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. FerventGodSeeker

    FerventGodSeeker Believer

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,696
    Ratings:
    +148
    You didn't quote the explanation that I gave for that statement. I explained, citing several verses, why the "right hand of God" is a figurative reference. Please go back and respond to those before asking for more.

    FerventGodSeeker
     
  2. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    37,019
    Ratings:
    +5,517
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Let's be clear here. Jesus (the human being) has a God. Christ (the divine Son) has a Father. Again, if Jesus knew that only God could forgive sin, how could Jesus be so brazen as to forgive sin, unless he knew that he was part of the Godhead? Jesus fills two distinct roles, one as fully human and one as fully divine.

    All human beings are not the offspring of God. All human beings are creations of God. Only Christ is begotten of God. The whole crux of the concept of grace is that grace gives us the power to become [adopted] sons and daughters of God.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Halcyon

    Halcyon Lord of the Badgers

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,408
    Ratings:
    +995
    I do accept heresy, yes. Although obviously i don't view it as heresy.
    And, yes, i would say that my beliefs are more in line with Christ's actual teachings, so i would consider myself a real Christian. But i wouldn't go as far as to say that you are not a real Christian.

    Well, if they didn't have Gnosis then they had no guidance from any Holy Spirit, in my opinion. Power and influence are not always the result of guidance from the Holy Spirit - or do you believe that Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists all receive the same guidance as the church?

    No. The fact that there are 30,000 denominations of Cathiolic-born Christianity alone are testament to that.

    And who gives them authority, God? Why do you believe that, because they say so?

    Offices? Church? What are you talking about? The Church as we know it today did not exist back then, back then it was a single sect, 1 amongst 3 popular sects.

    Yes, they were being persecuted by the Romans, all forms of Christianity were, including the Gnostics. But the proto-orthodox sect was also busy persecuting those they saw as heretics.

    Well, the God of the OT is an arrogant jerk with an attitude problem, hadn't you noticed? I thought all the genocide would have been a big clue.
    I don't think God abandons anyone, even atheists, i honestly doubt he's that petty and childish. An athiest can gain spiritual insight if they look in the right way, Buddha showed us this was possible.

    Because monotheists believe in a single deity, not three different persons. Three is a group not an individual, worshipping a group makes you a polytheist.

    So, why so many denominations? Peter was not a Christ, he had no true understanding of God. He did his best to preserve the teachings of Jesus, but that was not enough to secure the true spirit of God in the church while it was being assulted through the actions of those with their own agendas and theological theories.

    Because excommunication is a negative thing, nothing the Holy Spirit does is negative.

    Valentinus? I don't agree with everything Valentinus said, he wasn't the only Gnostic you know. Gnosticism as a spiritual path is older than Christianity. Valentinus's views were a little too inclined towards the orthodox for me.
    The simple truth is, God doesn't need a Church, he doesn't need intermediaries - Jesus showed us this. The true Church is in the hearts of men, it needs no building nor hierarchy of priests.

    Hmmm, interesting, you learn something new everyday, thanks for clearing that up for me. :)

    So a son of God does not 'denote an obvious difference between that being and God'?

    I'll just repeat myself shall I?

    "Quote: earlychristianwritings.com The terminus ad quem for I John is provided by Polycarp, who presupposes I John 4:2 in Phil 7:1, and by Papias, who used texts from I John according to Eusebius in HE 3.39.17. This places the letter sometime in the first quarter of the second century "

    John was unlikely to have lived to over 100 considering the average lifespan of the time.

    I think it is supported by scripture. In John 11: 3, Martha the sister of lazerus sent word to Jesus that "the one you love is sick" in reference to lazurus. Lazurus was one of his disciples, not an apostle but still a disciple.
    I'm put saying this is authoritative, its just the theory that maeks more sense to me.
    Its possible that the author of John worked from Lazurus's notes, i don't know.
     
  4. FerventGodSeeker

    FerventGodSeeker Believer

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,696
    Ratings:
    +148
     
  5. bunny1ohio

    bunny1ohio Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    305
    Ratings:
    +22
     
  6. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,647
    Ratings:
    +6,295
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Yes, let's definitely be clear. We could start by listening to one another. I never implied that Jesus is not part of the Godhead. I am 100% convinced that He is, that He has been forever, and that He will be forever. I merely stated that I do not believe Him to be merely a different manifestation of the same individual. That is not to say that Jesus was not also God. "God" is a title He shares with His Father. As God, He was fully able to forgive sin. I don't believe that His relationship with His Father has changed over time. He was subservient to His Father in His pre-mortal existence, creating the universe under His Father's direction. He was subservient to His Father during His mortal life, praying to Him and always doing His will. He is subservient to Him today, as evidenced by the fact that the Father has knowledge that the Son does not have (with regards to the Second Coming). He is subservient in the relationship, but is most definintely not an inferior being. He has exactly the same divine qualities that His Father has. But, once again, He is not His own Father or His own God.

    In Acts 17:28, we are specifically referred to as His offspring. "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." And in Hebrews 12:9, we read that "...we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?" I never said that we were physically begotten by God. We aren't, of course; we were each physically begotten by our own mortal parents. As the "Only Begotten Son," of the Father, Jesus Christ is undeniably unique. On many occasions, He referred to God as being both His Father and our Father.
     
  7. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,647
    Ratings:
    +6,295
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    If it was conspicuously Trinitarian, I'd interpret it the way you do! As I said before, "these three are one" can easily mean something other than "physically one." Haven't you ever seen a wedding greeting card that says something like, "Congratulations on your marriage. Now you two are one."? To me, the word "one" is obviously not speaking of a physical unity at all.
     
  8. FerventGodSeeker

    FerventGodSeeker Believer

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,696
    Ratings:
    +148
    Seeing as the Trinitarian God is not physical (other than the physical body that Jesus took on when He came to earth as a human and took back with Him to heaven), obviously the Trinitarian interpretation of "One" in relation to the Persons of the Trinity is not physical either.

    FerventGodSeeker
     
  9. FerventGodSeeker

    FerventGodSeeker Believer

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,696
    Ratings:
    +148
     
  10. d.

    d. _______

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,937
    Ratings:
    +281
    :spit:

    wouldn't that just be awful.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. FerventGodSeeker

    FerventGodSeeker Believer

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,696
    Ratings:
    +148
    Trust me, I found it rather amusing myself. I've never understood how anyone could embrace Gnosticism, sorry, lol. :shrug: ;) :D

    It would be rather awful, actually...I would hate to serve or believe in a God who gave everyone everything equally, regardless of their faith, attitude, beliefs, or actions. It would be completely unjust and would leave no reason or rationality for anyone to believe anything or act morally. It's basically spiritual communism...which we all know doesn't work.

    FGS
     
  12. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,647
    Ratings:
    +6,295
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Well, if it's not physical, what is it? If you wouldn't mind, please just try to explain exactly what "three persons in one God" really means to you. Scott1 has contended that LDS doctrine really isn't all that different from Catholic doctrine after all. I'm willing to consider the possibility that he's right. I realize it's not an easy concept to put into words, but do your best, and I'll sincerely try to understand.

    Also, I'd appreciate a clarification on this: You say that "the Trinitarian God is not physical (other than the physical body that Jesus took on when He came to earth as a human and took back with Him to heaven)." To me, that sounds like a huge contradiction. If Jesus still has his body, then at least one of the "persons" in the Trinity is clearly physical.
     
  13. Halcyon

    Halcyon Lord of the Badgers

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,408
    Ratings:
    +995
    Not secret knowledge, its blatantly obvious that the current Church is against Christ's teachings and distorts his nature, the smallest bit of research would show you that. But first you need to loose that blind faith of yours.

    Erm, no there aren't. There is one interpretation of Christs teachings and his nature that has spread across the globe, on the surface it may be as diverse as the differences between Roman Catholics and Mormons, but the underlying beliefs are identical.
    "My" interpretation isn't authoritative over all, i just read what's there.

    Firsty, you need to understand that Gnosis isn't knowledge in the common sense of the word, it is more akin to insight or enlightenment.
    Secondly, you need Gnosis to be able to recognise the difference between understanding from God and your own ignorant mental concoctions.

    We were talking about the authority of the people of the Council of Nicea, their authority was worldly power, they had more influence to push their beliefs through and make them doctrine. The Holy Spirit wasn't involved.

    You keep talking about "the Chuch", yet you don't specify which one. 30,000 different versions of Catholic teaching, which is the true Church. And if there is only one, how can the whole Christian global population be a member of it?

    Holy Tradition? That's possibly the daftest thing i've heard all week. Just because something is traditional doesn't make it Holy or sacred or correct.

    Obvious, how?

    Oh, and you must realise how slap happy the church was when it came to classing individuals as heretics. They did so for political reasons as well as spiritual, remember Meister Eckhart?

    No, the proto-orthodox, the Gnostics and the Ebionites all coexisted - there was no spliting.

    Proto-orthodox = the members of the Christian sect which placed emphasis on the death and resurrection of Christ over his actual teachings. Those people that belonged to the group that would become the orthodox Church, people like Irenaeous.

    What was the punishment for heresy in ancient times? Why are there no Gnostics left except the Mandaens?

    i don't believe the god of the OT is actually God, no. But you do. I chose a quote in your sacred scripture that contradicts a basic belief of your religion.

    Exactly.

    No, there are advantages - inner peace, love of your fellow man etc. You don't need to believe in God to get these, especially not an arrogant God.

    You only get forgiveness if you are worthy of forgiveness, belief has nothing to do with it.

    Well, mine's still looking good.

    You can get spiritual enlightenment without Christ, that's why i mentioned Buddha. but if you do accept Christs teachings and have faith in them, its a lot easier.

    Yes, yes it does. Three forms of one God i can still see as monotheistic, because God is simply manifesting in different forms. But three persons are three individuals, by definition you are polytheistic.

    So, you are willing to describe the beliefs of other denominations as the work of men, and yet not those of your own church fathers? Do you see the hypocrasy that i do?

    Oh it means something, it means that he had all the understanding he needed to become a Christ, he just didn't (as far as i know). It means he preserved the teachings of Jesus well, but could not stop other men corrupting their meaning.

    No, Christ is not a liar - like a said the true Church is in the hearts of men and that Christ is also in the hearts of all men, but you need Gnosis to truely understand that.

    Excommunication is no more discipline than execution, its getting rid of those who think differently to you.

    He didn't set up a physical church, men did. He didn't appoint mediaries between men and God, because none are necessary, men did that too.

    Yes it is. Just because they are ignorant of it does not mean that it is not there.

    See, now your contradicting your earlier statement. Either there is no difference between Jesus and the Father, and they are a single deity. Or there is a difference between them and they are separate deities which makes you polytheistic - which is it?

    The Phil they are referencing is Polycarp's own letter to the Philippians.

    I don't know, i'm no scholar of ancient texts. But if learned people who have studied these texts are drawing those conclusions, then i yield to their superior knowledge.

    Not from scripture, just from tradition. The Gospel of John, although it is ascribed to him, is anonymously written.

    Pffft, i dunno. I'm just speculating.:D
    [/quote]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Halcyon

    Halcyon Lord of the Badgers

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,408
    Ratings:
    +995
    That's because you don't understand it.

    Communisim does work when those in authority are not corrupt, God is not corrupt.

    What would be unjust is to deny people spiritual experience because they have some common sense. God as depicted by modern Christianity does not make sense.
     
  15. bunny1ohio

    bunny1ohio Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    305
    Ratings:
    +22
    :clap Hal... I like the way yo u describe things...

    I am non-religious... but if I was, just from reading these couple posts by you I think I would be gnostic ;) gnostic christian I could never be though... because I don't believe the story of Christ... but gnostic in the way you describe all the other aspects :angel2:
     
  16. bunny1ohio

    bunny1ohio Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    305
    Ratings:
    +22
    Judge not my friend.... that's God's job. And even men in all their errant wisdom have determined that "all men are created equal"...and unjust for whom? For the sinners?.... aren't we all sinners? So what makes you any better than anyone else? Your own beliefs say that you need only ask to be forgiven...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Halcyon

    Halcyon Lord of the Badgers

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,408
    Ratings:
    +995
    Thank you. :)

    That's cool. The story isn't as important as the message anyway.
     
  18. wmam

    wmam Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    955
    Ratings:
    +35
    Why does it have to be Yahshua that this name "Word" reflects? By whose rules do we have to go by in accepting this way of interpretation? I disagree and rather look at this as referring to one of the two covering cherubim. I believe His name is "Israel". He did the works of YAH by those words uttered by the Most High. He also is the Spirit (Malak) that abode (possessed) in Yahshua at the time of purification (baptism). a covering cherubim are higher in status than a arch cherubim. Where cherubims do the work of the Most High YAH as seraphims do service to the throne.

    Yes....... One in as a Father and Son here are one. I am my fathers son therefore I am one with him. I carry his cells. Yahshua not only carries the same cells from Adam as all men do but He also carries the word of Elohim in His whole being therefore He was born of the word and therefore word which came of the Father. All men that are born of the word of Elohim are sons of Elohim. That would make them also one with the Father.

    I hope that helped more than confuse.:confused:

    Yes, but Yahshua was not speaking of Himself here but rather YAH Elohim.......

    Exo 3:14 And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM1961 THAT834 I AM:1961 and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM1961 hath sent me unto you.

    Strongs........

    hâyâh H1961 'ăsher H834 hâyâh H1961

    hâ being the definite article here where YAH is the name of the Most High Elohim.

    So "I AM" I agree was before Abraham as was He before all.

    Well........... I show where this verse was added and was not a part of the original text.

    Where all of these text that you have posted are used by main stream christianity to try and prove their agenda, one only needs to either read a little before, or a little after, or even read in the correct context, or even do a little study and discern the true meaning by way of the Hebrew language, to find the deceit that has been handed down for nearly 2,000 years. This again is only my own personal opinion. Please do not take this as either an attack on you or your beliefs for it was not the intent but rather to show another way of understanding. You are free to disagree.
     
  19. Buttercup

    Buttercup Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    20,960
    Ratings:
    +3,694
    Interesting.....please tell me where you derived this particular interpretation?



    Except that you left out the very salient point of Jesus having authority to forgive sin...the same as The Father. They are equal in power and vision.



    Sorry, I think most of Christianity will disagree with you here. Jesus is equating himself with God. Simple sentence construction would tell you he is speaking of himself.


    What version is that? Mine doesn't say it was added later.
     
  20. FerventGodSeeker

    FerventGodSeeker Believer

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