Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - lapwing

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 210
1531
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: When and when not to respond?
« on: September 30, 2013, 05:10:49 PM »
Quote from: CrashTest
If you're typing for an audience instead of typing to the person you are talking to,
I don't quite understand this. Unless a thread becomes just two posters replying to each other, most threads involve related ideas from many posters. So if you make a general point then it is for a wider group by definition. "You are talking to" implies a one to one conversation: most threads aren't like that.

1532
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Who fathered Jesus?
« on: September 30, 2013, 04:32:30 PM »
It wasn't just the Holy Spirit:

The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High (cf Lk 6:35) will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Lk 1:35 NIV

Another evidence for the Trinity since the "Holy Spirit" and the "Most High" are both described as God.

1533
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Son(s) of God
« on: September 30, 2013, 02:41:05 PM »
It is best to think that each set of people with different views on this matter have reached their conclusion with integrity i.e. they believe in their view and have come to a viewpoint after careful thought.
I think it is fair to think that the doctrine of the Trinity was the result of much thought by many able people (at the time) over a significant period of time. I don't think it is fair to think it as a rushed back of the envelope job to keep Constantine content. The doctrine is difficult and hard to come to terms with so that at least, apart from the history, counts in favour of it being well considered.

Similarly, I think its best to assume that those who put forward different views have thought about them.
Is Jesus' "looking to heaven" (Jn) or "falling with his face to the ground" (Mt) or "kneeling down" (Lk) or  "falling to the ground" (Mk) in Gethsemane meant to tell us whether Jesus is God or not; or is it meant to tell us how serious what Jesus was about to face really was. I would go for the latter. Maybe I'm biased, but I don't read this as being explicitly doctrinal but rather descriptive of what happened i.e. narrative.

I have a similar view of OT narrative - the descriptive details are not generally intended to be symbolical clues to doctrine. Gen 35:8 doesn't mean you should bury all nurses under an oak tree. A good book on this (with better examples) is "How to read the Bible for all its worth" by Fee & Stuart.

Quote from: JohnBee
So Jesus wasn't worshiping YHWH the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in your view?
I don't think Gethsemane etc. means Jesus "worshipped" the Father. I believe YHWH=Father+Son+Holy Spirit and there were some very detailed posts that gave the argument for that recently.

Quote from: Jem
It was the Word who became flesh, not THE God. (John 1:14) Then John 1:18 states...."No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." If no one has 'seen God at any time', then Jesus cannot be God because many people saw him. John then calls Jesus "the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father". Since God cannot possibly be "begotten", this theos is not Almighty God but a god-like divine being who 'explained the Father' to his disciples.
1. Note that Jesus is referred to as THE only begotten God in Jn 1:18 thus defeating Jem's argument about Jn 1:1.
2.Note that the assumed change of definition in "this theos" i.e. Jesus (who "reveals" rather than "explains" God) is assumed to confirm the desired doctrine. Another reading is to view this verse as up to now no one has seen God, but Jesus (who is the only begotten God) now reveals him to us. "Seen" is perfect tense i.e. an action completed in the past.

"One God the Father" and "One Lord Jesus Christ" 1 Cor 8:6
Note that Jem has said that "theos" can mean "not Almighty God but a god-like divine being" so why is it not the case here? I'm not saying it does mean that but I am arguing that Jem is making too much of the bare use of the words theos with Father and kyrios with Jesus Christ. Kyrios is used in the NT in place of YHWH when quoting the OT and used routinely in this manner in the LXX. This was discussed in great detail recently.

Quote from: Jem
Again, where is the holy spirit? Why does he always seem to be missing?  You can't have a trinity when the third party is mostly absent.
There are 162 occurrences of "Holy Spirit" in the Bible. See http://biblez.com/search100.php?q=holy+spirit. Jem's inference here is completely without foundation and should be withdrawn.

The Granville Sharp Rule (applaud to Liam for the link - I hope all posters read it)
Quote
`When the copulative KAI connects two nouns of the same case, if the article HO or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e., it denotes a further description of the first-named person

  Σίμων  Πέτρος  δοῦλος  καὶ  ἀπόστολος  Ἰησοῦ  Χριστοῦ  τοῖς  ἰσότιμον  ἡμῖν  λαχοῦσιν  πίστιν  ἐν  δικαιοσύνῃ  τοῦ (=of the) θεοῦ (God) ἡμῶν (of us) καὶ (=and) σωτῆρος (Saviour) Ἰησοῦ  Χριστοῦ, (Jesus Christ) " 2 Pet 1:1

So according to the rule Jesus Christ is the same person as "our God". One should refer to the original Greek rather than English translations that can be misinterpreted.

1534
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Son(s) of God
« on: September 29, 2013, 05:04:56 PM »
JohnBee,
Your post #13 contains some controversial suggestions but they lacked scriptural backing.

1. "Jesus himself had a God whom he loved and worshipped" What does that mean? Does it necessarily contradict the doctrine of the Trinity?

2. "many people adhere to the notion that Jesus was worshiped as God in the NT. Though upon closer examination it becomes clear that this wasn't the case at all as it would be impossible to worship a lesser God than the Father whom Jesus himself worshiped as his own God and Father."
It may become clear to some but not all. "lesser God" isn't biblical as there is only one true God who exists in three persons. Again you gave no examples given as to what you mean by Jesus worshipping "his own God and Father" and what are the necessary theological implications. NB: The different persons of the Trinity have different roles.

3. " And it is the name from which Jesus acted upon, died for, and more importantly, commanded that we worship(see: He and he alone that we should worship: YHWH)."
Where is this in the Bible? YHWH does not appear in the NT.

1535
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Views of poor people
« on: September 29, 2013, 11:21:49 AM »
The issue: there are poor people in the world many of whom go hungry or have no access to clean water.
This issue has been around for a long time. The economic systems in the world have changed so leaving it all to charities isn't appropriate now. Remember "big government" includes things like road building and air traffic control; in other words this is a world of big government.

Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. James 2:15-17

Of course the above doesn't mean that charities should not get involved; and there are many Christian, other religious and secular charities that help the poor of this world and they don't all require conversion or attendance of worship services from those who are helped.

1536
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Son(s) of God
« on: September 29, 2013, 07:34:06 AM »
Despite this ground having been gone over in great detail in other threads recently, I prophecy this one may run and run.  ;D

1537
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Definition of faith
« on: September 29, 2013, 07:28:12 AM »
Quote from: Truth
"got mitt uns"
That should be "Gott mit uns"

1538
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Definition of faith
« on: September 29, 2013, 07:24:58 AM »

Hitler was as much a Christian as I am a duck. I quack and swim therefore I'm a duck.

Do you believe I am a duck?

Do you fly like a duck?

1539
"Something Understood" is a weekly programme of words, conversation, readings and music on a particular subject. These two are about the interface of science, religion and reason. Has science morphed from inquiry into ideology?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bd91h available for next 12 hours only
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bpxx8 available for a week

"In Our Time" is a seasonal weekly programme of ideas where Melvyn Bragg interviews 3 academics on a subject.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03b2v6m available indefinitely
Pascal was such a brilliant polymath that this programme is necessarily broad and shallow. Includes a bibliography for further reading

1540
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Introducing myself
« on: September 29, 2013, 05:05:48 AM »
Welcome - hope you enjoy your time at "the finest university in the land" to quote a well known British film. I did. Plenty of good churches in Cambridge - both Anglican and non-conformist and most colleges have active CUs.

1541
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: gospels written prior to 70
« on: September 28, 2013, 07:04:42 PM »
Quote from: bskeptic
How do you know that they didn't want to keep the authorship/dating deliberately obscure?
By looking at how other writings of the time did or did not include authorship and dating verification.

1542
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Lord, liar, lunatic...
« on: September 28, 2013, 06:09:25 AM »
Or rather than being deluded he could have been simply mistaken - unless they're not really different.
NB: I don't think he was either but I'm interested to hear if people think he could have been mistaken without being deluded in the lunatic sense.

1543
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The Bible....
« on: September 26, 2013, 04:37:54 PM »
Quote from: Johan
That being said, poems and metaphors cannot really be said to have errors, they can simply be bad, so things like Psalms would not apply.
They can be good poetry as well.

This is why I don't like "inerrant" or "correct" wrt the Bible. It can only apply to particular genres and it is a matter of dispute which genre some parts of the Bible belong to. Alleged contradictions with extra-biblical sources often depend on disputed archaeological findings. Internal contradictions are often down to misinterpretations and textual transmission issues. It all ends up with swallowing the gnat and missing the camel (to misquote Mt 23:24).

e.g. Did Thomas put his finger in the nail marks and into Christ's riven side? Such a question obviously misses the important bit: it was reported that the risen Jesus appeared to his disciples who knew well what he looked like.

1544
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The Bible....
« on: September 26, 2013, 02:38:38 PM »
No one answered my question about what is meant by "correct" in #24. That's what you get for having a post at the bottom of a page ;<(
So does it mean no contradictions? What would a contradiction in Psalm 23 look like or does correctness only apply to certain parts of the Bible i.e. historical accounts and prophecies?

1545
Just to be clear I wasn't putting forward "psychosomatic" as an explanation of Christian healing. I used the word only to try to find out what Crash thought.

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 210