Rav,
Trying to claim that this is merely my misunderstanding is ridiculous. Once again, your charge applies to anyone who has derived the same basic Christian theology from scripture, and that is pretty much the entire Christian world.
I'm not ''trying'' to claim, I am claiming that it is your misunderstanding, and if you represent the entire Christian world, then my claim extends to that world (whatever it is).
They didn't invent the theology and then cite the Bible to try to support it (which is what you're doing), the Bible is Christian theology.
Yes they did. They claim that Jesus and God are one and the same
person, this is wrong. The scripture does not support that claim. It clearly states that Jesus and God are different persons.
What the Romans did was to compile the books in such a way that (they think) supports
their notion of what they represent. and/or what they regard as suitable for the masses. But they didn't account that the truth will always prevail. They went around the world silencing other theologies, and histories that show the nonsense of their religion.
Yet because you say they are wrong, they are wrong?
I don't say it's wrong, I just say that what you're proposing is nonsensical, and doesn't match with any scripture.
And that's another reason why I'm not interested in bringing religion into this discussion, the do not accept any other scripture or theology. Why should I subject my theological analasys to the Bible only, when there are other scriptures which God is also the subject matter of.
Who are they to tell me or anyone that those scriptures aren't scriptures?
What authority do they have?
It wouldn't be so bad if the arguments you used to try to demonstrate that weren't so weak (mostly due to being clear violations of your stated methodology in every single case) but they are.
Wrong. My arguments are very strong because I can back them up with not only the said scripture by any other scripture you put in front of me. Your argument is supported only by the late Roman Empire,s version of spirituality, namely Christianity.
Having said that, there is a context in which I could accept your position as being just as valid as any other in theological terms, and that would involve a relaxing of the requirement to interpret scripture literally. As I've pointed out, that clearly is the way you are approaching scripture anyway, so why not just own up to it?
Here you go again with your ''Roman Empire'' mentality.. you will accept my position providing I adhere to your level understanding, because if you don't understand it, it aint worth shit.
So what we have here is a statement about spiritual nature, and how it was equal to that of God.
Great! So can we move on now?
Agreed. God chose to place himself into a human body and then subjected himself to the realities of a fleshly existence.
Wrong! It categorically states that Jesus is the same nature as God, but is a different personality to God, and it say's nothing of placing himself
into a human body..
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness., to say he was a human being would be a mistake. He was in his nature, but exhibited a form that looked like a human.
His whole point IMO, is that he came to show that the human flesh is not a reality.
John 10.18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
Errr, sure. What's your point? Nothing there that is inconsistent with what I have been saying.
Errr, no human being could say this without being killed or sectioned.
"God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory." - 1 Timothy 3:16
Use your brain man. It wasn't flesh like we know flesh, it was made to look like flesh, but it's nature was different.
How many do you fucking need before you actually follow your own stated methodology and interpret one literally?
Are you really this dumb? You quote the Philipeans text, and the John 1 text, and you still think that Jesus was a physical flesh and blood man that was born through sex, and would die like any other man? Now because this verse mentions ''flesh'' you automatically resort back to your Christian brainwashing?
The only time I used the word obvious in the quote you are replying to was in reference to the fact that physical bodies can die. And obvious it is. Pay attention.
But ''Jesus'' didn't inhabit a physical body, you only think he did, so for you it follows that God can die.
It's becoming quite clear that you cannot really discriminate between matter and spirit, your just going back and forth, using them in a way that you think they mean when used in scripture.
So which is it? Did Jesus actually suffer a physical crucifixion, or not? Which interpretation are you going with? And how is changing your mind based on new information compatible with your stated methodology for interpreting scripture?
According to the Qur'an, no he didn't and it doesn't matter which interpretation is used, and that is the actual point.
I don't have to change my mind at all. Nor do the Christians. Nor do the Muslims. As additional verses and even alternative translations come to the fore such positions remain consistent. You, on the other hand, have to reinterpret everything.
I haven't changed my mind either. According to scripture Jesus was not crucified, nor was he killed. Why should I, you, or anybody who has some kind of interest in this believe otherwise. The scriptures have spoken.
Again, this is totally opposed to taking scripture at face value, and not embellishing it beyond what it clearly says just so you can make pet theories fit. I mean I just posted a shitload of verses that clearly talk about the death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus, and you're going to sit there and pretend that death doesn't really mean death, and resurrection doesn't really mean resurrection, all while insisting that literal interpretations are paramount?
The scriptures also say that Jesus was born, but we know that isn't what actually happened, it only appeared as though he was born. Also we know that Jesus can't die, but he can give the appearance of having been killed. This corresponds with the other scripture which states that he didn't die and wasn't crucified, but it appeared like he was. This corresponds with alot of Jesus' teaching, but obviously that level of teaching is not for everyone, so his teaching can be understood on every level of consciousness, even the gross material.
Interesting comment. Am I to assume then that you accept that the view of God that Christian's derive from the Bible is a valid conception (albeit somewhat different from your own), and that if they are properly genuine in their worship then they are indeed real theists?
''God'' is the valid concept, and it is good that we talk about Him because it keeps Him in our mind.
As for being ''real theists'' (a term you've coined), you need to answer my question. Can you tell if someone actually believes in God? If you're a theist, you're a theist, whether you want to be or not. It's just the way you're made. I'm just questioning how it is that one can be a theist, and accept darwinian evolution, that's all.
Fixed. I mean that is after all what you are saying. That your reading of scripture is correct and that of pretty much the entire Christian world is wrong, because the literal reading I am presenting is that promoted by them.
Okay, I can see that you really need this to bolster your position, so I'm going to say... Okay! So what?
If they believe that God is a man, and he died and was raised from the dead so that we can write off our spiritually transgressed debt, and every other scripture or God based religion on the face of the earth is plain wrong, and if you send just $20 some guy will pray for you from, the otherside of the world......
Is this stuff in the Bible?
The bible said he was going to die. The bible says he did die. The bible also says he rose again. Are you suggesting that the bible is wrong? Are you suggesting it was written by someone who made "assumptions"?
And the Qur'an which came after the Bible explains that it was made to look like he died.
Now a Christian would argue that the Qur'an isn't a bona-fide scripture. NOT MY PROBLEM.
That people can come to different conclusions is part of what I am highlighting and you are a perfect example. You interpret biblical scripture differently from the overwhelming majority of the Christian world because you employ a different interpretative methodology (one that you have inaccurately characterized, but that doesn't really matter -- it is what it is).
No I haven't inaccurately characterized, I have used the scriptures to back up my points, such as the nature of Christ, and his relationship to God, a different personality. That's correct. The idea of Jesus and God being the same person is ludicrous, and needs to brought up and debated without appeal to fuzzy-wuzzy ideologies that render discussions moot. The words are there in black and white, and can be compared to any other scripture regardles of whether or not the Christian agrees with them. It's time to stop the nonsense.
And what you get from this is a different idea about who God is, how he has interacted with man throughout the ages, and what he expects from human beings. You can't deny this because your position is clearly not consistent with Christian theology (which, in spite of your claims to the contrary, is all about embracing the authority of scripture). The key points are as follows:
It's not a different idea. Jesus said ''i and my father are one'', and he came to remind his people that the ''I'' is the reality, and that God IS ''I Am'', and we also, like Jesus, is a part of ''I Am''. You have to draw that conclusion yourself, and it doesn't matter if we get some of the detail wrong, what matters is that we begin the journey to this self realisation. The Roman Empire version of Christ consciousness hides these gems (as you clearly demonstrate) keeping everyone focused on the physical plain, and confused about their identity. Scaring people in thinking they will burn in hell fire for ever and ever if they don't follow their brand of Christ's religion.
God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
1) For a Christian, to understand God properly is to understand that Jesus is God. You disagree.
Wrong. Not all of them do.
2) For a Christian, the road to salvation lies in understanding and accepting that Jesus must be a central and primary focus of one's spiritual life. You disagree.
Nonsense. Jesus is the real deal. But as Jesus say's...
john4 34 “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.
john5 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.”
john5 24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.
john5 31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. 32 There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true.
john5 36 “I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me.
You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.
3) For a Christian, it is understood that we live once, die and are then judged by God. I assume you disagree with this too, given your vedic leanings.
Though the major Christian denominations reject the concept of reincarnation, a large number of Christians profess the belief. In a survey by the Pew Forum in 2009, 24% of American Christians expressed a belief in reincarnation.[139] In a 1981 Survey in Europe 31% of regular churchgoing Catholics expressed a belief in reincarnation.[140]
Geddes MacGregor, an Episcopalian priest and professor of Philosophy, makes a case for the compatibility of Christian doctrine and reincarnation.[141]
Taken from
jan.
