1. 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!

Isaiah 43:11

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Halcyon, May 14, 2006.

  1. Buttercup

    Buttercup Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    20,960
    Ratings:
    +3,694
    I try to look at everything the same way as you....that's why I'm on RF. :)

    The problem I see with this interpretation of Jesus is that.......it doesn't correlate with how he describes himself in the NTor how he is described by others. It seems you think him to basically be a good and godly man but nothing more. Yet, he clearly had authority to cleanse from sin....Jesus...said..."Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." Mark 2:5. And He was sent to be a saviour:

    ...our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. II Peter 3:18

    ..God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. II Peter 1:1

    ..the Christ, the Saviour of the world. John 4:42

    the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. Titus 1:4

    a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:11

    Neither is there salvation in any other (than Jesus): for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
    --Acts 4:12

    .salvation... is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
    --2 Timothy 2:10

    ...captain of their salvation [Jesus] perfect through sufferings.
    -- Heb 2:10

    [Jesus]...author of eternal salvation...
    -- Heb 5:9

    I see it as impossible to take anything from the NT and not see that he is portrayed in this manner.
     
  2. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    37,019
    Ratings:
    +5,517
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    I disagree. God doesn't say different things to different people. People may interpret what God says differently, but that is a divisiveness of humanity, not God.

    That's because Jesus spent more time talking to God the Father than he did talking to himself.


     
  3. Halcyon

    Halcyon Lord of the Badgers

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,408
    Ratings:
    +995
    I understand, my views are very different from the orthodox.
    Maybe if i elaborate on my view of the canonical texts it would help.

    I know you know that the canon of the NT was chosen, it wasn't written complete. Have you ever thought why those particular books and letters were chosen? You probably have but i'll explain anyway.
    The NT canon was chosen, not by the whole Christian community, but by those belonging to a particular sect, the proto-orthodox. They chose the gospels and letters that agreed most strongly with their point of view, and many of the epistles of debateable authorship were probably written by people already members of the proto-orthodox sect.
    The NT isn't a complete record of the teachings of Jesus and the beliefs of his followers, its a record of the teachings and beliefs of the proto-orthodox sect.
    Now, there isn't anything wrong with this, its only understandable that different groups formed their own favoured canon. What's important for this debate is that people understand that i don't view the NT as autoritative because of these reasons.

    This will help me explain quite well what i mean.

    2 Peter, Titus, 2 Timothy and Hebrews are all of questionable authorship. This means basically that they were probably not written by Paul, do a wiki search of them to see what i mean. For me this drastically reduces their reliability for understanding Jesus, as they were most probably written by those belonging to the proto-orthodox sect.

    The Gospel of Luke and Acts were probably written by the same author. Luke i believe has been heavily edited by someone, i don't know who. But Marcion's version of Luke is older and, even if we ignore the supposedly excluded portions, is much shorter than the canonical Luke, this suggests later expansion by someone with their own motives. Although i don't reject it in the same way i reject the authoritativeness of the epistles above, i am sceptical of everything i read in it. The same goes for Acts and the other Gospels in the NT. In fact i am doubly dubious of Acts because of its almost novel-like story telling nature, the possibility of it being propaganda is not out of the question for me.

    This leaves;

    a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:11
    ..the Christ, the Saviour of the world. John 4:42

    of the quotes you have given that i am least dubious of. And i actually agree with these. He was a saviour, he tried to save us from ignorance.
     
  4. Halcyon

    Halcyon Lord of the Badgers

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,408
    Ratings:
    +995

    Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. :) I believe God can only tell us what we are ready to be told, otherwise we just don't listen.

    Lol, thats very true!
    But then, if Jesus was God himslef, he had no reason to talk to another external God.
     
  5. Buttercup

    Buttercup Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    20,960
    Ratings:
    +3,694
    Sorry this reply will be brief as I am just logging off.

    Yes, I am familiar with the Gnostic texts.......but, you can't think the author's of ALL the Gnostic texts can declared with 100% certainty can you? :)
     
  6. Halcyon

    Halcyon Lord of the Badgers

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,408
    Ratings:
    +995
    No, exactly right. If people hadn't done exactly that in the past, there would be no bible.

    Sorry :eek: . You'd think i'd of learnt to give references by now.

    James the Just was the leader of the Ebionites.
    http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/ebionites.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
     
  7. Halcyon

    Halcyon Lord of the Badgers

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,408
    Ratings:
    +995
    No, no of course not.

    I believe that the Gospel of Thomas was certainly written by the actual followers of Jesus, people who met him. And i believe that the other Gnostic texts were written by people following on from this gospel and others, continuing the correct teachings of Jesus and often including aspects of their own Gnosis.

    Like some of the NT epistles were written by people following the proto-orthodox path, the Gnostic texts were written by those following the Gnostic path - but of course i believe the gnostic authors had it right. :D
     
  8. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    37,019
    Ratings:
    +5,517
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    There is no "other external God." Jesus talked to the Father...called him "Daddy."
     
  9. Halcyon

    Halcyon Lord of the Badgers

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,408
    Ratings:
    +995
    If there is only one God, then if it starts talking to itself, should that not be of some concern?
     
  10. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    37,019
    Ratings:
    +5,517
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Why do you think they killed him???
     
  11. Halcyon

    Halcyon Lord of the Badgers

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,408
    Ratings:
    +995
    I dunno, there are a variety of theories. I lean towards making him an example to other would be religious reformers not to 'rock the boat'. Such a thing would have been in the interest of both the Romans and the Sanhedrin.

    I don't think they killed him because he prayed, which is all i can logically read into your question in its current context.
     
  12. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    37,019
    Ratings:
    +5,517
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    They killed him because they were, as you mentioned, concerned with what he was saying and doing. they thought him a blasphemer -- claiming to do what only God could do. Jesus was a good Jew -- a scholar and teacher. Jesus knew that only God could forgive sin...yet Jesus forgives sins! Certainly, in that theology, an implicit claim to divinity...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Buttercup

    Buttercup Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    20,960
    Ratings:
    +3,694
    Well, I have read that the dating of the Gospel of Thomas is anywhere from 50-150 AD with most scholars thinking it most likely was written in the second century when no followers of Jesus would be alive. And I have read numerous places that scholars don't think Thomas actually wrote it. Also....The Gospel of Philip which is supposed to be a letter from Peter....is supposedly dated from the third century or later. Peter was long dead by then.

    Anyway...I will have to give some thought on where to proceed from here. I'd like to keep the conversation going but, I'm not sure where to go. :)
     
  14. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,588
    Ratings:
    +6,262
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    It sounds like you're assuming these words to have been spoken by God the Father. I believe that's an incorrect interpretation. I believe these words are spoken by Jesus Christ. He is saying that He is the sole Savior of the world.
     
  15. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,588
    Ratings:
    +6,262
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Jesus can and does have a God -- His Father. That's just one more reason why I don't accept the doctrine of the Trinity. He is not His own God.

    All human beings are the offspring of God. He is the Father of our spirits. This is Biblical doctrine. Jesus Christ was God's Only Begotten Son. This means that God was the Father, not only of His spirit, but of His physical body. He was as much a literal Father to Jesus as Mary was a literal mother to Jesus.
     
  16. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,588
    Ratings:
    +6,262
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    I disagree. What reason do you have to think that when Stephen said He saw the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of God that He didn't really see what he said he saw?
     
  17. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,588
    Ratings:
    +6,262
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Hi, Laurie.

    Do you have any evidence to support this thesis? Can you think of anything that any of Jesus' contemporaries ever said to indicate that they believed in the "Trinity" as you understand the word?
     
  18. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,588
    Ratings:
    +6,262
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Personally, I don't think it's "plain" at all. If it were as "plain" as you seem to believe it is, there would have been no need for the Nicene Creed. Neither Arianism nor any of the other controversies surrounding the nature of God would ever have become an issue.

    Sure it says that the three are one. What it doesn't say is the way in which they are one. Because you believe in the Trinity, you are assuming that it means "one in substance." But it doesn't say this at all.
     
  19. FerventGodSeeker

    FerventGodSeeker Believer

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,696
    Ratings:
    +148
     
  20. FerventGodSeeker

    FerventGodSeeker Believer

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,696
    Ratings:
    +148
    I certainly wouldn't claim that this verse is the one on which the whole doctrine of the Trinity is formulated or defined, so the fact that it doesn't offer some detailed analysis of what "one" means isn't really at issue. I was simply pointing out that the verse is conspicuously Trinitarian, and I don't know how much more detailed (other than using the exact, most common phrase used to describe the Trinity) that a single Bible verse could be in demonstrating the doctrine of the Trinity.

    FerventGodSeeker
     
Loading...