• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Giants" of the faith

leov

leov

Well-Known Member
Rival said:
So why didn't G-d save all those other so-called unmixed people? All you're doing here is denigrating Noach.

Your source says nothing about being mixed.
Click to expand...
It is written in Genesis, just needs a bit of reading between the lines, remember 49 gates? I have no intention do denigrate Noah. World became polluted, it created genetically mixed bicameral folk that would not conform to Hosea 6:6 except Noach.
 
Rival

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
leov said:
It is written in Genesis, just needs a bit of reading between the lines, remember 49 gates? I have no intention do denigrate Noah. World became polluted, it created genetically mixed bicameral folk that would not conform to Hosea 6:6 except Noach.
Click to expand...
Bicameral mind theory is not proven, it is a fringe theory essentially and imo runs contrary to monotheistic theology. We read clearly in Bereshis that G-d chose Noach since he was righteous. I'm not sure why that needs further explanation.
 
leov

leov

Well-Known Member
Rival said:
Bicameral mind theory is not proven, it is a fringe theory essentially and imo runs contrary to monotheistic theology. We read clearly in Bereshis that G-d chose Noach since he was righteous. I'm not sure why that needs further explanation.
Click to expand...
Who is going to prove it? Imo, history proved it, as well as collective unconscious. Elohim is plural.
Noach was, humanity was not.
 
Rival

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
leov said:
Who is going to prove it? Imo, history proved it, as well as collective unconscious. Elohim is plural.
Click to expand...
So? In Tehillim/Psalms G-d also calls the judges 'gods'; it doesn't mean they're literally gods. The Royal We has been observed since antiquity. The Qur'an is said to be Allah speaking all the way through and it uses 'We', but no Muslim will tell you the Qur'an is polytheistic.
 
W

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
LightofTruth said:
Interestingly, many "orthodox" Christians refer to men as being "giants" of the faith or Church fathers. They look to theses men as being champions of what is now called "orthodox" Trinitarianism.

However, anyone who studies the Scriptures would know that the champion of faith is Abraham because the Scripture says we need the faith of Abraham not the faith of Augustine or any so-called "giant".
Click to expand...


That might be a false dichotomy, Agustine clarified the faith of Abraham in many ways, as did some other 'giants' and standing on their shoulders you see farther than without them.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
LightofTruth said:
Augustine was a Trinitarian, so no matter how bright he was he missed the boat.
Click to expand...
You should have added "IMO", imo.

For you to say that the Trinitarian concept has "missed the boat" really is quite bizarre as it implies that somehow you supposedly know what the exact relationship is between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. I do believe that's being very presumptuous, to say the least.

The reality is that Augustine would have known far more then Abraham because during Abraham's time the Mosaic Law had not yet been given, nor was there the teachings of Jesus available to him.
 
L

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
metis said:
You should have added "IMO", imo.

For you to say that the Trinitarian concept has "missed the boat" really is quite bizarre as it implies that somehow you supposedly know what the exact relationship is between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. I do believe that's being very presumptuous, to say the least.

The reality is that Augustine would have known far more then Abraham because during Abraham's time the Mosaic Law had not yet been given, nor was there the teachings of Jesus available to him.
Click to expand...
It's not my opinion that Jesus has a God. Jesus himself said he does.
It's nonsense to say that one person has a God and that he is that God.
It's also nonsense to say that the Father is Jesus' God and that they are equally God.
It's further nonsense to say that Jesus has a God by being a man, as if being a man made him a distinct person than himself as God.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
LightofTruth said:
It's not my opinion that Jesus has a God. Jesus himself said he does.
It's nonsense to say that one person has a God and that he is that God.
It's also nonsense to say that the Father is Jesus' God and that they are equally God.
It's further nonsense to say that Jesus has a God by being a man, as if being a man made him a distinct person than himself as God.
Click to expand...
In order to understand the concept of the "Trinity", one needs to understand the issue of "essence", which I'll link you to at the bottom of this post.

Christianity, including the words found in the N.T., was heavily influenced through what is called "Hellenization", namely a strong Greek influence that didn't change what actually happened but must be taken into consideration for any biblical scholar because the N.T. was written in Koine Greek, thus reflecting certain concepts used in the writings. One especially sees this in Paul's writings because of his Greek education, whereas it comes out especially strong in his repeated use of dichotomy.

So, let me link you to that approach heavily used in the first century Church and afterward. If you don't understand this concept, then there will other areas whereas you'll not understand what is actually being said, so here's that link: Essence - Wikipedia

Any questions?
 
L

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
metis said:
In order to understand the concept of the "Trinity", one needs to understand the issue of "essence", which I'll link you to at the bottom of this post.

Christianity, including the words found in the N.T., was heavily influenced through what is called "Hellenization", namely a strong Greek influence that didn't change what actually happened but must be taken into consideration for any biblical scholar because the N.T. was written in Koine Greek, thus reflecting certain concepts used in the writings. One especially sees this in Paul's writings because of his Greek education, whereas it comes out especially strong in his repeated use of dichotomy.

So, let me link you to that approach heavily used in the first century Church and afterward. If you don't understand this concept, then there will other areas whereas you'll not understand what is actually being said, so here's that link: Essence - Wikipedia

Any questions?
Click to expand...
Trinitarians say that Jesus has two natures. They do not say he has two essences. Unless it is meant he has two natures.They also claim that he is only one person.
Now, how is it Jesus, the person, can have a God and be God?

Does his human nature (essence) have a God but his God nature (essence) does not?
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
LightofTruth said:
Trinitarians say that Jesus has two natures. They do not say he has two essences. Unless it is meant he has two natures.They also claim that he is only one person.
Now, how is it Jesus, the person, can have a God and be God?

Does his human nature (essence) have a God but his God nature (essence) does not?
Click to expand...
You clearly either didn't read the link or you just rambled through it without thinking about what you read because your questions were answered indirectly there. With that being the case, let me give you another example.

In John's gospel, it says that when partaking of the Last Supper, Jesus said that the bread was his real body and the wine was his real blood. Assuming that you've taken communion, did it taste like real flesh and real blood to you? If taken at the literalistic level, how could it be possible to be his body and blood since he was executed nearly 2000 years ago?

Again, the above just another area whereas this Greek approach of "essence" is being reflected. The Book of Revelation is full of such an approach with it's heavy use of symbolism throughout, although certainly not all uses of symbolism in scripture were Greek influenced.
 
L

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
metis said:
You clearly either didn't read the link or you just rambled through it without thinking about what you read because your questions were answered indirectly there. With that being the case, let me give you another example.

In John's gospel, it says that when partaking of the Last Supper, Jesus said that the bread was his real body and the wine was his real blood. Assuming that you've taken communion, did it taste like real flesh and real blood to you? If taken at the literalistic level, how could it be possible to be his body and blood since he was executed nearly 2000 years ago?

Again, the above just another area whereas this Greek approach of "essence" is being reflected. The Book of Revelation is full of such an approach with it's heavy use of symbolism throughout, although certainly not all uses of symbolism in scripture were Greek influenced.
Click to expand...

Please show where Jesus says it was his "real body". What he said was that the words he spoke were spirit. That means they were to be taken spiritually and not carnally.

Can you please answer my questions about how it is that Jesus has a God.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
LightofTruth said:
Please show where Jesus says it was his "real body". What he said was that the words he spoke were spirit. That means they were to be taken spiritually and not carnally.
Click to expand...

John 6[50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
[52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

Note that he does not say that this flesh and blood were real, not just symbolic. If you understood the concept of "essence", you would understand this approach and what he was saying.

LightofTruth said:
Can you please answer my questions about how it is that Jesus has a God.
Click to expand...
I have, but in a roundabout way. However, your bias prevents you from looking at this from any other position than your own, thus I'd just be wasting time going any further. Study and understand "essence", and then maybe we can move forth.
 
L

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
metis said:
You clearly either didn't read the link or you just rambled through it without thinking about what you read because your questions were answered indirectly there. With that being the case, let me give you another example.

In John's gospel, it says that when partaking of the Last Supper, Jesus said that the bread was his real body and the wine was his real blood. Assuming that you've taken communion, did it taste like real flesh and real blood to you? If taken at the literalistic level, how could it be possible to be his body and blood since he was executed nearly 2000 years ago?

Again, the above just another area whereas this Greek approach of "essence" is being reflected. The Book of Revelation is full of such an approach with it's heavy use of symbolism throughout, although certainly not all uses of symbolism in scripture were Greek influenced.
Click to expand...
metis said:
John 6[50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
[52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

Note that he does not say that this flesh and blood were real, not just symbolic. If you understood the concept of "essence", you would understand this approach and what he was saying.

I have, but in a roundabout way. However, your bias prevents you from looking at this from any other position than your own, thus I'd just be wasting time going any further. Study and understand "essence", and then maybe we can move forth.
Click to expand...
First of all you can't even understand "essence" yourself. What do you mean that God is an "essence".?
If you claim that essence is something other than God's attributes, then what is it?

Are you saying that "essence" is what God is made of other than describing His attributes?

So, let's pretend that Jesus is God because he has the same "essence" of God, whatever that means, you don't know yourself. Admit it.

Now, if Jesus is God because he is the "essence" of God (whatever it means) How is it that he can also have a God?
What is it, aside from being God, that Jesus could have a God?
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
LightofTruth said:
First of all you can't even understand "essence" yourself. What do you mean that God is an "essence".?
If you claim that essence is something other than God's attributes, then what is it?

Are you saying that "essence" is what God is made of other than describing His attributes?

So, let's pretend that Jesus is God because he has the same "essence" of God, whatever that means, you don't know yourself. Admit it.

Now, if Jesus is God because he is the "essence" of God (whatever it means) How is it that he can also have a God?
What is it, aside from being God, that Jesus could have a God?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top