A question about Christianity...

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TBone48

Platinum Member
Feb 23, 2005
2,431
0
0
Originally posted by: Promethply
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: SXMP
After reading through the rest of this thread, I want to thank Kinev and GreatBarracuda for there debate. It has opened my eyes up further to the truth. More firmly than ever do I see the persecution of Christianity; let me defend that:
It's not a persecution of Christianity. There wouldn't be as much heated debate if the Fund-A-Mentals wouldn't force their beliefs on others. That's not what Jesus taught.

This thread has covered aspects of Christianity from all areas, (the Trinity, the divine being of Christ, the validity of the Bible, and many more.) Why this strikes me as being so important is that for every new question posed, Christianity has an answer in Jesus. Again and again, those seeking to find fault with Christianity must move on to a new point, because theirs has been refuted.
Delusional much? Everything re:the divinity of Christ has been debunked numerous times by many biblical scholars and historians. A Christian should NOT need to believe in a divine Christ in order to be a Christian and follow his teachings. People who do are missing the message completely.




So definitely, someone does not have to believe in any divine being in order to treat their fellow human beings decently, because at the end of the day, IMHO, following the "golden rule" is the glue that'll bind societies together.

I agree with that , my point was a call for tolerance in its truest sense- meaning don't disparage an entire group of people because you disagree with some of them.
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
Originally posted by: TBone48
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: SXMP
After reading through the rest of this thread, I want to thank Kinev and GreatBarracuda for there debate. It has opened my eyes up further to the truth. More firmly than ever do I see the persecution of Christianity; let me defend that:
It's not a persecution of Christianity. There wouldn't be as much heated debate if the Fund-A-Mentals wouldn't force their beliefs on others. That's not what Jesus taught.

This thread has covered aspects of Christianity from all areas, (the Trinity, the divine being of Christ, the validity of the Bible, and many more.) Why this strikes me as being so important is that for every new question posed, Christianity has an answer in Jesus. Again and again, those seeking to find fault with Christianity must move on to a new point, because theirs has been refuted.
Delusional much? Everything re:the divinity of Christ has been debunked numerous times by many biblical scholars and historians. A Christian should NOT need to believe in a divine Christ in order to be a Christian and follow his teachings. People who do are missing the message completely.


No one disputes your point that Christ doesn't need to be divine to be a teacher or role model. However, those whom you derisively call "Fund-A-Mentals" focus on the need for a Savior which we belive to be Christ. Following a person's teachings and philosophies won't get your soul into heaven- we believe only faith in Jesus as Savior can do that. Please feel free to believe otherwise, but don't be so condescending. I never saw that kind of attitude taught by Jesus.


He didn't just claim to be Divine, he was able to prove it in front of hunderds of thousands of witness.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Googer
He didn't just claim to be Divine, he was able to prove it in front of hunderds of thousands of witness.
Hunh? When? Where? How?


Never did Jesus claim to be divine and never did he perform any miracles.
 

kinev

Golden Member
Mar 28, 2005
1,647
30
91
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Googer
He didn't just claim to be Divine, he was able to prove it in front of hunderds of thousands of witness.
Hunh? When? Where? How?


Never did Jesus claim to be divine and never did he perform any miracles.

Ok. You can think that Jesus really wasn't divine. That's your prerogative. But to repeatedly insist that Jesus never claimed to be divine is just asinine. As I and others have stated numerous times in this thread, Jesus EXPLICITLY CLAIMS to be God on numerous occasions. It is undeniable, yes I said undeniable, that the Bible records Jesus as claiming to be God.

Now, I know, you say that he never said those things and that men have altered the records. As a scholar of history, you know that the Bible was not written by one author. It was written by many people. All throughout, though, Jesus' claim of divinity is upheld. Multiple contemporaries of Jesus and multiple others wrote that Jesus said he was God. Am I going to prove to you that the Bible is historically accurate? Of course not. You have made up your mind already, but since you seem to read a lot of material regarding the Bible, you also know that it is historically accepted in academia. Scholars agree that there was a person named Jesus who lived and taught in the holy land around 0-33 AD. Whether he was God, is not as widely accepted.

Why would men change the historical Bible to make it say that Jesus claimed to be God? What did they have to gain? Wouldn't they change it to something more self-serving? There is, unfortunately, a history of corruption in the church. Ironically, this corruption usually takes the form of deemphasizing Jesus in order to focus on Earthly matters like indulgences or sacramental issues.

If Jesus was God and what he taught is true, then the church loses importance. Jesus is the bridge between a sinful man and a Holy God. Jesus became a way for man to have a personal relationship with God. Wouldn't a corrupt church want to say that Jesus really wasn't divine and that the CHURCH was the bridge between man and God? That would give a corrupt church more power. Jesus takes away a lot of the church's power by being the intermediary between us and God. Jesus taught that it is only through faith in him that man is saved. A corrupt church would want to spread the message that if you do X, Y, and Z for the church, then you are saved. It just makes sense.

Why would the apostles, except John, be tortured and executed for a moral teacher? Not to beat a dead horse, but Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. Pick one. Here's a hint; a good, moral teacher won't be the first two.
 

kinev

Golden Member
Mar 28, 2005
1,647
30
91
Originally posted by: Googer
Originally posted by: kinev
Originally posted by: Googer
Jesus walks on water and you can't.

Huh?

Jesus Walked on Water

Mark, John, and Matthew all agree that Jesus walked on water, but only Matthew tells us that Peter tried to walk on water, too. Why did Mark and John choose not to tell us about this remarkable event?
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/did_peter_walk_on_water.html

http://members.aol.com/JAlw/did_peter_walk_on_water.html

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
 

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
Hello again everyone. Now that I am done with my exams, I would like to resume our exchange.

Originally posted by: SXMP
I find John Piper's explanation of the Trinity concise and accurate.

Here's the link John Piper: "Can you explain the doctrine of the Trinity and its biblical support?"

I agree with you in that Mr. Piper?s account of the Trinity is concise and presents the Christian perspective very succinctly. I think it?s safe to assume that almost everyone who has attempted to explain the Trinity in this thread would agree with his position.

However, such a conglomeration of views need not validate the argument in any way. In fact, it provides me or anyone who doesn?t believe in the Trinity or is unfamiliar with it, with a sententious compilation that is easy to analyze and consequently, accept or reject.

This is what I think of it:

1) The most common (and the only canonical) interpretation of the Trinity, which Mr. Piper reiterates, is the one that regards the three figures as three different persons and one single being in essence. This, however, could not be more paradoxical, which ever way one looks at it:

- Three different persons means three different individuals. Three different individuals means three different beings in essence.

Yes, it?s that simple, to me at least. But wait, this is not how Piper defines the word ?person?. He says:

?In regards to the Trinity, we use the term "Person" differently than we generally use it in everyday life. Therefore it is often difficult to have a concrete definition of Person as we use it in regards to the Trinity. What we do not mean by Person is an "independent individual" in the sense that both I and another human are separate, independent individuals who can exist apart from one another.

What we do mean by Person is something that regards himself as "I" and others as "You." So the Father, for example, is a different Person from the Son because He regards the Son as a "You," even though He regards Himself as "I." Thus, in regards to the Trinity, we can say that "Person" means a distinct subject which regards Himself as an "I" and the other two as a "You." These distinct subjects are not a division within the being of God, but "a form of personal existence other than a difference in being."[3]

Pay attention to the bolded statement ? this is NO different than the common definition of a ?person?. His definition of a person is the same as the definition of a person!

- Another way of looking at it, if one simply doesn?t buy into the linguistics of the earlier point, is to consider what Piper says: ?The personhood of each member of the Trinity means that each Person has a distinct center of consciousness.?

This point of view is exactly what I think invalidates the Trinity, completely. As far as I know (and anyone who can think rationally knows), three ?different consciousnesses? is three different beings; in person, in essence and in entirety. If consciousness doesn?t define an individual (a distinct being in person and essence), I don?t know what does!

- Now consider the following two statements by Piper:

?While the three members of the Trinity are distinct, this does not mean that any is inferior to the other. Instead, they are all identical in attributes. They are equal in power, love, mercy, justice, holiness, knowledge, and all other qualities.?

?The Trinity does not divide God into three parts. The Bible is clear that all three Persons are each one hundred percent God.?

Now, if that is not contradictory to a sane mind, I don?t know what contradiction is. How can the three figures of the Trinity be 100% God and still be equal to each other? Three Gods?

At this point, I am seriously trying to comprehend the Trinity, but I simply cannot fathom it, no matter how much I try. No it?s not because I have predetermined beliefs, I am trying to shut them out completely as I try to do this.

- Consider another statement by Piper: ?The Trinity does not divide God into three parts. The Bible is clear that all three Persons are each one hundred percent God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God. For example, it says of Christ that ?in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Colossians 2:9).

The Trinity hinges on the principle that all the three figures are eternal and coexist at all times. If God?s deity exists in ?all fullness? in Jesus, then God doesn?t exist outside of Jesus or external to him, at least in divine form!

Edit: Therefore, if Jesus died on the cross, God must have died too, fully. Simply by virtue of the fact that I am writing all this, obviously, this is not what happened.

This brings us back to why this thread was created in the first place.

2) Piper quotes the following verse from the Old Testament:

?There is no other God besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other? (Isaiah 45:21-22; see also 44:6-8; Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 4:35; 6:4-5; 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:2; 1 Kings 8:60).

He tries to use it to prove the ?oneness of God.? What is ironic is that in this verse, it is the God of Moses speaking to the Israelites. The same God, which I as a Muslim worship. This is not the ?God of Christianity?, if you will, who is limited in His Godhead as there are three figures who share the power equally. This is the same God (the one and only) who never said/taught anything even remotely suggestive of the Trinity. It is unfortunate that Piper uses such a verse in trying to explain the Trinity when in fact God said this to Moses in the strongest spirit of monotheism!

In conclusion, I think that Piper?s piece, as a whole, depicts the same fallacy that is inherent in the concept of the Trinity. Any attempt to explain the Trinity is just that, an attempt. In my opinion, it simply cannot be ?explained?, as that would require it to be comprehensible to oneself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by: SXMP
Something further to consider: If you are willing to accept there is an all powerful God, who is both omniscent and omnipotent, a God who cannot be fully understood by human thought, then I don't see why its so hard to believe that God who is incomprehensible can do something incomprehensible, like exist in the Trinity as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by: sao123
Is Jesus Christ God?

Sao?s link provides the gist of what you are trying to say:

?The reason that many cults fatally err regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ is because they place sinful, finite human reason above the clear teaching of the Word of God. The Bible consistently sets forth the doctrine of the trinity from Genesis to Revelation. As revelation progresses, the doctrine of the trinity becomes clearer and clearer, until only those who are spiritually blind could deny it. If you do deny the trinity, the Bible becomes an incomprehensible jumble of contradictions ? The doctrine of the trinity is hard to comprehend yet it is clearly taught in the Bible and therefore must be believed.?

According to the last two statements, belief in the Trinity is a requirement before reading the Bible. But I don't believe in the Trinity to begin with?

So the Bible would make more sense to me if I believe in the Trinity, first? Well, if belief is a prerequisite to understanding religion and scripture, the Qur?an makes even more sense to me if I begin with the belief that God is One, in essence and in person ? I choose the latter.


Consider the following passage from the Old Testament:

And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication unto the LORD, he arose from before the altar of the LORD, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread up to heaven.

And he stood, and blessed all the congregation of Israel with a loud voice, saying,

Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant.

The LORD our God be with us, as he was with our fathers: let him not leave us, nor forsake us:

That he may incline our hearts unto him, to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and his statutes, and his judgments, which he commanded our fathers.

And let these my words, wherewith I have made supplication before the LORD, be nigh unto the LORD our God day and night, that he maintain the cause of his servant, and the cause of his people Israel at all times, as the matter shall require:

That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.
(1 Kings 8:54-60)

-Not Jesus, not the Holy Spirit, not the Virgin Mary. Nobody, no one, no-thing ? none.

Hence the Islamic belief.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |