The purpose of this thread is not so much to debate what one believes in, but rather to evoke discussions and ideas through others perceptions and worldviews: whether that be religion, politics, spiritualism, naturalism, etc. No real subject matter is off topic here, whether you believe in gun ownership, free speech, free will and choice versus determinism, etc. and for data purposes only there is a poll selection as to what you ascribe towards (in a generalized sense).
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What Do You Believe In?
- Thread starter RUFUS
- Start date
Coup De Grace
New Member
The purpose of this thread is not so much to debate what one believes in, but rather to evoke discussions and ideas through others perceptions and worldviews: whether that be religion, politics, spiritualism, naturalism, etc. No real subject matter is off topic here, whether you believe in gun ownership, free speech, free will and choice versus determinism, etc. and for data purposes only there is a poll selection as to what you ascribe towards (in a generalized sense).
OK, Rufus, I'll play! I believe in: God, The Father; God, The Son; and in God, The Holy Ghost. Yet I am not a Trinitarian in any strict sense of the word.
I believe in the universality of, ‘The Mind Of God’. An all-encompassing sense of conscious being and awareness from which every living thing draws: its conscience, its consciousness, and lifeforce from.
I believe in the existence and presence of, 'original sin'; and, correspondingly, this causes me to recognize and appreciate the absolute moral necessity for The Son Of God's ultimate life-sacrifice on behalf of all mankind.
I believe that He is, 'The God Of The Living'; and He cannot either contradict Himself, or be successfully contradicted. God is absolute; and, therefore, there is no such eventuality as complete and utter death; only a certain, 'distancing' from all that which is divine. Simultaneously I, also, believe that there is no such event as sin without consequence — sin without one form or another of noisome corrective punishment!
Hence, even a man's sins will ultimately lead him to God! Mere mortal existence, itself, is one form of this punishment; but to be, 'cast into Tartarus' is worse; and I would rather accept the, 'benign ransom sacrifice' of The Lord Jesus Christ's innocent blood shed on behalf of all repentant and appreciative sinners, everywhere, rather than to have to pay a higher price for my own sins than I already have.
These sacred precepts are among those precious things in which I truly believe and have (finally) begun to appreciate.
Last edited:
OK, Rufus, I'll play! I believe in: God, The Father; God, The Son; and in God, The Holy Ghost. Yet I am not a Trinitarian in any strict sense of the word.
I have encountered in my life schools of thought such as this. I didn't attach your other statements because by and large I can't argue against it (more or less) as they are opinions--- and the purpose of this thread is to evoke thoughts and ideas, so there is no real right or wrong answer here. I am curious, though, how and why you have this exact position on the Trinity. The only reason why I do so is because recently I had a discussion about this same subject elsewhere and it was rather interesting the points of view.
My point of view (or argument) was that trinities exist in the natural world: states of matter (solid, liquid, gas), symbiosis of animals and plants and organisms that are not just dualities but trinities, etc. therefore if God is indeed the source of all things and all things are extensions of Him then we would see reflections of this in our universe. After all, Nikola Tesla once said: "If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have the key to the universe," because 3's, 6's, 9's are the most common in nature and 6, 9, 12, etc. is all divisible down to 3 itself. Probably the most simple illustration ever given of the Trinity was from the patron saint of Ireland Patrick, who described it much like a three leafed clover: three separate leaves, all from one stem, therefore all are one and the same.
Also, though the Trinity is separate entities, they are also of Him and are Him: therefore each entity is equal in measure to His power, functions, capabilities, etc. Many people I have met have said they do not understand the Trinity and how all three can be separate and yet equal and one in the same with God Himself, and recently I drew a comparison between the concept and a comic book series entitled The Watchmen. Why that comic book? Essentially because of Doctor Manhattan. He could split himself, and each split and divide was himself with his full range of powers and abilities (omnipotent, omniscience).
And while I concede that may be seen as blasphemous or even diminishing the glory of God, which is not my intention, by comparing Him to a fictional comic book character: That, in and of itself, is about as simple as I can make it at this time for one to maybe understand. If it is easy for one to wrap their mind around a Doctor Manhattan, then, it should be simple to wrap their mind around God. That is the only purpose that I make that comparison.
Last edited:
historically
New Member
Personally, I think the Bible is made up. Something that a few humans made up to control the masses. Now hear me out - Rufus, because I can already hear your gears turning and see the smoke. Throughout history, the history books are written by the victors. The Bible is no different - it's a historical do***ent that has been a recording of human history throughout. Why then should it then be excluded from the same line of thought? Humans are notorious for being inaccurate when they retell a story. And what is the Bible? A collection of stories told by humans. If you've ever tried to play a game of telephone with a group of people, you would know that even twenty people can't keep a single story straight. Let alone, let's see, how many people have edited the Bible?
You have a right to opinion, of course, and since the premise of this thread is to evoke ideas by sharing our worldviews rather than debate and be argumentative about different schools of thought: while I'm not saying people cannot ask people questions for clarification sake or to reach greater understanding, it's not necessarily encouraged to strike up debate or have any one fixed point system be discussed more than others. However, since you have asked, I will oblige your query.
"History is written by the winners" is an argument most people use in defense of their beliefs, or nonbeliefs. However, in the case of Christianity, the argument doesn't quite hold water. Why? Primarily because for over three centuries following the events listed in the four Gospels, Christianity was a belief system that was punishable by death and imprisonment. It was not something that was blindly ignored and allowed to flourish and prosper without reprimand. Even one of the Apostles (Paul) prior to his own conversion was a high member of the Sanhedrin who personally oversaw the executions, imprisonments, and mass persecution of converted Christians.
In short, history wasn't kind to Christianity: not until it's eventual acceptance sometime in the fourth century, and even that was short lived in the middle East when Islam would dominate in the 7th century, and Christians would (again) be persecuted, executed, enslaved and imprisoned for their beliefs. Only in Western and Eastern Europe did Christianity manage to thrive and dominate the schools of thought and triumph over old traditions. So, in this sense, "history is written by the winners" isn't justifiable: especially when you consider the two premiere historian's of Rome (Josephus and Tacitus) prior to the 'millenium' of the first century wrote in their antiquities how Christians were slaughtered and even blamed for the fire that set Rome ablaze, etc. These were obviously people who were hunted down and dealt with, with extreme prejudice.
Yet, it continued to collect followers, despite this knowledge that to be a Christian could mean a death sentence. Many have speculated how it attracted so many members in such a short amount of time: however, one can argue the case that these were witnesses to the apparent resurrection of Jesus Christ and the subsequent miracles performed by the Apostles. Regardless of reason, the fact remains that to be a Christian wasn't safe until the fourth century. Yet the history is well documented: while Christians were being murdered by the 'winners', how little did they know that such events would give evidence of Christ's existence.
Another thing people tend to mention concerning Christianity, which you briefly touched upon, is the argument of inconsistencies in the Gospels: without realizing that each was each person's own recollections on past events and experiences: and further still, that the other Gospels filled in the gaps and made bridges to make the stories fluid. One cannot argue that these men were always rechecking each other's stories, to keep it all straight, because these men were often separated from each other by several hundred miles at the time of their accounts being written down: for each man set upon his own missionary work in different regions. Seldom were they ever together following the book of Acts.
Here's an example of "inconsistency" in the Bible.... In the book of Mark, during His trial, Jesus was being mocked by people (unknown as to who they were) who said, "Tell us who hit you! Prophecy to us so that we may believe!", for they were hitting Him. This passage doesn't make sense on the surface because if people are right in front of you, hitting you, of course you could see who was doing it: so the jeering from His peers makes no sense. However, if you read the account of the trial in Luke we not only find out who was hitting Jesus, we also know why they said what they did: guards had blindfolded Him, hit Him, and mocked: "Tell us who hit You!", and NOW it all makes sense.
Author and career homicide detective J. Warner Wallace illustrates these points beautifully in his book "Cold Case Christianity", as his expertise was solving criminal cases with little to no evidence in terms of living witnesses, etc. and after fifteen years of studying the Biblical accounts in conjunction with other ancient historical texts: concluded that not only was Jesus of Nazareth a genuine historical figure, but that His trial and death and life events were historically sound and took place as stated. However, if that is not convincing, maybe one should read about the theological debates between Celcus and Origen concerning the validity of Christianity and pagan beliefs in Rome: this was of course in the preceding years before Christianities legalisation in the fourth century. While Celcus argued against the divinity of Jesus Christ: never once did he deny His existence, His life and death on the cross: or even the things Jesus said.
So, in short, both arguments you have made simply do not wash away the historicity and validity of the Gospels as literal historical events: all things said, transpired, including the empty tomb are all without question as having happened: despite for three hundred plus years of persecution of Christianity following it's inception.
"History is written by the winners" is an argument most people use in defense of their beliefs, or nonbeliefs. However, in the case of Christianity, the argument doesn't quite hold water. Why? Primarily because for over three centuries following the events listed in the four Gospels, Christianity was a belief system that was punishable by death and imprisonment. It was not something that was blindly ignored and allowed to flourish and prosper without reprimand. Even one of the Apostles (Paul) prior to his own conversion was a high member of the Sanhedrin who personally oversaw the executions, imprisonments, and mass persecution of converted Christians.
In short, history wasn't kind to Christianity: not until it's eventual acceptance sometime in the fourth century, and even that was short lived in the middle East when Islam would dominate in the 7th century, and Christians would (again) be persecuted, executed, enslaved and imprisoned for their beliefs. Only in Western and Eastern Europe did Christianity manage to thrive and dominate the schools of thought and triumph over old traditions. So, in this sense, "history is written by the winners" isn't justifiable: especially when you consider the two premiere historian's of Rome (Josephus and Tacitus) prior to the 'millenium' of the first century wrote in their antiquities how Christians were slaughtered and even blamed for the fire that set Rome ablaze, etc. These were obviously people who were hunted down and dealt with, with extreme prejudice.
Yet, it continued to collect followers, despite this knowledge that to be a Christian could mean a death sentence. Many have speculated how it attracted so many members in such a short amount of time: however, one can argue the case that these were witnesses to the apparent resurrection of Jesus Christ and the subsequent miracles performed by the Apostles. Regardless of reason, the fact remains that to be a Christian wasn't safe until the fourth century. Yet the history is well documented: while Christians were being murdered by the 'winners', how little did they know that such events would give evidence of Christ's existence.
Another thing people tend to mention concerning Christianity, which you briefly touched upon, is the argument of inconsistencies in the Gospels: without realizing that each was each person's own recollections on past events and experiences: and further still, that the other Gospels filled in the gaps and made bridges to make the stories fluid. One cannot argue that these men were always rechecking each other's stories, to keep it all straight, because these men were often separated from each other by several hundred miles at the time of their accounts being written down: for each man set upon his own missionary work in different regions. Seldom were they ever together following the book of Acts.
Here's an example of "inconsistency" in the Bible.... In the book of Mark, during His trial, Jesus was being mocked by people (unknown as to who they were) who said, "Tell us who hit you! Prophecy to us so that we may believe!", for they were hitting Him. This passage doesn't make sense on the surface because if people are right in front of you, hitting you, of course you could see who was doing it: so the jeering from His peers makes no sense. However, if you read the account of the trial in Luke we not only find out who was hitting Jesus, we also know why they said what they did: guards had blindfolded Him, hit Him, and mocked: "Tell us who hit You!", and NOW it all makes sense.
Author and career homicide detective J. Warner Wallace illustrates these points beautifully in his book "Cold Case Christianity", as his expertise was solving criminal cases with little to no evidence in terms of living witnesses, etc. and after fifteen years of studying the Biblical accounts in conjunction with other ancient historical texts: concluded that not only was Jesus of Nazareth a genuine historical figure, but that His trial and death and life events were historically sound and took place as stated. However, if that is not convincing, maybe one should read about the theological debates between Celcus and Origen concerning the validity of Christianity and pagan beliefs in Rome: this was of course in the preceding years before Christianities legalisation in the fourth century. While Celcus argued against the divinity of Jesus Christ: never once did he deny His existence, His life and death on the cross: or even the things Jesus said.
So, in short, both arguments you have made simply do not wash away the historicity and validity of the Gospels as literal historical events: all things said, transpired, including the empty tomb are all without question as having happened: despite for three hundred plus years of persecution of Christianity following it's inception.
Last edited:
Coup De Grace
New Member
I have encountered in my life schools of thought such as this. I didn’t attach your other statements because by and large I can’t argue against it (more or less) as they are opinions — and the purpose of this thread is to evoke thoughts and ideas, so there is no real right or wrong answer here. .......
My point of view (or argument) was that trinities exist in the natural world: States of matter (solid, liquid, gas), symbiosis of animals and plants and organisms that are not just dualities but trinities, etc.
Therefore if God is indeed the source of all things and all things are extensions of Him then we would see reflections of this in our universe. After all, Nikola Tesla once said: ‘If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have the key to the universe,’ because 3’s, 6’s, 9’s are the most common in nature; and 6, 9, 12, etc. is (sic) all divisible down to 3 itself.
Probably the most simple illustration ever given of the Trinity was from the patron saint of Ireland, Patrick, who described it much like a three leafed clover: three separate leaves, all from one stem, therefore all are one and the same. Also, though the Trinity is separate entities, they are also of Him and are Him: Therefore each entity is equal in measure to His power, functions, capabilities, etc.
Many people I have met have said they do not understand the Trinity and how all three can be separate and yet equal and one in the same with God Himself, and recently I drew a comparison between the concept and a comic book series entitled The Watchmen. Why that comic book? Essentially because of Doctor Manhattan. He could split himself, and each split and divide was himself with his full range of powers and abilities (omnipotent, omniscience). .......
If it is easy for one to wrap their mind around a Doctor Manhattan, then, it should be simple to wrap their mind around God. That is the only purpose that I make that comparison.
Thank you for an interesting reply; but, quite frankly, I think you’re a little too dismissive! ‘Life’, all conscious mortal existence, is about discovering what does, and doesn’t work. If you accept this proposition (and I recognize that you might not.) then, of course, you realize: ‘One man's opinion is another man’s truth.’
This very supposition lends itself to Pilate’s argument with Christ wherein he challenged Jesus with the statement: ‘What is truth?’ I have always found it to be particularly interesting (and most people completely fail to notice) that Christ never gave Pilate a specific answer to his question!
Instead, The Lord remained silent, and gave Pilate no direct answer to his question. (Christ had no personal responsibility to do Pilate’s thinking for him; Pilate had a very real subjective responsibility to …… think for himself!)
‘Why’? Because I think that, in this world and under this system of things, the discovery of truth is an individual responsibility. You, yourself, seem to be on that very same quest that I am on; and, in a sense, we are both embarked upon the same road. (Only I refuse to use a comic book in order to establish a didactic point!) 😉
I also think Nikola Tesla would agree that, ‘natural trinities’ are often less than obvious, tend to be subtle, and are able to be ascertained only by those whose intellects are attuned to the resolution of whatever problem is at hand. (‘Seek and ye shall find!’ of course implies that, ‘Do not seek and ye shall, indeed, not find;’ and now we’re back to Pilate’s original question and responsibility to himself!)
It’s a psychological truism that: All men think they are wise; but, at any given time and for any given problem, only the smallest number of people ever actually are, ...... ‘wise’!
Most people go throughout their lives being nothing more than, ‘stupid-smart’; (My own definition of an, ‘idiot savant’ — Which in my own life-experience I have, in fact, found far too many men to be.) Moreover if I have seen this very human, very curious, intellectual phenomenon once, I have witnessed it, at least, a thousand times!
While, ‘The nature of truth is, therefore, self-evident.’ truth, itself in any and all things, still has to be looked for, rationalized, and pragmatically demonstrated to be, somehow, useful BEFORE it can be realistically justified, rationally accepted, and put to (hopefully) good use. (Which is not mankind’s usual penchant!)
(I’m reminded of the current scientific argument that Einstein’s famous equation is actually incorrect; and the speed of light is NOT constant, but variable instead.)
What Tesla related about: 3’s, 6’s, & 9’s is equally true of other naturally occurring numerical phenomena like, say, a: (1) Fibonacci Series, (Which even Wall Street stockbrokers use in order to analyze their investments!) (2) the extraordinary relationship between all circles and their diameters, (Which is usually expressed by the Greek letter, ‘TT’ or 3.141592); and (3) what has been called, ‘The Golden Ratio’ (1:1.618033) and which (among other cultures) all ancient: Egyptian, Greek, and Roman architecture repeatedly employs.
The triumvirate, ‘Godhead’ is nowhere directly expressed, nor asserted anywhere inside of canonical scripture — Nowhere! The Trinity is an implied, and only an implied, Christian doctrine. Like the natural world which surrounds us, Christendom’s ‘Holy Trinity’ is suggested by implication, only; and, as such, the concept of the Trinity (natural, spiritual, or otherwise) has often been abused by various religious thinkers in the distorted religious doctrines which they have so frequently produced: e.g., The recently modified Roman Catholic myth of the Virgin Mary being described as the, ‘Mother of God’.
(An asinine religious concept in the extreme; but, still, a great many people have been savagely tortured and burned to death for refusing to accept the presumed, ‘high truth’ of this religious proposition!)
Hence, the reason for my remark, ‘I am not a Trinitarian in any strict sense of the word;’ and your apparent puzzlement over the subjective reasoning behind it.
Now, you have replied, ‘If God is, indeed, the source of all things and all things are extensions of Him then we would see reflections of this in our universe.’ How shall I reply? What can I say other than, ‘Well, yeah, duh …… !’
What did The Christ, Himself, say when the Jews accused Him of blasphemy before attempting to stone Him? Jesus quoted Asaph, in Psalms, and pointed out to those who intended to murder Him, ‘I have said ye are gods; and all of you are children of The Most High.’ Which raises the interesting question: How is it, then, that, ‘God inherits all nations’?
You have put a lot of effort into describing Saint Patrick’s concept of the Trinity as being, ‘Three in One’; however, let me offer you a biblical example of where this triumvirate concept does NOT apply: (Ready?) Right out of the foundational King James Translation, ’In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ But, wait, He didn’t!
Here, and in another 2,601 times throughout the original Hebrew Tanakh, the English word, ‘God’ is written in its broadly plural form of, ‘Gods’. (Elohim rather than El.) Neither is there any logical place for the transcendental form(s) of: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost within the Hebrew plural noun, ‘Elohim’. The straightforward meaning is, ‘Gods’ or, depending upon your point-of-view, ‘gods’.
What is true of Tesla’s science, and the natural world is, then, not necessarily true of spiritual reasoning. (Unless, of course, you know of some cognitive link of which I am presently unaware?)
Neither do I agree that Christendom’s Trinity is comprised of any three separate, but equal, divine entities. ‘Why’? Because Spirit always transcends any and all other forms of individual entity. Hence the abstruse significance to another one of Christ’s most profound remarks, ‘God is a spirit; and they that worship Him must do so in spirit and in truth.’
Please have a good day; I enjoyed your reply; and, again, wish to thank you!
Last edited:
historically
New Member
"History is written by the winners" is an argument most people use in defense of their beliefs, or nonbeliefs....
So, in short, both arguments you have made simply do not wash away the historicity and validity of the Gospels as literal historical events: all things said, transpired, including the empty tomb are all without question as having happened: despite for three hundred plus years of persecution of Christianity following it's inception.
Thank you for the essay, RUFUS, always a pleasure. I know now what English teachers feel like when they assign essays and then have to subsequently grade those essays.
"To the victor goes the spoils" - this includes writing the history books. It's not a defense to a set of believes, it's literally what happens throughout history. Take for instance in the US, each State has the right to decide which history book is used in their public schools as part of the curriculum. In essence, the States have the right to choose what version of that history they choose to teach to their children. This is especially true concerning the US Civil War. If you ask just about any person from the Northern states, it was over slavery. If you ask just about any person from the Southern states, it was over states' rights and it was the "War of Northern Aggression". In reality, both of these have part of the story correct. The US Civil War was a result of an ac***ulation of various events that eventually lead to succession. Troops assembled by the state of South Carolina eventually fired on Fort Sumter, a Union held fort, thusly officially starting the US Civil War. Another prime example of this is the American Revolution. To us, it was a revolution. To the British, it was a rebellion and treason. If you look at US History books in the 60s & 70s, you can see examples where the history was changed well over 60 times over the age of a book.
According to scholars at the time, Jesus did walk the Earth. We have accounts from both Jewish, and Roman scholars that confirm that he did walk the Earth. However, the Gospels become problematic when one considers that they are human accounts that were written after his death, by people who weren't actually there. And no, I'm not talking about Mark or Luke. I'm talking about the modern Bible that has been translated dozens upon dozens of times, and is the revised successor of an entire tree of previous versions of the Gospels. Even in the last 50 years, the Bible has been changed and altered to reflect changing views - just like the aforementioned history books.
You see, the problem does not occur proving that Jesus walked the Earth. We have accounts of the man called "Christus", which is what the common name for him was as said from believers. However, Romans at the time had no idea that this name was saying that he was the son of God, just simply that that's what they thought his name was. The problem occurs in proving that Jesus did any of what the Bible claims he did such as turning water to wine. Historians argue that the accounts of this are retold stories. I touched briefly on that aspect in my previous post - it's a massive game of telephone.
But the empty tomb! The empty tomb! Well... There's problems with that, too. For one we don't know entirely what happened during the three days before Jesus defied the laws of physics and rose from the grave. Some argue that his body could have been stolen by believers to further make his status legendary. Some argue that he was never actually put in the tomb to start with, and thusly when the tomb was discovered, there was no body to start with as it'd never been in there to start with. And some yet will argue that Jesus was not actually dead, but slipped into a deep coma. In the tomb, he was able to regain his strength to later roll back the entrance to the tomb.
When confirming or not a historical document, historians look at what we term the burden of history. Which is more or less, can an event be confirmed by sources outside of the event. You cannot use the Bible to justify the events in the Bible. It's counter intuitive to actually determining if something happened or not. Consider this: I could tell you I once punched George W. Bush in the face. My proof of this is that I was there, I'm telling you I did. It's the same argument, just extremely simplified.
Thank you for an interesting reply; but, quite frankly, I think you?re a little too dismissive! ?Life?, all conscious mortal existence, is about discovering what does, and doesn?t work. If you accept this proposition (and I recognize that you might not.) then, of course, you realize: ?One man's opinion is another man?s truth.?
This very supposition lends itself to Pilate?s argument with Christ wherein he challenged Jesus with the statement: ?What is truth?? I have always found it to be particularly interesting (and most people completely fail to notice) that Christ never gave Pilate a specific answer to his question!
Instead, The Lord remained silent, and gave Pilate no direct answer to his question. (Christ had no personal responsibility to do Pilate?s thinking for him; Pilate had a very real subjective responsibility to ?? think for himself!)
?Why?? Because I think that, in this world and under this system of things, the discovery of truth is an individual responsibility. You, yourself, seem to be on that very same quest that I am on; and, in a sense, we are both embarked upon the same road. (Only I refuse to use a comic book in order to establish a didactic point!) 😉
I also think Nikola Tesla would agree that, ?natural trinities? are often less than obvious, tend to be subtle, and are able to be ascertained only by those whose intellects are attuned to the resolution of whatever problem is at hand. (?Seek and ye shall find!? of course implies that, ?Do not seek and ye shall, indeed, not find;? and now we?re back to Pilate?s original question and responsibility to himself!)
It?s a psychological truism that: All men think they are wise; but, at any given time and for any given problem, only the smallest number of people ever actually are, ...... ?wise?!
Most people go throughout their lives being nothing more than, ?stupid-smart?; (My own definition of an, ?idiot savant? ? Which in my own life-experience I have, in fact, found far too many men to be.) Moreover if I have seen this very human, very curious, intellectual phenomenon once, I have witnessed it, at least, a thousand times!
While, ?The nature of truth is, therefore, self-evident.? truth, itself in any and all things, still has to be looked for, rationalized, and pragmatically demonstrated to be, somehow, useful BEFORE it can be realistically justified, rationally accepted, and put to (hopefully) good use. (Which is not mankind?s usual penchant!)
(I?m reminded of the current scientific argument that Einstein?s famous equation is actually incorrect; and the speed of light is NOT constant, but variable instead.)
What Tesla related about: 3?s, 6?s, & 9?s is equally true of other naturally occurring numerical phenomena like, say, a: (1) Fibonacci Series, (Which even Wall Street stockbrokers use in order to analyze their investments!) (2) the extraordinary relationship between all circles and their diameters, (Which is usually expressed by the Greek letter, ?TT? or 3.141592); and (3) what has been called, ?The Golden Ratio? (1:1.618033) and which (among other cultures) all ancient: Egyptian, Greek, and Roman architecture repeatedly employs.
The triumvirate, ?Godhead? is nowhere directly expressed, nor asserted anywhere inside of canonical scripture ? Nowhere! The Trinity is an implied, and only an implied, Christian doctrine. Like the natural world which surrounds us, Christendom?s ?Holy Trinity? is suggested by implication, only; and, as such, the concept of the Trinity (natural, spiritual, or otherwise) has often been abused by various religious thinkers in the distorted religious doctrines which they have so frequently produced: e.g., The recently modified Roman Catholic myth of the Virgin Mary being described as the, ?Mother of God?.
(An asinine religious concept in the extreme; but, still, a great many people have been savagely tortured and burned to death for refusing to accept the presumed, ?high truth? of this religious proposition!)
Hence, the reason for my remark, ?I am not a Trinitarian in any strict sense of the word;? and your apparent puzzlement over the subjective reasoning behind it.
Now, you have replied, ?If God is, indeed, the source of all things and all things are extensions of Him then we would see reflections of this in our universe.? How shall I reply? What can I say other than, ?Well, yeah, duh ?? !?
What did The Christ, Himself, say when the Jews accused Him of blasphemy before attempting to stone Him? Jesus quoted Asaph, in Psalms, and pointed out to those who intended to murder Him, ?I have said ye are gods; and all of you are children of The Most High.? Which raises the interesting question: How is it, then, that, ?God inherits all nations??
You have put a lot of effort into describing Saint Patrick?s concept of the Trinity as being, ?Three in One?; however, let me offer you a biblical example of where this triumvirate concept does NOT apply: (Ready?) Right out of the foundational King James Translation, ?In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.? But, wait, He didn?t!
Here, and in another 2,601 times throughout the original Hebrew Tanakh, the English word, ?God? is written in its broadly plural form of, ?Gods?. (Elohim rather than El.) Neither is there any logical place for the transcendental form(s) of: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost within the Hebrew plural noun, ?Elohim?. The straightforward meaning is, ?Gods? or, depending upon your point-of-view, ?gods?.
What is true of Tesla?s science, and the natural world is, then, not necessarily true of spiritual reasoning. (Unless, of course, you know of some cognitive link of which I am presently unaware?)
Neither do I agree that Christendom?s Trinity is comprised of any three separate, but equal, divine entities. ?Why?? Because Spirit always transcends any and all other forms of individual entity. Hence the abstruse significance to another one of Christ?s most profound remarks, ?God is a spirit; and they that worship Him must do so in spirit and in truth.?
Please have a good day; I enjoyed your reply; and, again, wish to thank you!
Again, this is a thread where there is no real "right or wrong" answer, as we are giving our opinions (more or less) however I think contexts need to be emphasised when it comes to things stated in the Bible. When Pilate asked "What is truth?" and Jesus did not give him a direct answer (or really any answer) I have to believe it is because Jesus WAS the answer. As CS Lewis once eloquently said: "I know now Lord why you utter no answer: You are yourself the answer. Before your face questions die away. What other answer would suffice?" Again, we can agree to disagree maybe on our interpretations of things--- because we each are seeing things from our own relative perspectives---- however, this really boils down to "my truth" and "your truth" and "ultimate reality". All three are telling the truth, nobody is lying: but only one is unbiased by perception.
You would be correct, when you say that the burden of proof lies on the person(s) making the claims. However, in such cases as the historicity of Jesus Christ and His life and mission and death and resurrection, etc. one must consider all forms of evidence: indirect, direct, cir***stancial, etc. and these things collectively point in the direction that 1) Jesus did exist as a historical figure, 2) As did His apostles and family, 3) His words and accomplishments are also historically sound and based in reality.
How can we come to such conclusions? Maybe the theologian and historian at Cambridge C.F.D. Moule in his 1967 work on the subject at hand stated the following: "If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history: a hole the size and shape of the Resurrection: what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with? The birth and rapid rise of the Christian church, remain an enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the church itself."
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillis, Pliny the Younger, Celsus, Tacitus, Josephus, etc etc etc.... all acknowledged the existence of Jesus as a sound, accurate, historical fact... Combined with the historical fact(s) of the Apostles, most of which were tried and executed in hellish fashion by their persecutors, refusing the denounce the divinity of Christ (which would have saved their lives).... Factoring in the rapid rise of Christianity despite it being a death sentence for those to believe.... In conjunction with both Jews and Muslims (also) attesting that this figure existed as well, based upon the evidence (not heresay).... Ultimately points in the direction that EVERYTHING that was ever said by Him, done by Him, etc was indeed true history.
Even the most skeptical historians and scholars cannot refute the existence, mission, words, crucifixion and the empty tomb. Bart Ehrman, one of the foremost scholars of antiquity and Biblical works (albeit he is an agnostic) has said: "Whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist." Any historian, scholar, etc that exists in our modern would who denies His existence is those who lie so far outside the fringes of science and reason, that they make up less than a single percent.
I always tell people that they need to use fourth dimensional thinking (like a movie on a screen, from various points of view) in order to see the big picture. You bring up the empty tomb and say "Well the body was stolen," and while that is an argument that has been brought up since the inception of the faith's beginning..... It doesn't necessarily wash.... Here's my reasoning as to why:
1) Both the Romans and the Jews had great reason to ensure that the body wouldn't have been stolen (the Bible even mentions that the tomb was guarded both day and night by both parties) and historians even in the ancient world attested that this was so, because:
2) Both the Romans and the Jews had great reason to suppress any and all notions that He risen from the dead: this would have created a massive firestorm that nobody could put out because the Nazarene was found 'guilty' of religious and political crimes: He was a threat to the order of Israel and Rome, and so were His followers, therefore:
3) Because of these things, one must realize that even if the guards fell asleep (as mentioned in the Bible) that in the space of less than a few short hours there is no possible way ANYONE could have hidden that body and kept it uncovered for the last two thousand years. Why? Because as the Bible mentions, the Apostles and Jesus's family went into hiding--- because the Jews and the Romans both, in great numbers (a massive task force) was searching all over the region, inside and outside of Israel, for not just the parties involved in Jesus's ministry but looking for the body as well: it was never discovered, never found, therefore:
4) One must consider the alternative explanation: that the Christ did indeed rise from the dead: and when one considers how rapid the rise of Christianity was, and subsequent reports that He was alive (also reported by the ancient historians who had no stake in the religion and separate from Biblical citations) that it makes sense. After all, even Muslims attest that Jesus was alive and ascended into heaven as well: and yet they have no real stake in proclaming Jesus as the Son of God. So what can we collectively conclude from all these direct sources, indirect sources, cir***stancial sources, etc etc etc.... that the body is highly unlikely (virtually improbable) that it was successfully stolen and hidden.... especially when you consider Muslims, Caligula, and many others in sebsequent years since had a great stake in disproving Jesus was the Christ and that it was all a lie: they would have continuously campaigned and searched and looked for the body, until it was found. Nobody ever did.
Your counter arguments concerning whether He actually died or not ("fell into a coma and escaped the tomb") I do not believe holds water primarily because Tacitus is quite clear and he was pro-Roman (anti-Christian) in stating the historical fact that they had killed the man and was more than sure of His demise. Also, it doesn't hold water because quite frankly nobody---- I don't care how tough they are---- could survive a scourging like that, and be crucified and then pierced through the side and into the heart and lungs. Even if one fell into a coma, the eventual blood loss and all around shock of such grotesque injuries would have killed someone: and even if He did, He wouldn't have had the strength to roll a one ton stone to get Himself out and bypass the guards, etc. So that is out.
Your other counter argument that His body was never put into the tomb, also, does not hold water because.... He was a criminal of the state, the Jews and the Romans both mutually agreed to have His body (not His tomb, that distinction must be made clear) under guard day and night.... His burial, his entombment, etc would have been observed by both members of the Roman guard and by the Jewish sanhedrin to ensure no funny business was going to take place among Jesus's family and followers: most of which were in hiding anyways, so ultimately the body was in posession of the state. That theory, is also thrown out.
So what's left? Either the body was somehow stolen by members interested in pushing His divinity, which when one really thinks about it is highly improbable concerning how much manpower was involved in crushing this threat to the order of Rome and Judea, or He did indeed rise from the dead. The latter, unfortunately, is a thought so many don't wish to contemplate because it makes them review themselves as individuals: a complete threat to their own illusions and lifestyles.
The film RISEN (2016) illustrates the unlikeliness of the body having been stolen, and while it is a film produced by a Christian company and Christian producers, it does give that "fourth dimensional thinking" to the events that transpired, so one can see the absolute difficulty (and extreme improbability) in pulling something like that off successfully---- especially for the last 2,000 years.
We can agree to disagree, of course :thumb: after all this is a thread about opinions based upon our perceptions, personal understandings, and observances made---- so in that sense, there is no right or wrong answers here---- however, as I said in my last reply to another poster: this boils down to "my truth", "your truth" and "ultimate reality" and all three points of view are not lying, but only one is unbiased and unblemished from bias of perception. That, is the crux of history and science, to find what is closest to that ultimate reality.
historically
New Member
Your counter arguments concerning whether He actually died or not ("fell into a coma and escaped the tomb") I do not believe holds water primarily because Tacitus is quite clear and he was pro-Roman (anti-Christian) in stating the historical fact that they had killed the man and was more than sure of His demise. Also, it doesn't hold water because quite frankly nobody---- I don't care how tough they are---- could survive a scourging like that, and be crucified and then pierced through the side and into the heart and lungs. Even if one fell into a coma, the eventual blood loss and all around shock of such grotesque injuries would have killed someone: and even if He did, He wouldn't have had the strength to roll a one ton stone to get Himself out and bypass the guards, etc. So that is out.
Your other counter argument that His body was never put into the tomb, also, does not hold water because.... He was a criminal of the state, the Jews and the Romans both mutually agreed to have His body (not His tomb, that distinction must be made clear) under guard day and night.... His burial, his entombment, etc would have been observed by both members of the Roman guard and by the Jewish sanhedrin to ensure no funny business was going to take place among Jesus's family and followers: most of which were in hiding anyways, so ultimately the body was in posession of the state. That theory, is also thrown out.
So what's left? Either the body was somehow stolen by members interested in pushing His divinity, which when one really thinks about it is highly improbable concerning how much manpower was involved in crushing this threat to the order of Rome and Judea, or He did indeed rise from the dead. The latter, unfortunately, is a thought so many don't wish to contemplate because it makes them review themselves as individuals: a complete threat to their own illusions and lifestyles.
The film RISEN (2016) illustrates the unlikeliness of the body having been stolen, and while it is a film produced by a Christian company and Christian producers, it does give that "fourth dimensional thinking" to the events that transpired, so one can see the absolute difficulty (and extreme improbability) in pulling something like that off successfully---- especially for the last 2,000 years.
We can agree to disagree, of course :thumb: after all this is a thread about opinions based upon our perceptions, personal understandings, and observances made---- so in that sense, there is no right or wrong answers here---- however, as I said in my last reply to another poster: this boils down to "my truth", "your truth" and "ultimate reality" and all three points of view are not lying, but only one is unbiased and unblemished from bias of perception. That, is the crux of history and science, to find what is closest to that ultimate reality.
Do you actually read what people reply to you, or do you just skim read it? I fear it is the later of the two, for if you actually read what I wrote, you would have seen where I literally said that Jesus walked the Earth. Or did you miss that bit?
Since when is Hollywood known for being a guiding light? It's a movie, designed to entertain, that's it.
Also, the arguments that the body was never placed in or it was stolen, etc, are just alternative points of view. Apparently you've never seen a bank with guards 24.7 get robbed before, either. But still, therein again, we do not know what happened during those three days. It still boils down to this: you're aruging that the Bible is 100% accurate based on, well, the Bible. And no, scholars do NOT agree on any of the events therein. If you're ignorant enough to believe otherwise, I will invite you to come with me as my guest and read some of the Hebrew texts, and enjoy the hours of conversation related to. Scholars literally debate this constantly. Hell, scholars can't even agree on some of translations of the Bible.
Do you actually read what people reply to you, or do you just skim read it? I fear it is the later of the two, for if you actually read what I wrote, you would have seen where I literally said that Jesus walked the Earth. Or did you miss that bit?
Since when is Hollywood known for being a guiding light? It's a movie, designed to entertain, that's it.
Also, the arguments that the body was never placed in or it was stolen, etc, are just alternative points of view. Apparently you've never seen a bank with guards 24.7 get robbed before, either. But still, therein again, we do not know what happened during those three days. It still boils down to this: you're aruging that the Bible is 100% accurate based on, well, the Bible. And no, scholars do NOT agree on any of the events therein. If you're ignorant enough to believe otherwise, I will invite you to come with me as my guest and read some of the Hebrew texts, and enjoy the hours of conversation related to. Scholars literally debate this constantly. Hell, scholars can't even agree on some of translations of the Bible.
Oh I am not saying the Bible is accurate.... what I am saying, though, is that the Biblical accounts of the Four Gospels and subsequent Acts is CONSISTENT with each other's testimonies, as well as with do***ented (and concretely proven) historical facts and figures based upon the evidence that has been uncovered. And because the Gospels are consistent and factual, based upon such evidence, it lends credibility to it being a reliable text: even if inaccuracies exist.
After all, we see this in criminal court cases all the time. A number of eyewitnesses to a crime, etc. and each one tells a consistent story (more or less) but a couple of people have details previously unknown to the others: and it is usually those details that reveal a greater truth to the story, which ultimately cracks the case wide open and secures a sound judgement. Why should we hold the eyewitness testimonies of the Apostles and others to a different standard than this? We can't, and to do so is biased: that is why we have certain measures and methods and systems in place to determine what is truth. Otherwise, its a witch hunt.
This reminds me, somewhat, of recent debates I've had with Ken Ham creationists when I told them you cannot bend, curb, twist, manipulate science to suit your own agenda or worldview and perceptions of what you believe to be true. It's the exact opposite of science and history: you must try and see if your worldview fits in with the science and history, not the reverse. You can't have it both ways, more or less. While I do not question their passion and dedication to the Lord Jesus Christ, I do have the right to question 100% their understanding of how science and history operates and is determined to be true.
And of course I seen you say that Jesus existed :thumb: I was just elaborating on the facts of His existence, and pointed out errors in the logic or hypothesis that the resurrection never happened or was an orchestrated lie---- though I must concede that although highly unlikely and highly improbable to pull off such a feat, there exists a percentage point or two that it could have happened: though I will point out the historical (non-biblical data) that exists that showed reports of the Nazarene's apparent survival (rising) of death as He appeared all over Judea for over a month after the events in question, and this kickstarted the Christian faith as being true for there were hundreds of witnesses to His appearance after death.
Also, I was not claiming that the movie RISEN was something historically sound: what I was suggesting was that it offered a glimpse into the extreme difficulty and unlikeliness of such an orchestrated plot (the body being stolen). People seldom ever use critical thinking, or fourth dimensional thinking, when making arguments for (or against) subject matters such as this. All I was commenting was that the film offered such critical thinking---- not that it was true, sound, etc. but that it shows what everyone was up against: after all there were centurions, definitely more than one centurion (in charge of 100 men) and the Jewish sanhedrin all looking for the body and His followers and His family throughout this whole ordeal.
I am not suggesting that I believe in a universal consensus concerning the Bible... hell I have more arguments with Christians and Creationists, than I do agnostics and atheists because of interpretations of the Bible.... its no small wonder there are over 40,000 denominations in the Christian belief because there are so many debates over the MEANING of certain texts. Matter of fact, going back to the Ken Ham Creationists, I recently told them that there were several errors in their logic in interpetating the scriptures of Genesis (as they are literal believers in a 6,000 year old Earth) and told them:
1) The 6,000 year thesis does not work because the Jewish calendar year can be as long as 385 days so it could have been far and away longer than any 6,000 years
2) The Aramaic language had four separate meanings to the word "day" so the six days of creation was not literal days: but rather "commands" given by God with an unknown amount of time between each command given, so 'secular science' is probably correct when it says the universe is billions of years old because the Bible never stated no exact times given
3) The Book of Jeremiah, fourth chapter, tells us that there were people long before Eden: "The Earth was desolate and void because I spoke it" (which ties back to Genesis 1:2) and refers to the people being punished for the wickedness, but not all were killed: and that makes great sense when one reads the Genesis account of Cain and Abel where Cain was worried that he would be killed on sight.... but who would have killed him if he was exiled to a land so far away?.... and of course, him finding a wife in the land of Nod, a foreign land far and away from everyone he ever known and loved.... How could she be there, if there was no one else?.... Therefore, Eden was a specialized case of creation for specific purposes and that the Earth and all life on it predates Eden, therefore the Earth is far older than any 6,000 years
So believe me :lmao: I more than understand arguments of scripture and interpretation and the headaches involved. However, that is why I read other ancient texts (histories) and try my best to find the consistency and factual basis, etc. And that is why I also use alot of critical thinking when reading the Bible and use "thought experiments" (as Einstein would have called it) to see where things make rational working sense. As CS Lewis said: "I know myth when I see it, I know legend when I see it and I know an eye-witness account when I see it. I recognize metaphor when it's there. All of this is in the Bible. All of it is inspired. But far from all of it is literal history." One must be knowledgable in such uses of metaphors, etc. to understand the language and meaning of scriptures.
Last edited:
All religions are brothers 🙂
I tend to agree with this. After all, no matter the geographic location, distance, diversity, etc. we find more common threads than we do differences. I tend to believe that is because all religions, all language, all culture, etc. stems from a singularity (origin) therefore that's why despite millenia of travel and differences in culture, we find virtually the same histories and stories.
historically
New Member
So believe me :lmao: I more than understand arguments of scripture and interpretation and the headaches involved. However, that is why I read other ancient texts (histories) and try my best to find the consistency and factual basis, etc. And that is why I also use alot of critical thinking when reading the Bible and use "thought experiments" (as Einstein would have called it) to see where things make rational working sense. As CS Lewis said: "I know myth when I see it, I know legend when I see it and I know an eye-witness account when I see it. I recognize metaphor when it's there. All of this is in the Bible. All of it is inspired. But far from all of it is literal history." One must be knowledgable in such uses of metaphors, etc. to understand the language and meaning of scriptures.
The argument was and remains - at least in my mind - that the Bible is a massive game of telephone. If you're not familiar with the game, you get a group of people, say twenty or thirty, tell one person something and have them repeat it down the line until it gets to the last person and you then see if what they repeat is the same as what you said. In my opinion, and I'm not the only one that believes this, I cannot put any faith into a book that is quite simply a fabrication of multiple peoples' accounts of a set of events.
The argument was and remains - at least in my mind - that the Bible is a massive game of telephone. If you're not familiar with the game, you get a group of people, say twenty or thirty, tell one person something and have them repeat it down the line until it gets to the last person and you then see if what they repeat is the same as what you said. In my opinion, and I'm not the only one that believes this, I cannot put any faith into a book that is quite simply a fabrication of multiple peoples' accounts of a set of events.
HENCE.... why you follow the OLDEST AVAILABLE texts.... hence why you follow the OLDEST AVAILABLE RECORDS (history) and find the consistencies within those texts.... ALSO you follow the available evidence that has been found to verify such texts.... I'll give you an example.... Recently in Israel it was discovered a well fortified wall that was ONLY EVER mentioned in the book of Maccabees. Just because there is an apparent lack of evidence, and just scripture, does not necessarily mean it doesn't exist---- however, we must always tread with caution and be open minded skeptics of everything, until the evidence bares out.
For me, I see enough direct and indirect and cir***stancial evidence from the oldest texts and historical testimonies and archeaological evidence(s) to convince me the historicity of the accounts in question and all the principle players. After all, for millenia, people didn't believe the existence of Pilate until the 'Pilate Stone' was discovered--- because outside of the Bible, he was only briefly mentioned in historical texts.
We now know much more about Pilate than in earlier centuries, and of course, there is also an abundance of cir***stancial evidence and indirect evidence that Pilate himself became a Christian---- which in and of itself is strong evidence, considering he was the man who ordered Jesus's execution, and he would die (suicide, by order of Caligula) just one year AFTER the events of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John: and Christianity would continue to be a death sentence for believers for another three centuries. Which gives strength to the testimony of the accounts as being literal and true.
L'Angelo d'Mysterioso
Active Member
I believe in the love of a good woman and Pasta, truly, it's all you need to succeed in life.
Robin Williams joke: When you die you wake up and you find yourself strapped to a barber's chair. A angel asks you what is the one true religion, you reply Christianity. Angel shakes his head and says, no, Mormonism. you reply, but I have a Osmonds' record. Then you fall into the pit of Hell for all Eternity.
It may not be relevant but it makes me laugh.
Robin Williams joke: When you die you wake up and you find yourself strapped to a barber's chair. A angel asks you what is the one true religion, you reply Christianity. Angel shakes his head and says, no, Mormonism. you reply, but I have a Osmonds' record. Then you fall into the pit of Hell for all Eternity.
It may not be relevant but it makes me laugh.
D
Deleted member 250213
Guest
I am a follower of the religion of Nihilism, and none of you matter. None of you, including me.