Believer's rhetoric: coating love with slime

[Jenyar]

I had been in close contact with Mormons for about two years and I had several Christians in my class at highschool, hence my observations.

Would you say that Mormonism represents most of what you know about being Christian? It is considered a cult, you know.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

rosa

if you dont mind

unless she was stuck, in a vacuum all her life, and her perents where mormon, then it would be all, she 'd know.
encase you have'nt noticed, we live in a multimedia world.
so there would be, no possible way, would there.

 

[Jenyar]

The reason I asked is because she has a problem with how people treated her in the name of Christianity. A particularly intolerant cult would influence her real life perception of Christianity. You don't need a multimedia world to know Christians, you need a Biblical (i.e. Christ-informed) measurement. Any other form of measurement is flawed, because it generalizes what being "Christian" means beyond recognition. Nobody but Christ is an authority on who is Christian. The religion of Christianity is about knowing him as an encounter with God, not an encounter with people.

People are religious about many things, and religion is just one of them. If you want to determine whether a certain behaviour is consistent, you have to look at what determines it.

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

And furthermore, you do realise that the Mormons consider mainstream Christianity a "cult". Depends on your orientation. I heartily agree with you regarding their particulary severe intolerance and authoritarianism, and the Fundamentalist Mormon Church is outright scary. Mormonism also happens to be the fastest growing religion in the world. (according to Jon Krakauer in "Under the Banner of Heaven") In my view Mormonism is just another good reason to give any organised religion a wide berth.

But this statement I love:

"Nobody but Christ is an authority on who is Christian. The religion of Christianity is about knowing him as an encounter with God, not an encounter with people."

But then I question:

1. On whose authority do you Jenyar call yourself "Christian"?
2. Why call your god "Jesus"?
3. Why do Christians go to church to encounter people?

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

Thanks stretched,

First of all let me just state that I have no problem with Mormons. It's just that they claim their authority to be Christ, and yet propose a foreign (literally alien) version of him. It's not our similarities that bother me, it's our differences. Christ himself is the only "true church", and they hold themselves to be.

1. On whose authority do you Jenyar call yourself "Christian"?

I submit myself to God's authority first, and let Jesus decide whether I'm a Christian. Mormons have to submit to Joseph Smith's revelation - they are Christians for whom Christ is not enough. I call Christ my saviour by the same authority (read: Spirit) that Christ called God "Father". What being Christian means in practice was made clear enough by him.

2. Why call your god "Jesus"?

That's a rather crude and inaccurate way of putting it. Jesus was "God in the flesh", but it's like seeing the Earth from where you're standing. You can't stand upon it and see the whole, and you can't experience or relate to it from the distance required to see the whole. I call my God "God", even while I realize that I'm referring to a mystery greater than I know through Jesus, just like Israel realized it without the ability to refer to Jesus. They knew him only as the messiah, the good shepherd, the suffering servant and various other personae - but never as Jesus. When he arrived God showed where they were on target or off the mark. Missing the mark is what has become known as "sin".

3. Why do Christians go to church to encounter people?

For many reasons, to learn, to share, to support. But mainly because we're a community. We don't believe in God as individuals, but as a body with Christ as its head. God called everybody together, not apart from each other. Otherwise his commands would have made no sense.

As a matter of interest, the story of the good Samaritan was told from the perspective of the believer as the one in need. Samaritans were rejected by Jewish society and religion alike, but Jesus makes him the victim's neighbour. He made the exile an example of brotherly love, not the believer. The Samaritan was the "Christian" in the story.

Obedience to God comes in the form of love, not religion. But the call still comes from God; love and truth are the principle ingredients for faith in Him, but they don't replace faith.

 

[water]

Jenyar,

Would you say that Mormonism represents most of what you know about being Christian?

No, primarily Catholicism, as I grew up in a strictly Catholic environment. But I had about two years of close-up experiences with Mormons.

It is considered a cult, you know.

Stretched already addressed that.

First of all let me just state that I have no problem with Mormons. It's just that they claim their authority to be Christ, and yet propose a foreign (literally alien) version of him.

Yes, but foreign to whom? To you, to the Catholics, to some other; but Mormons firmly believe that they are right.

“ 1. On whose authority do you Jenyar call yourself "Christian"? ”

I submit myself to God's authority first, and let Jesus decide whether I'm a Christian.

Yes, but how did you decide whether this is the "right" God? A Mormon or a Muslim would strikingly disagree.

Mormons have to submit to Joseph Smith's revelation - they are Christians for whom Christ is not enough.

This is so from today's perspective. But around the time that the New Testament was taken down -- this was also an "addition". At that time, those who believed in the OT probably viewed those who accepted the NT the same as you now view Mormons.



***
And thanks Stretched, I'm glad you're here.

 

[Jenyar]

Yes, but foreign to whom? To you, to the Catholics, to some other; but Mormons firmly believe that they are right.

Are you aware of their teachings?

Jesus is the literal spirit-brother of Lucifer, a creation. (Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15)

God used to be a man on another planet, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321.)

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345)

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak....'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p.7 )​

Source: CARM: Mormonism.

Yes, but how did you decide whether this is the "right" God? A Mormon or a Muslim would strikingly disagree.

Exactly. They disagree about who God has always been, while I believe in the God who has always been the same - the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus, "I am", the Creator of Heaven and Earth.

The difference is between knowledge that has increased in meaning and substance, and knowledge that has been uprooted at some stage and planted somewhere else.

This is so from today's perspective. But around the time that the New Testament was taken down -- this was also an "addition". At that time, those who believed in the OT probably viewed those who accepted the NT the same as you now view Mormons.

There is a big difference between believing the messiah of prophecy has come, and the subsequent changing of the identity of that messiah. One is a fulfilment and a continuation, the other is a perversion. Of course many Jews believe that Jesus was a false Messiah, but his claims must be judged on their own merit.

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

(Thanks Rosa. X)

Quote Jenyar:
"First of all let me just state that I have no problem with Mormons."

Yup, I do not have a problem with Mormons either, but I do have a problem with their blind adherence to what is a highly questionable faith and religious structure. That problem leads me to see the inherent evil in almost all organised religions. Different names, same questionable principles. An extremely obvious flaw with just the Christian religion, is the very fact that there are literally thousands of denominations, offshoots and sects. This does not argue favourably for an omnipotent and compassionate god who holds the best interests of his flock in hand. Rather it reflects the very "out of touchness" of Christians and their god. The very fact that you Jenyar, will say to me that "they" the "other" Christians out there have got it wrong, is indicative of a fundamental flaw in Christianity. Also arguing that there may be many denominations, but that they all preach the same basic doctrine, is a cop out. If they all preach the same doctrine, there would be only one church. Period. The diversity of the Christian faith as expresses in the many offshoots indicates a very common human trait. "I am right and you are wrong!" This is nothing other than overinflated ego and a struggle for power. To overcome this obviously flawed reality the bible has the answers in the form of Satan, sin and evil. How convenient.

Quote Jenyar:
"Mormons have to submit to Joseph Smith's revelation - they are Christians for whom Christ is not enough."

Remember that Christians are Jews for who YHWH was not enough. The Jews have their own good reason for not believing that Christ was the messiah.

Quote Jenyar:
"I call my God "God", even while I realise that I'm referring to a mystery greater than I know through Jesus, just like Israel realised it without the ability to refer to Jesus. They knew him only as the messiah, the good shepherd, the suffering servant and various other personae - but never as Jesus. When he arrived God showed where they were on target or off the mark. Missing the mark is what has become known as "sin".

As you know Jenyar, Jesus did not fill the criteria to be the Jewish messiah. Christian apologetics try to tackle this dilemma, but I have yet to hear a compelling refutation to the statement:

"Jesus did not fulfil the messianic prophecies."

In a nutshell, the criteria are:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

Quote Jenyar:
"Obedience to God comes in the form of love, not religion. But the call still comes from God; love and truth are the principle ingredients for faith in Him, but they don't replace faith."

The very word "obedience" and its implication, have caused, and are causing untold misery and violence. Love and truth are great principles when experienced beyond the boundaries of religion, for then they speak for themselves and are free to be just what they are for their own sake.

What is "faith" to you Jenyar?

And a parting statement reflecting my negative sentiments regarding the Christian religion. Maybe you can clear this up for me?

"There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment." (from – “Why I Am Not A Christian” by Bertrand Russell)

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

Different names, same questionable principles. An extremely obvious flaw with just the Christian religion, is the very fact that there are literally thousands of denominations, offshoots and sects. This does not argue favourably for an omnipotent and compassionate god who holds the best interests of his flock in hand. Rather it reflects the very "out of touchness" of Christians and their god. The very fact that you Jenyar, will say to me that "they" the "other" Christians out there have got it wrong, is indicative of a fundamental flaw in Christianity. Also arguing that there may be many denominations, but that they all preach the same basic doctrine, is a cop out. If they all preach the same doctrine, there would be only one church. Period. The diversity of the Christian faith as expresses in the many offshoots indicates a very common human trait. "I am right and you are wrong!" This is nothing other than overinflated ego and a struggle for power. To overcome this obviously flawed reality the bible has the answers in the form of Satan, sin and evil. How convenient.

You're right, of course. The diversity reflects the common human trait of "I am right and you are wrong". We see it in scientific, political, social and religious spheres - everywhere where people come together under a "common" banner, there are differences. But you are generalizing, and you are categorizing rather too broadly to appreciate the kinds of diversity we are talking about.

What binds Christians together move outwards in spheres from a central proposition: that the One (1) God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is, was, and will be forever the God of Creation and humanity, and that He already carried out his promises (where Judaism generally believes He still will, and Islam believes He didn't - or at least that we can't know for sure what they were, exactly). That separates us from other religions and other deities. I'm simplifying now, but you get the point.

But as for denominations you are uninformed. Even between the Catholic and Orthodox, and eventually the Protestant church, the differences are a matter of emphasis and issues related to these. But the ecumenical councils at top level, and Christians at ground level, are already crossing those borders despite "doctrinal" differences. Christ established only one church, and it was among the faithful in God, not among ideas, individuals or even ideals. There is nothing that separates us that side of salvation.

1 Cor.3:3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?

What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe--as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.​

Whether we are for Paul or for Apollos, or even Christ - intolerance is always a step backwards, and so is encouraging division. A general rule of thumb is to avoid churches that advocate themselves or their superiority, and attend those who advocate the God who sent them.

I myself have attended Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Reformed, Apostolic, Charismatic, Catholic and even "non-denominational" churches. Some wanted to baptize me, some wanted to "help me understand". But I just tell them I have been baptized, and I understand what it means, and listened to what God was saying while I was there. Some conveyed it with strict liturgies, some with bands and worship, some with prayer and contemplation, some with spontaneous testimonies. Sometimes it was difficult to hear God above the commotion, other times I was only aware of the message and nothing else. But I was there as a believer among believers, and a human being amid human beings.

There are many ego's that sabotage the church, but there are just as many people who work towards building it up. But the answers aren't always in the Bible, and that's when people show their true colours.

Remember that Christians are Jews for who YHWH was not enough. The Jews have their own good reason for not believing that Christ was the messiah.

For whom was YHWH not enough? In Christ, we have believed exactly what the Jews were forced to believe in after the Temple and altar was destroyed: That God's grace and forgiveness is in effect and sufficient for redemption, even if we are unable to fulfill the requirements of the law that exposes our sins. Christ is the conclusion of a promise Jews and Christians base the faith on - whether implicitly or explicitly.

As you know Jenyar, Jesus did not fill the criteria to be the Jewish messiah. Christian apologetics try to tackle this dilemma, but I have yet to hear a compelling refutation to the statement:

Maybe the problem is that you expect a refutation, instead of an agreement.

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
Christ became the third temple - it was "rebuilt" in his body. (Mark 14:58
"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this manmade temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.' ")

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
Some say this already happened when the state of Israel was formed. But Israel is the body of believers (God decides who "Israel" is, after all), and the promised land is heaven. We are indeed being gathered into Abraham (Israel's) bosom: Christ.

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
Sounds like heaven, doesn't it? "But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness..." (2 Peter 3:13) Nobody said Isaiah was wrong about that, in fact: "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind." (Isaiah 65:17)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
And isn't this already happening? How many people do you know who don't know we measure time by one person, or who don't know about Christmas, or Easter? Humanity is being united under Christ ("And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment–to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. Ephesians 1:9-10) Again, how does this differ from the Jewish expectation?

The very word "obedience" and its implication, have caused, and are causing untold misery and violence. Love and truth are great principles when experienced beyond the boundaries of religion, for then they speak for themselves and are free to be just what they are for their own sake.

I can think of other words that have caused and are causing untold misery and violence. Listen to the new Faithless song Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not to mention the misery and violence caused in the name of love and truth. The secular world isn't innocent. At some point people will have to stop blaming religion and start taking personal responsibility. Love and truth for their own sake... care to enlighten me what that means so that nobody will be able to disagree with you ever? Believe it or not, but statement like you make above are the staple diet of idealogies and revolutions, all of which can "cause untold misery and violence".

Sin is the problem - intolerance, hatred, selfishness. Are you say these things don't deserve eternal banishment? Wait... you are, even if it is through the beliefs of Bertrand Russell. There are few people who do things in the name of hatred or evil, does that mean those words represent good things?

What is "faith" to you Jenyar?

"Faith is believing in advance what will only make sense in reverse." I think Philip Yancey said that, or quoted it at any rate. It includes all things that are required to know God and is acceptable to Him, including everything you don't yet know of. Hebrews 11 puts it this way "Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." But it isn't a magic word that rights all wrongs or justifies all actions.

And a parting statement reflecting my negative sentiments regarding the Christian religion. Maybe you can clear this up for me?

"There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment." (from – “Why I Am Not A Christian” by Bertrand Russell)

Bertrand Russell did not believe in eternal life either. Jesus believed in God, and God judges fairly. Believing in hell doesn't automatically send people there, and neither does believing in God automatically send you to heaven. That's why we also pay close attention to the other things God revealed and Jesus believed in.

 

[§outh§tar]

what frigging planet, are you on.
what a stupid statement.
you better pinch yourself, and maybe you'll wake up"WOW".
your something else .

I was being sarcastic..

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

Thanks for your response dude.

Regarding the multi-denominational reality of the Christian Church today, it seems to me that the “message” is so unclear as to engender many different interpretations thus reflected by the many sects and denominations. You say that underlying this reality is one common thread or belief. I say - then why the diversity? Take human nature out of the equation and explain to me simply. “Why the diversity?”

Quote Jenyar:
“For whom was YHWH not enough? In Christ, we have believed exactly what the Jews were forced to believe in after the Temple and altar was destroyed: That God's grace and forgiveness is in effect and sufficient for redemption, even if we are unable to fulfil the requirements of the law that exposes our sins. Christ is the conclusion of a promise Jews and Christians base the faith on - whether implicitly or explicitly.”

I don’t understand your thinking here. What are you saying Jenyar?

Regarding the Jewish messiah:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
J: Christ became the third temple - it was "rebuilt" in his body. (Mark 14:58
"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this manmade temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.' ")

Nowhere in the OT is there any indication whatsoever that he 3rd Temple will be anything else but what it says. A building. A physical concrete Temple. So the contemporary Jews of the era were expecting just that. As they still are today. If God had meant anything different, surely he would have left a clue or made himself clearer regarding the non-physicality of the temple? Why would God want to deceive his chosen people? The quote by Jesus above can be interpreted in many ways.

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
J: Some say this already happened when the state of Israel was formed. But Israel is the body of believers (God decides who "Israel" is, after all), and the promised land is heaven. We are indeed being gathered into Abraham (Israel's) bosom: Christ.

Once again, the historic context and the expectation of the Jews was a physical homeland. Yes the nation of Israel is an interesting development, but the vast majority of Jews still live outside of Israel. The Jews are still waiting for their messiah to take them all home. “Heaven” is not what the OT and the Torah indicated. This explanation is another attempt at solving a dilemma.

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
J: Sounds like heaven, doesn't it? "But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness..." (2 Peter 3:13) Nobody said Isaiah was wrong about that, in fact: "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind." (Isaiah 65:17)

Jesus did not cause or provide an era of world peace. Once again in the contemporary context the criteria is not fulfilled. No mention of anything metaphysical in the OT. Unless the OT is severely flawed. On the contrary, Jesus himself proclaimed a desire to create purposeful division.

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
J: And isn't this already happening? How many people do you know who don't know we measure time by one person, or who don't know about Christmas, or Easter? Humanity is being united under Christ ("And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment–to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. Ephesians 1:9-10) Again, how does this differ from the Jewish expectation?

Eesh Jenyar the Jewish expectation is not hard to understand. “God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
This unambiguously indicates what the messiah will achieve. Because of Western influence, imperialism and communication, yes I cede that the knowledge of Christianity is universal. But in no way was humanity then, or is humanity today united by Christianity. It says clearly “on that day”. We live in a world that has thousands of religions, cults and philosophies. Not even Christianity can pull together in one direction.

J: I can think of other words that have caused and are causing untold misery and violence. Listen to the new Faithless song Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not to mention the misery and violence caused in the name of love and truth. The secular world isn't innocent. At some point people will have to stop blaming religion and start taking personal responsibility. Love and truth for their own sake... care to enlighten me what that means so that nobody will be able to disagree with you ever? Believe it or not, but statement like you make above are the staple diet of ideologies and revolutions, all of which can "cause untold misery and violence".

Yup, right you are there. The secular world is not innocent, but it causes much less division in society, as “judgement” is not key to secular living. Love and truth for no reward. Love for love, and truth for truth. I give you my love because I want to. Not because the Bible tells me to. I give you the truth of my experience because I am living truth of it. Not because the Bible proclaims an unseen truth. Christianity and all religions are “ideologies” Let’s face it Jenyar “misery and violence” are part of the human paradigm. Religion as you know, has and is causing untold “misery and violence” As much as the conflict Iraq is a supposedly political scenario, it is certainly a religious conflict. Name ONE purely secular violent conflict on earth today.

J: Sin is the problem - intolerance, hatred, selfishness. Are you say these things don't deserve eternal banishment? Wait... you are, even if it is through the beliefs of Bertrand Russell. There are few people who do things in the name of hatred or evil, does that mean those words represent good things?

Religious intolerance comes strongly to mind here. What are you saying Jenyar?

J: "Faith is believing in advance what will only make sense in reverse." I think Philip Yancey said that, or quoted it at any rate. It includes all things that are required to know God and is acceptable to Him, including everything you don't yet know of. Hebrews 11 puts it this way "Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." But it isn't a magic word that rights all wrongs or justifies all actions.”

I kind of agree with your views here. I would not presume to try and understand my god. I would merely look in the mirror and try to understand myself better, and within that, try and catch a glimpse of God. But I would never blindly believe what others tell me, and that which does not make logical sense to me. So faith is really an expression for “it all necessarily makes sense”

J: Bertrand Russell did not believe in eternal life either. Jesus believed in God, and God judges fairly. Believing in hell doesn't automatically send people there, and neither does believing in God automatically send you to heaven. That's why we also pay close attention to the other things God revealed and Jesus believed in.

If Jesus is God what are you saying of value Jenyar? Unless of course he is not? What Russell is saying is that Jesus embraced the concept of hell. Simply put, Russell can not morally condone that everlasting punishment is acceptable under any circumstances. And neither can I. Paying close attention to “other things” does not solve or change this moral dilemma.

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

Regarding the multi-denominational reality of the Christian Church today, it seems to me that the “message” is so unclear as to engender many different interpretations thus reflected by the many sects and denominations. You say that underlying this reality is one common thread or belief. I say - then why the diversity? Take human nature out of the equation and explain to me simply. “Why the diversity?”

I think there are complex interactions at play that we can't give justice to in a superficial discussion, but I'll venture to say this: people are individuals, and in a certain sense everybody is their own religion. When a specific doctrine, say, whether a baby should be baptized or an adult, threatens those individual convictions, people simply get together everybody that feels the same as they do and form a "new" church with an a label that identifies them. The problem isn't always the Bible, it's interpretations of the Bible and as I said, emphasis. Apostolic churches emphasize missionary work - they believe God will do the rest as long as we spread the word, as that's what He did in the first churches. Baptist churches believe adults alone can be baptized, because they alone understand its meaning and can make a decision that refelcts their faith, and so on. The Bible also contains opinions, like Paul's opinion that it's better not to get married if you can help it, and other times it's very clearness makes people scatter before it.

And remember, ministers are people to, and sometimes they succeed in alienating their congregation and their church. But in the end, the diversity should tell you this: people can differ about matters of doctrine without losing their faith. And it's only that faith that can pull them together again.

I don’t understand your thinking here. What are you saying Jenyar?

That YHWH is enough, and that people for whom He isn't can't be Jews or Christians. We differ on the nature of that "enoughness".

Regarding the Jewish messiah:

Nowhere in the OT is there any indication whatsoever that he 3rd Temple will be anything else but what it says. A building. A physical concrete Temple. So the contemporary Jews of the era were expecting just that. As they still are today. If God had meant anything different, surely he would have left a clue or made himself clearer regarding the non-physicality of the temple? Why would God want to deceive his chosen people? The quote by Jesus above can be interpreted in many ways.

I think you underestimate the nature of prophecy. Where do prophecies come from? God, and God is Spirit. What was written down in the OT are manifestations of spiritual truths, even the Law itself is a "shadow" of the reality. Some were fulfilled and their truth attested to, enough to collect them and declare them Holy. Once again, what does this emphasis on prophecy mean? Why keep a record of the prophecy if it had already served its purpose? Unless it hasn't already served its purpose, and the very truth of them stands apart, as an eternally valid testimony to God.

You asked about a clue...

John 2:20
The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.​

Another fulfilled prophecy, see? But did the new temple leave with Jesus? "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own" (1 Corinthians 6:19).

Once again, the historic context and the expectation of the Jews was a physical homeland. Yes the nation of Israel is an interesting development, but the vast majority of Jews still live outside of Israel. The Jews are still waiting for their messiah to take them all home. “Heaven” is not what the OT and the Torah indicated. This explanation is another attempt at solving a dilemma.

And once again, we are not questioning the historic context or the Jewish expectation. They expressed the truth in the only way they knew how. Will all the Jews in the world even fit in a physical homeland? If God didn't want to make a difference, He wouldn't have sent Jesus. The old expectations reserves God for a culture - but does that culture have a rightful and exclusive claim to God? Not by their own authority, or even according to their own prophecies! God chooses who and what Israel is.

Isaiah 44:5
One will say, 'I belong to the LORD '; another will call himself by the name of Jacob; still another will write on his hand, 'The LORD's,' and will take the name Israel.​

Jesus did not cause or provide an era of world peace. Once again in the contemporary context the criteria is not fulfilled. No mention of anything metaphysical in the OT. Unless the OT is severely flawed. On the contrary, Jesus himself proclaimed a desire to create purposeful division.

The OT had no concept of the metaphysical. Take a quick look through it. Every blessing, every promise, every justice, to them happens in the physical world. They knew this was an ideal - Job, Pslams, etc. shows clear evidence that the righteous did not always prosper and the wicked is not always punished. Does this mean their expectations were false? Not at all! So they were right to prophecy that expectation. God still promises it. But it is heralded by Christ. Purposeful devision? Do you really think world peace is possible if criminals are allowed to have part in that world? Will people all over the world have a sudden change of heart because the Jewish messiah has arrived? You for one won't care if he had, even some Jews won't care if he does. Did you, did they? But Christians and Jews still await the new earth. We have that peace in our hearts already.

Eesh Jenyar the Jewish expectation is not hard to understand. “God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
This unambiguously indicates what the messiah will achieve. Because of Western influence, imperialism and communication, yes I cede that the knowledge of Christianity is universal. But in no way was humanity then, or is humanity today united by Christianity. It says clearly “on that day”. We live in a world that has thousands of religions, cults and philosophies. Not even Christianity can pull together in one direction.

Does humanity's divisions change the fact that God is King over all the world? Does the prophecy say when everybody will realize that He has achieved this?

Yup, right you are there. The secular world is not innocent, but it causes much less division in society, as “judgement” is not key to secular living. Love and truth for no reward. Love for love, and truth for truth. I give you my love because I want to. Not because the Bible tells me to. I give you the truth of my experience because I am living truth of it. Not because the Bible proclaims an unseen truth. Christianity and all religions are “ideologies” Let’s face it Jenyar “misery and violence” are part of the human paradigm. Religion as you know, has and is causing untold “misery and violence” As much as the conflict Iraq is a supposedly political scenario, it is certainly a religious conflict. Name ONE purely secular violent conflict on earth today.

The Bible is not you because and neither is it my because. Our acknowledgement of God's laws are the only because, even if you don't acknowledge where those laws come from.

People cause misery and violence, some more than others. Nobody is truly secular, the secular paradigm is an ideology of its own. But nobody can justify causing misery and violence by the Bible. That doesn't stop them from trying, of course.

Religious intolerance comes strongly to mind here. What are you saying Jenyar?

I'm saying that all intolerance is not religious, that it lies deeper. Yet nobody who commits a crime has the guts to do it in the name of evil. They have to justify themselves or just reject good.

 

[water]

Jenyar,

I'm saying that all intolerance is not religious, that it lies deeper.

In support of that: People have certain personality traits that seem to be independent of what they believe -- possibly implying that their belief doesn't cover all of what a person is about, or that their personal faith is not strong.

There are nervous and frustrated non-religious people, as well as nervous and frustrated religious people.
There are also shiny happy non-religious people, as well as shiny happy religious people.

What makes the difference is that some religious people use their belief to live out their personal frustrations, or that they say it is their religious belief that makes them happy -- and that without their religion, they would be unhappy.


I think people are unhappy when they don't have faith -- and it is not about lacking faith in the religious sense.

It is the simple human strife for balance that can be fulfilled in many different ways -- and a religious belief is only one of those ways.

True, the religious way may be very elaborated in regards to established scriptures. But it does not have exclusive "copyright of happiness" -- even though the scriptures and some religious believers often try to enforce this view. "If you don't believe in XY, you will be unhappy!", is the doctrine.

But, a lot of time has passed since most of those scriptures were taken down, and the social organisation of society has changed profoundly. Also, a lot of harm has been done in the name of religion.

All this makes it extremely hard to accept the old scritptures *literally*.

I think that what most agnostics and atheists believe about humanity IS NOT in opposition with the spirit of the Bible, or the Quran, or any other.
But the words and names that agnostics and atheists use *definitely* are different than in the Bible. In linguistics, we'd say that the words changed, while the referents stayed the same. What "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is in the Bible, could translate into "betrayal of honesty" in an agnostic's vocabulary.

I think that right now, Christians are in the situation of having a "vocabulary" that is simply too big to manage. The modern Christian "vocabulary" includes both words of Christianity as well as words from the world of agnostics -- but this "vocabulary" has one big flaw: it does not have "translations", it usually doesn't even admit that such "translations" are possible.

Agnostics, on the other hand, also have a "vocabulary" that includes words from both -- but I think agnostics have made greater efforts to find "translations".


On the whole, I guess this is why we fight so much: We refuse to accept that we are actually speaking TWO DIFFERENT languages. We act as if it were only one language, it is just that the other party is using the words wrongly.

What is the solution?

I think that two people should either communicate in a language that is the native language of both of them -- or choose a third language that they both speak but is the native language of neither of them. This is how equality in communication is achieved.

If they speak to eachother in a language that is the native language of only one of them, the native speaker will have the benefit of home ground, while the other one will necessarily feel insufficient. Such communication is bound to fail.


***
I hereby take leave from taking an active part in the religion forums, as I feel that only this way I can pursue the third language.

Thank you for your attention and care.

 

[SkippingStones]

On the whole, I guess this is why we fight so much: We refuse to accept that we are actually speaking TWO DIFFERENT languages. We act as if it were only one language, it is just that the other party is using the words wrongly.

I've been trying to put this idea in words but haven't been satisfied with what I've come up with. Thank you for yours.

I hereby take leave from taking an active part in the religion forums, as I feel that only this way I can pursue the third language.

One can only go so far with this form of communication(internet).

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

Regarding the multidenominational state of Christianity, there is no easy way out. In saying that human nature is responsible for the multitude of divisions indicate:

A: Mankind is inherently divisional.
B: Mankind does not understand the point of Gods will.
C: Gods message is ambigious or difficult for mankind to understand.
D: God is playing games with mankind.

The point is simply, a loving god would not confuse his flock. The fact that his flock is confused, brings that gods integrity into question. It is that simple.

Unfortunately all your responses to the Jewish messiah dilemma, are interpretations from a reborn Christian perspective, which is your right and understandable. The NT can be interpreted in as many different ways as there are Christians on the face of the earth. Your argument is from faith. I admire your faith Jenyar. The bottom line is nowhere in the OT does God indicate a future change from the physical to the metaphysical. Why? Tell me why the sudden change occurred? The change occured to accommodate mankinds sense of ego. No more no less. Nature`s fundamental quality is change. Why should religions differ? So the chosen people, who have tremendous faith in YHWH are still awaiting their messiah. Jesus could have been a early Joseph Smith, who sought to change the existing religious mindset via his own percieved revelations. Either honestly percieved or deluded. The rest is history. But to the Jews YHWH is eternal and unchanging. They await the arrival according to their scriptures. No amount of metaphysical interpretation of the OT and the NT along wth debates on the nature of prophecy can sway the fact that the criteria for the Jewish messiah remains unfilfilled.

Quote Jenyar:
"I'm saying that all intolerance is not religious, that it lies deeper. Yet nobody who commits a crime has the guts to do it in the name of evil. They have to justify themselves or just reject good."

Yet they can commit crimes and then use Christianity as a route to redemption and salvation.

It would seem that mankind is a flawed experiment of nature, as the paradox exists that by his very nature mankind can not rise above his own destructive and violent nature to attain a heavenly state of being. Not even religion can escape the violent nature of man. The very tool of peace and love becomes a tool of repression and division.

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

Regarding the multidenominational state of Christianity, there is no easy way out. In saying that human nature is responsible for the multitude of divisions indicate:

A: Mankind is inherently divisional.
B: Mankind does not understand the point of Gods will.
C: Gods message is ambigious or difficult for mankind to understand.
D: God is playing games with mankind.

The point is simply, a loving god would not confuse his flock. The fact that his flock is confused, brings that gods integrity into question. It is that simple.

It really does not logically follow that they have a confusing source. "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace" (1 Cor. 14:33). The problem is that his flock pulls into many different directions. Many things about nature are difficult to understand, there is one nature and many theories. Does that mean nature is inherently confusing? Maybe. But what are we confused about? That God exists? No confusion. That he has revealed himself to us? No confusion. That we are to follow him? Again, no confusion. But people have different needs, different questions, and different experiences.

If God were to speak to mankind as if every individual was not unique, then he would be playing a game we could not join in. Then He would be the deaf dictator many people accuse Him to be. It is our decision whether we live and work towards Him or away from him. God is clear on what He wants from us: to turn from our wayward ways, stop sinning and follow Him.

Unfortunately all your responses to the Jewish messiah dilemma, are interpretations from a reborn Christian perspective, which is your right and understandable. The NT can be interpreted in as many different ways as there are Christians on the face of the earth.

Wait a second. The NT is the interpretation - based on the "interpretation" given by God himself: Jesus Christ.

Your argument is from faith. I admire your faith Jenyar. The bottom line is nowhere in the OT does God indicate a future change from the physical to the metaphysical. Why? Tell me why the sudden change occurred? The change occured to accommodate mankinds sense of ego. No more no less. Nature`s fundamental quality is change. Why should religions differ?

Because God is not nature. The Jews realized this, but they had a limited spiritual language to express this.

The "sudden" change occurred because mankind needed it. It needed a spiritual revolution of a different kind - one that could pave the way for peace, and recognize God as God again. It occurred in the life and death of Jesus. God did not change, He asserted himself undeniably, splitting history in two.

The bottom line is nowhere in the OT does God indicate a future change from the physical to the metaphysical.

Is.42:8
"See, the former things have taken place,
and new things I declare;
before they spring into being
I announce them to you."

Isaiah 43:18
"Forget the former things;
do not dwell on the past.
See, I am doing a new thing!
Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?"

Isaiah 48:6
"From now on I will tell you of new things,
of hidden things unknown to you.
They are created now, and not long ago;
you have not heard of them before today.
So you cannot say,
'Yes, I knew of them.'

Jeremiah 31:31
"The time is coming," declares the LORD , "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Ezekiel 36:26
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.​

The heart of stone was the law (carved on tablets of stone). The heart of flesh is Christ, who said "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant - not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? (2 Corinthians 3:6-8).

Yet they can commit crimes and then use Christianity as a route to redemption and salvation.

No! Never, never, never! This is exactly the hypocrisy that God condemned. You cannot use God!

It would seem that mankind is a flawed experiment of nature, as the paradox exists that by his very nature mankind can not rise above his own destructive and violent nature to attain a heavenly state of being. Not even religion can escape the violent nature of man. The very tool of peace and love becomes a tool of repression and division.

The other side of the coin is that mankind is a succesful act of God. See where religion comes in? We are trapped in nature, we natural and will die a natural death. But only if you deny that we have a spiritual nature, a spiritual life, and a spiritual salvation that transcends but includes the physical. You realize why this is impossible for us to do by ourselves. Nothing natural escapes the violent nature of man. Why do you think Jesus conquered death, and not kings and countries? Why did He serve man and not nature?

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

I am impressed dude. I respect your refutations.

Quote Jenyar:
“For God is not a God of disorder but of peace" (1 Cor. 14:33). The problem is that his flock pulls into many different directions.

Whatever the words say, the outcome is one of disorder. Visibly.

Quote Jenyar:
"Wait a second. The NT is the interpretation - based on the "interpretation" given by God himself: Jesus Christ."

And every Christian denomination has its own interpretation. And by faith, each denomination believes (sometimes sincerely) that they, and only they, have the God inspired truth. Including the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, JWT`s, Protestants, 7th Day Adventists etc, etc. So how does God inspire all, yet we have this incredible diversity. O.K. your response would be, as you have said, the essential message is the same, and at the end of the day it does not really matter. I understand, but I still question the incredible diversity of Christian offshoots. No other religion has anything near the Christian scenario. Judaism is so clear to the Jews, they really only have two denominations. Orthodox and Non-Orthodox. To me this is already a compelling reason to investigate Judaism further.

Quote Jenyar:
“The "sudden" change occurred because mankind needed it. It needed a spiritual revolution of a different kind - one that could pave the way for peace, and recognise God as God again. It occurred in the life and death of Jesus. God did not change, He asserted himself undeniably, splitting history in two.”

The reality is of course that there has not been peace, nor is there peace now. Also the God of the OT not only disappeared but it is difficult to accept that the OT God and the NT God, embodied by Jesus and his message, is the same deity.

The verses you quoted Jenyar, are a very reasonable indication of the metaphysical and I hear you heartily.
They are however, open to debate regarding interpretation. For example:

Ezekiel 36:26
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

This can possibly be interpreted as –“ I will give you new hope. Turn your cold heart into a more accepting heart so that you can continue the struggle with a stronger, godly heart. A heart of faith, to give you strength.”

The possibilities are endless. Hence the dilemma of multiple Christian offshoots. But I really enjoy your interpretation Jenyar.

Quote Jenyar:
“No! Never, never, never! This is exactly the hypocrisy that God condemned. You cannot use God!”

Your sincerity is tangible Jenyar. I only wish more Christians would take your example.

Quote Jenyar:
“The other side of the coin is that mankind is a succesful act of God. See where religion comes in? We are trapped in nature, we natural and will die a natural death. But only if you deny that we have a spiritual nature, a spiritual life, and a spiritual salvation that transcends but includes the physical. You realise why this is impossible for us to do by ourselves. Nothing natural escapes the violent nature of man. Why do you think Jesus conquered death, and not kings and countries? Why did He serve man and not nature? “

The reality is that we ARE nature. You seem to think this reality is the worst possible scenario. We are composed of the very substance of stars. Part of our downfall seems to be that we fight this reality instead of embracing it. This is one of my favourite paradoxes regarding mankind. The incomplete man seeks healing and completion via religion. Religion compels man to act contrary to his inherent nature, convincing him that he is unworthy and born in sin. This creates conflict and unnatural behaviours. Maybe the key lies in embracing the spiritual aspect without denying our very human nature.

No human being can escape death. If Jesus did escape death, then Jesus was God as he apparently claimed, and therefore his death is not equitable to a human death and thereby loses all possible value as a sacrifice.

I honestly love your sincerity Jenyar.

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

Thanks, stertched. It's truly my pleasure! Sincerity is the least I can give, and I abhorr hypocrisy.

And every Christian denomination has its own interpretation. And by faith, each denomination believes (sometimes sincerely) that they, and only they, have the God inspired truth. Including the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, JWT`s, Protestants, 7th Day Adventists etc, etc. So how does God inspire all, yet we have this incredible diversity. O.K. your response would be, as you have said, the essential message is the same, and at the end of the day it does not really matter. I understand, but I still question the incredible diversity of Christian offshoots. No other religion has anything near the Christian scenario. Judaism is so clear to the Jews, they really only have two denominations. Orthodox and Non-Orthodox. To me this is already a compelling reason to investigate Judaism further.

It definitely is. It's also the reason the Catholic church is still going strong: people find comfort in decisiveness, they know God is that decisive. But right on the other hand, we are painfully aware that we are not God - that people change and make wrong decisions. The difficulty is keeping a balance between tolerance and permissiveness (for the sake of being politically correct, instead of divinely obedient). To mention two examples: abortion and homosexuality. Can you appreciate the difficulty now? God certainly does not approve of either - they go contrary to the natural order - but what do we do with that knowledge? A New Testament exampple is divorce. God permitted divorce for the sake of society, but never approved of it. And that's where love touches down, and obedience to God becomes real.

People often try so hard to reconciling themselves (or people they perceive as "sinners") with God, that they forget that this is what Jesus came to do - and accomplished!

Jehova's Witnesses are a sect - they have their own version of the truth. But a church like the SDA, in their fervour to do exactly what God requires, still keep the Jewish sabbath (they go to church on Friday evenings). They believe the traditional churches don't obey the Sabbath commandment anymore. But once again, this displays a lack of faith in what Jesus accomplished when He came. You can track these things down one by one, and you'll always come back to Christ - and God. Only in Him is reconciliation possible and do the answers reside. Ironically, it's on this authority that new churches form: they claim Jesus as their authority and say the traditional church has no say.

As a protestant, I'm aware that's the historical reason I'm not Catholic. Luther said some things that needed to be said, and it's unfortunately that they couldn't be resolved. I know God wants them to be.

But you should be careful not to mistake outward unity with inward agreement. Or to associate inward agreement with outward unity. The differences in Judaism are just as complicated, they just play a harder line. Same with the Catholic church - I'm sure you are aware of what people think about their stance on homosexuality: "religious intolerance". The truth is that our unity does not lie in the world, it lies in Christ. He makes the decision about a person's eternal destination - we are called to love each other as sinners, the way he loved us while we were sinners.

In the end, we are all wrong. Only God is right. The church is a place that contains both the law and the sinner. Taking away the law of a country won't automatically remove crime, and enforcing it too strictly might create more criminals. That's why Paul emphasized: our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the seat of sin.

The reality is of course that there has not been peace, nor is there peace now. Also the God of the OT not only disappeared but it is difficult to accept that the OT God and the NT God, embodied by Jesus and his message, is the same deity.

But peace is available. It might not be in this life, but it is coming whether people have accepted it or not. The God of the OT has not disappeared, He has revealed his heart. What people knew about Him was his law - and consequently that was how they approached Him. Intolerance of sin often meant killing the sinner. They could not separate their lifestyle from the law that condemned sin because they were too aware that God was keeping them separate from the world. What God then did was to reconcile Himself with Israel (freeing them from the bondage of the law) and reconcile Israel with the world - making it possible for everyone to have part in His kingdom. It still doesn't mean He tolerates sin - the penalty for it is still death. But now we know what Israel only hoped for: the reality of our salvation.

I wish I could take you through the whole journey of discovering God; a journey on which the Bible just provided a few windows. But his world isn't inside, it's outside. Jesus stands at the door and knock. He wants to visit your house and get to know you as you are and where you are. If He asks you to leave the comfort of your home and follow Him, that's between you and Him. I'm just here as a messenger.

This can possibly be interpreted as –“ I will give you new hope. Turn your cold heart into a more accepting heart so that you can continue the struggle with a stronger, godly heart. A heart of faith, to give you strength.”

Not if you read the rest of the Bible. The "problem" is that God did not give this truth in isolation. Even in your interpretation, what would that "hope" be? Even if the struggle was a physical one, is God telling his people that their "hope" is to accept the inevitability of death, as you suggest below? Your interpretation is just as valid as mine, but do you really trust God's ability to deliver on it?

The reality is that we ARE nature. You seem to think this reality is the worst possible scenario. We are composed of the very substance of stars. Part of our downfall seems to be that we fight this reality instead of embracing it. This is one of my favourite paradoxes regarding mankind. The incomplete man seeks healing and completion via religion. Religion compels man to act contrary to his inherent nature, convincing him that he is unworthy and born in sin. This creates conflict and unnatural behaviours. Maybe the key lies in embracing the spiritual aspect without denying our very human nature.

Maybe religions do, or people do, but Christ doesn't. Stars were once thought to be heavenly beings. This is Psalm 8; you can see the Biblical perspective is an interplay between God, man and nature... take God out of the equation, and yes, you are stuck with a conflict:

When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.​

The real conflict is within ourselves. We can handle nature. But accepting it as your god (determining your life and your fate) is as you say: embracing death. But that's denying that we live, here, now, as intelligent and conscious beings able to know "life". Not denying existence as a reality as such, but as a significant reality. It underestimates what life is: the ability to of and about ourselves - to know God who gave us life, and who still makes it available. That doesn't make reality any less than it is! It makes it what it is!

No human being can escape death. If Jesus did escape death, then Jesus was God as he apparently claimed, and therefore his death is not equitable to a human death and thereby loses all possible value as a sacrifice.

No, then Jesus proved that God can do what I've been saying all along. Jesus didn't exist in a vacuum. He did and said a few things before his death and resurrection that I think are... relevant. His value to us wasn't as a sacrifice - it wasn't his suffering or even his death that's unusual - it's that God raised Him on his own authority. A truth that is confirmed by God himself is no less true for that fact.

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

Quote Jenyar:
"I wish I could take you through the whole journey of discovering God; a journey on which the Bible just provided a few windows. But his world isn't inside, it's outside. Jesus stands at the door and knock. He wants to visit your house and get to know you as you are and where you are. If He asks you to leave the comfort of your home and follow Him, that's between you and Him. I'm just here as a messenger."

Quote Jenyar:
“The real conflict is within ourselves. We can handle nature. But accepting it as your god (determining your life and your fate) is as you say: embracing death. But that's denying that we live, here, now, as intelligent and conscious beings able to know "life". Not denying existence as a reality as such, but as a significant reality. It underestimates what life is: the ability to of and about ourselves - to know God who gave us life, and who still makes it available. That doesn't make reality any less than it is! It makes it what it is!”

Thanks for your kind thoughts, and I laregly agree with you. I do live a rich spiritual life and I am certainly in touch with my higher power. I hand my will over every morning. I have no idea who, what or why this power greater than myself is, but that mystery is in itself a revelation. If I had to call that power "Jesus", "Allah" “Bob” or "Krishna" I would then be led down the path of religious doctrine and dogma. Most of which I strongly suspect is not from God but man made. I have irreconcilable issues with all mainstream religions and a lot of philosophies, but mainly with Christianity, which I have the most knowledge of. Embracing any of them, the questions I would then pose regarding the integrity of the faith, would not be answerable to my satisfaction and thus I would have to reject the religion, God stock and barrel. This is called "honesty"

Mainstream religions have kept me out of reach from my God for most of my life, and this is regrettable. I have seen faith in action and miracles of humanity with my very own eyes. I have great respect for that which I cannot see, yet that which I can feel. By removing man made inflexible ideas and imagery of god I have found God revealed. I believe that mankind has tried to inject far too much of himself , his own nature and ego, both good and bad into religion and tried to explain and verbalise what is not comprehensible. Thus to me the truth keeps getting hidden under deeper and deeper layers of dogma.

For example:

Quote stretched:
“No human being can escape death. If Jesus did escape death, then Jesus was God as he apparently claimed, and therefore his death is not equitable to a human death and thereby loses all possible value as a sacrifice. “

Quote Jenyar:
“No, then Jesus proved that God can do what I've been saying all along. Jesus didn't exist in a vacuum. He did and said a few things before his death and resurrection that I think are... relevant. His value to us wasn't as a sacrifice - it wasn't his suffering or even his death that's unusual - it's that God raised Him on his own authority. A truth that is confirmed by God himself is no less true for that fact.”

This response is so convoluted as to be intelligible, and does not address the issue. (no insult intended) Let`s ask these questions.

Q: Is Jesus god?
A1: Yes
A2: No

Q: Did Jesus die on the cross?
A1: Yes
A2: No

Q: Can God die?
A1: Yes
A2: No

Q: As a Christian who do you pray to?
A1: God
A2: Jesus
A3: The Holy Ghost
A4: Mary

Do you understand what I am trying to say?

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

Stretched, I respect your honesty. But God made man, and "man-made" isn't something bad and untrustworthy by default. It is only so by deviation. It sounds as if you've already discovered a line dragging through the water, and you chose to hold on to it. But if embracing your humanity below the surface, doesn't eventually lead to embracing God above the surface, you're still where you were when you found it and it hasn't done much. It's only death that separates us from God - the physical from the spiritual, to use the traditional dualistic description - and that's why I want to ask: does your spirituality embrace humanity, or reject it? By what means does it give you real, physical hope? I guess what I'm asking is, who or what is the source of your faith?

Q: Is Jesus god?
A1: Yes
A2: No

The moment I put it into words I create a doctrine. Do you see what the problem is? How do I express a mystery that I believe by faith, not by invention - how do I create words for the one who created words? If the trinity was something we thought out, maybe it would have made more sense to us. The answer must be yes, but it's up to you to use it responsibly.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. (Col.2:9-10)​

Q: Did Jesus die on the cross?
A1: Yes
A2: No

Yes

Q: Can God die?
A1: Yes
A2: No

Yes, apparently, if He wishes to submit to death. But judging by the context, what you're really asking is whether "the fullness of the Deity" is by any means diminished by physical death, in which case the answer is of course, no. God is life. Death cannot contain life itself, and it cannot keep physical (manifested) life from the One who gives it.

Q: As a Christian who do you pray to?
A1: God
A2: Jesus
A3: The Holy Ghost
A4: Mary

God, of course. By that I mean to the Father, through Jesus, by the Holy Spirit - the fullness of God, without whom prayer would have not been possible.