one part of the Trinity ever moved independently or in opposition of the other two.

v/r

Q

as an aside: Jesus never takes credit, the Father never takes credit, and the Holy Spirit never expresses out loud, taking credit...

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

The Bible shows us that Jesus is indeed God, several times.

" I and the Father are one. " John 10:30.

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God...All things were made by him...He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not...And the Logos was made flesh, and dwelt among us" John 1:1, 3, 10, 14

"Jesus saith...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" John 14:9

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

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory " 1 Timothy 3:16

Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mark 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

According to Jesus there, he is not the Father. According to Jesus, you are not his Father. According to him, you are either his brother, sister, or mother... if you do the will of his Father... if you do the will of God. Those are not my words. Those are not Thomas' words. Those are not the words of the author of the gospel John. Those are the words allegedly of Jesus, in the gospels. Is there any room for error? I don't see it. According to the words allegedly of Jesus, he is NOT God.

My wife is in me, and I am in my wife, but that does not mean that I am my wife. I am in my parents, and my parents are in me, but that does not mean that I am my parents.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Indeed Chris. But in the case of the Holy Spirit, I believe the sin is "taking credit" for what the Holy Spirit does (which would amount pretty much to a dismissal)...

That's interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way.

As far as others "dicing" up the apple even more so...I fail to see the corralation, since the Christian faith can not exist without considering the three as a whole, Jesus as the focus (Word), Father as the thought, and Spirit as the action, of God (the One). In Christianity, none work without the others. In other faiths, the diced up parts are independent and separate from the One. They make up a "collective whole", but that's like saying God is a puzzle of independent parts that may or may not move together (as is often the case in the various histories of gods).

In Christianity, not once as one part of the Trinity ever moved independently or in opposition of the other two.

I was thinking that maybe it's like quantum physics in that the classical analogies we come up with, like a cat that's both half dead and half alive, are stuck in one room while the reality exists in another room into which our intellect can't completely penetrate. We tend to apply terrestrial logic to God. It has to be this, and therefore cannot be this. God can't make a rock bigger than he can lift- kind of thing. Perhaps these constructs like the Trinity exist solely for our instruction and edification. Perhaps when all is revealed we'll say, "oh, I see now! It can be both."

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mark 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

According to Jesus there, he is not the Father. According to Jesus, you are not his Father. According to him, you are either his brother, sister, or mother... if you do the will of his Father... if you do the will of God. Those are not my words. Those are not Thomas' words. Those are not the words of the author of the gospel John. Those are the words allegedly of Jesus, in the gospels. Is there any room for error? I don't see it. According to the words allegedly of Jesus, he is NOT God.

My wife is in me, and I am in my wife, but that does not mean that I am my wife. I am in my parents, and my parents are in me, but that does not mean that I am my parents.

Again, the scripture is taken out of context. Must read the whole of the chapter to get the whole of the meaning intended for the reader...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

That's interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way.



I was thinking that maybe it's like quantum physics in that the classical analogies we come up with, like a cat that's both half dead and half alive, are stuck in one room while the reality exists in another room into which our intellect can't completely penetrate. We tend to apply terrestrial logic to God. It has to be this, and therefore cannot be this. God can't make a rock bigger than he can lift- kind of thing. Perhaps these constructs like the Trinity exist solely for our instruction and edification. Perhaps when all is revealed we'll say, "oh, I see now! It can be both."


Chris

Now, we see through a glass, darkly...now we see in part...

I could not agree with you more on this issue.

v/r

Q

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Again, the scripture is taken out of context. Must read the whole of the chapter to get the whole of the meaning intended for the reader...

No. Must do per the will of God.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

Of course you can see the kingdom, the kingdom is in you. And you talk to God through prayer. So, I fail to see how the point has changed.

There are, potentially and arguably, two "mysteries" that we could be talking about here. One is the mystery concerning our personal understanding of God. The other is a mystery regarding the nature of God.

If you can see the kingdom, the kingdom is in you and you can talk to God in prayer, then the first mystery disappears. You seek someone you can believe in, have faith in, serve and trust. If you have found that, there is no mystery there. The first mystery was something the early Christians resolved.

With the second mystery you want to define God. Having understanding on a personal level, love, faith and trust are not enough. You want to know His composition, what he's made from. The early Christians seeking to resolve the second mystery is something of which I am doubtful. After resolving the first mystery, why would anyone want to determine the nature of God? You'd have all you ever wanted. You have discovered your Creator. You now know your purpose. The only reason why you'd ever be interested in the mystery of the nature of God is if you never resolved the first mystery and don't have a relationship with God.

I hope this makes clearer what I was saying.

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

If you say the Bible is faulty, and the Bible is the Logos, and Jesus is the Logos, then.... that is calling Jesus flawed. No way to get around it.

And if one part is faulty, then you might as well not put any real meaning into the rest, because if one part is messed up, how do you know the rest isn't as well?

The Bible isn't a machine and Christianity isn't either, and it really is ridiculous to term it as such. Sorry, but it is.

If one thinks of the Bible as a technical manual, one may well think that, it's just not the way I see things. If one sees the Bible as containing parts that are highly dependent on each other, as if one fault would stop it from being meaningful, that kind of thinking can be likened to thinking of the Bible as a machine.

The Bible being flawed doesn't make Jesus flawed. The Bible is there to remind us of what Jesus lived for, stood for and represented. It complements a bad memory. The early Christians went around without a New Testament but with Jesus and the apostles to guide them. The Israelites who wandered around in the wilderness for 40 years before settling in the Promised Land went around without a Tanakh but with Moses to guide them. It is possible to cope without Scripture. The early Jews did it. The early Christians did it. We can, in theory, do it too. Scripture is a reminder of the past, of past struggles. It's harder for us because of a generational and cultural gap, but it's do-able. Whether it's an oral (word-of-mouth) tradition, a creed-based (ie. Nicaean Creed) or a written tradition (ie. the New Testament), we have to somehow do it.

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

God most certainly cares if you believe in the trinity, because denying a part of it or the entire thing is denying God and that is blasphemy. Nottttt good.

All Christians do believe in the trinity, and all you have been saying is that it doesn't matter if the trinity is wrong and that it is a temporary solution, so just stop beating around the bush and come out with it already.

When you spread heresy (not you personally), you are bringing people into confusion. Not only is that disrespecting them, but lying, and a whole host of other sins. So hardly is spreading the trinity violating anyone of their innocence, but giving them truth. Real truth.

All Christians believe in Christ. Christ is essential to Christianity. The Trinity is not essential. If you want to understand what is meant by Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Trinity concept may be helpful. If you're not interested and if Christ is enough for you, it should be sufficient to go without it.

The Trinity was a result of people trying to contemplate the nature of God. People didn't know whether or not to think of Jesus as God taking forms or something else. If the Trinity was to serve a purpose, it was to end the confusion, or at least stop people contemplating the nature of God.

If the Council of Nicaea made it clear that it was still a mystery, then that could only have been better. The many varying views of the Trinity (or non-Trinity) have always been a result of people trying to contemplate the nature of God. If these people were going down the wrong path, it was not because of their non-conformity to the Nicaean doctrine and its Trinity. It was contemplation of the nature of God. Contemplation of the nature of God isn't blasphemy. It just doesn't lead anywhere. They'll never have an answer.

Denying the Trinity is not the same as "denying the Son" or blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. If I "deny the Son," by saying that Jesus was not the "Son of God" (and what that means is open to interpretation), and if the Son spoke on behalf of the Father (God), then I would indeed be "denying the Father" because the Father sent him. The reason why denying the Trinity doesn't mean the same thing is because most people see it as defining the nature of God. Denying that God has a particular nature has few implications because as many of us has said, the nature of God is a mystery. Why would God hold us responsible for getting something wrong that nobody understands? "Denying the Son because the Father sent him" is not about the nature of God, but the relationship between the Son and the Father. The Son was sent to spread the Gospel, the Son himself being a projection of the Father. Most of the time when we mention the Trinity, we are talking about the nature of God, which as many of us have said, is a mystery. We are not talking about the relationship between the Son and Father, a relationship that isn't a mystery.

If the Trinity served a purpose, it was just a device we used to put at peace those who couldn't help contemplating the nature of God. It was to shut these people up. I am personally not interested in the second mystery, the nature of God. If we don't want people to contemplate the nature of God, then we should not point them to a concept that was formulated in response to such a pursuit (ie. the Trinity). Doing so only encourages them to contemplate a mystery that we can never resolve. We should direct them elsewhere.

If we said the Trinity was essential, and some people thought it was wrong, they are going to want to get it right, because we claim to have got it right. If they don't like our concept and think we're wrong, they're going to want to prove it because we think we're so good. We should kill such an interest by saying that nobody can get it right, because even we cannot get it right. Nobody can ever get it right. The irony is, if we insist that our doctrine of Trinity is right, then we're also saying it's not a mystery. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Saying it's not essential is a way of saying we don't need to get it right.

Why don't we save them the trouble by pointing to the first mystery?

The Trinity doctrine wasn't made for us. It was made for those who wanted to contemplate the nature of God. It's like a device that tells us whether or not a person has a proper relationship with God. The fact that they take the bait shows that they don't. They are caught like fish and thereafter eaten alive.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

" I and the Father are one. " John 10:30.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

My wife is in me, and I am in my wife, but that does not mean that I am my wife. I am in my parents, and my parents are in me, but that does not mean that I am my parents.

What kind of "oneness" were you talking about?

Oneness of unity? Could this not be the same kind of oneness described in John 17:20-23?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

No. Must do per the will of God.

Define please, the "Will of God" in this instance. And continue with how the will of God has anything to do with not taking the whole chapter into the situation into context, if you don't mind...

Can't know the will of God if one does not read the entirety of His word, on a particular matter...

[madeinrussia89]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mark 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

According to Jesus there, he is not the Father. According to Jesus, you are not his Father. According to him, you are either his brother, sister, or mother... if you do the will of his Father... if you do the will of God. Those are not my words. Those are not Thomas' words. Those are not the words of the author of the gospel John. Those are the words allegedly of Jesus, in the gospels. Is there any room for error? I don't see it. According to the words allegedly of Jesus, he is NOT God.

My wife is in me, and I am in my wife, but that does not mean that I am my wife. I am in my parents, and my parents are in me, but that does not mean that I am my parents.

Of course Jesus and God the Father are not interchangeable persons, BUT, they are united in one essence, along with the Holy Spirit, and all three of these in the trinity is one God, and one God alone.

Not only do those quotes not negate the divinity of Jesus, they just make a clear distinction between the Father and the Son, as we know there already is.

You and your wife are not interchangeable, but you are united in marriage.

And, to do the will of God, you must understand the instructions, which means you actually have to READ them and cannot just take them out of context.