- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Good question!
All gods in existence that are uncreated and divine would be false. For example, man-made gods.
What if Gog/YHWH designates one of his creations as god? Would this creation be a false god since YHWH gave him authority as god?
For example, Satan is called 'god of this system' at 2Corinthians 4:4. Is Satan a false or true god?
I believe him to be a false god. I'll explain when you reply.
Quote (Bibliophile @ July 24 2007,22:05) What if Gog/YHWH designates one of his creations as god? Would this creation be a false god since YHWH gave him authority as god?
If this creature was “god” by name only then there may not be a problem. But if this creature was “god” by nature then – Huston we have a problem. In doing so, would not God be blatantly contradicting the monotheism He inspired the Bible writers to pen?Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,Quote For example, Satan is called 'god of this system' at 2Corinthians 4:4. Is Satan a false or true god?
I believe him to be a false god. I'll explain when you reply.
He is “god” in a qualified sense, with the qualification denoting his ursurped authority and thereby negating any legitimate claim to true deity. And yes, certainly a false god. Surely you're not arguing that Satan is a divine, uncreated being here?!?Sorry, this post is too brief and your questions deserved a more detailed answer, but it's late here and I'm off to bed. Hopefully we can pick up on this discussion in the not too distant future.
Blessings
Hi Is,
I agree its late. look forward to other dicussions. Just so you realize, I don't believe Satan is truly god. He is a false god simply because he made or rather placed himself in that position. YHWH did not give him the authority to act as god. Satan took it upon himself.
Till next time,
In Christ
Hi BP and Is,
If I can just butt in for a moment:
I've really enjoyed reading both your posts here, and I think that you both make excellent points.
But are not not being a bit too scientific? Aren't the words just there to give a sense of the whole?
One can't hope to understand The Road Not Taken by merely focussing in on:
Quote Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
It would be to miss the life of the text – its feel, its imagery – the indecision, the forward thinking, the implications.When St Matthew has Jesus say:
Quote O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'
Is he making a doctrinal point?Is he prophesying?
Well, perhaps he's doing both, but first and foremost, he's conveying a sense of love and anguish. The meaning of the individual words is secondary to the heart of the text.
So when we approach the introduction to the Gospel of St John, we shouldn't read:
Quote In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
But:Quote In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
To divide this up and look at each word individually, and each clause, and each sentence, and finally to the paragraph, is to lose the beauty of the text, and all you have gained is some scientific perspective, which may or may not have been the author's intent.To me, this paragraph is not about who God* is, and who the Word* is, but in how awesome and beautiful they are, how harmonious, and how essential to life and humanity.
Charles Darwin wrote:
Quote I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also almost lost my taste for picture or music… My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part of the brain alone, on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot conceive…
[Italics mine]Which is to say, so scientific had his view of the world become, that he cold no longer experience the beauty of it. The same I think is possible in our view of the scriptures.
Well, I hadn't meant to diverge so far from the topic, but hopefully this will add a different perspective to your discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*These terms theos and logos are invariably used together in Greek thought – logos often being described as the order of the cosmos, or the wisdom of God. I recommend reading Plato's Cratylus, to get an idea of how these ideas co-mingle in Greek thought, also the writings of Philo of Alexandria, for an idea of the logos in Jewish thought around the time of Jesus.Hi casiphus,
Certainly the aim is not to know about God but to know Him and be known by Him.
The rest is largely vanity.Hi Cas,
Thanks for your thoughts. Obviously, I am only able to speak for myself, but I Believe Is would agree that yes, picking on words continually would be missing the point of scripture. I don't normally breakdown specific words but I do feel it is necessary sometimes in order for each other to truly understand where the other is coming from. This is especially true on a forum where emotions and thoughts are often misunderstood.
I look at the posts between Is and me as a positive and uplifting conversation because we began to 'see' some agreement on things. I believe this is what this forum is all about.
Thank-you for recommending Greek philosophy but I think that is where a lot of lies worked their way into the truth of scripture. I'll stick to God's thoughts. Believe me when i say I have read much background info concerning the logos.
I appreciate your thoughts.
In Christ
Hi Nick,
Quote So you agree trinity is not taught by Jesus or the prophets or apostles? Not explicitly. But when we write for an audience (as the prophets and apostles did), there is always going to be some assumed knowledge.
The Hebrew writings are not entirely silent on themes such as the Son of God, and the Spirit of God. But these are not explained in the text – there is an assumption that the audience understands these terms, and interpretes them as the author does. The early Christian writings are replete with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – but again, no explanation, so presumably the original audience understood (or was thought to have), and so no explanation was necessary – either that, or an understanding wasn't considered necessary.
Quote So there was much more truth to be taught even about the nature of God Himself that Jesus did not even mention?
That leap of faith is a little wide for most in view of 2 Jn.In this passage, when St John refers to the teachings of Christ, what is he really saying? St Paul teaches things that Jesus didn't teach. As does St James, and the other early Christian writers. Does this make them not of God, or shall we say that they had their teaching from Christ (but not teachings that found their way into the Gospels)? After all it was St John himself that wrote:
Quote Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. And if this is so, could it not also follow that the Holy Spirit could lead us in the teachings of Christ – but teachings that didn't find their way into the Gospels or the early Christian writings?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 29 2007,18:55) Hi W,.
So how has the trinity theory evolved lately?
Ooh ooh, let me take a guess.It started of a Binity and changed to a Trinity.
mmmmmmmmmmmmm
What would be the next logical step?
mmmmmmmmmmmmm
Dunno.
Quote (Casiphus @ July 24 2007,23:52) Not explicitly. But when we Hi write for an audience (as the prophets and apostles did), there is always going to be some assumed knowledge.
Hi Casiphus.Assumed knowledge is one thing, a foundational doctrine that if rejected leads a man to Hell, and yet is not mentioned in either the Old or New Testaments is another.
I find it difficult to accept that such a foundational doctrine isn't taught, written about, or referred to in scripture. Worse (or better) still, Jesus, Paul, and John taught things that completely contradict such a doctrine.
Quote (Casiphus @ July 24 2007,23:52) Hi Nick, Quote So you agree trinity is not taught by Jesus or the prophets or apostles? Not explicitly. But when we write for an audience (as the prophets and apostles did), there is always going to be some assumed knowledge.
The Hebrew writings are not entirely silent on themes such as the Son of God, and the Spirit of God. But these are not explained in the text – there is an assumption that the audience understands these terms, and interpretes them as the author does. The early Christian writings are replete with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – but again, no explanation, so presumably the original audience understood (or was thought to have), and so no explanation was necessary – either that, or an understanding wasn't considered necessary.
Quote So there was much more truth to be taught even about the nature of God Himself that Jesus did not even mention?
That leap of faith is a little wide for most in view of 2 Jn.In this passage, when St John refers to the teachings of Christ, what is he really saying? St Paul teaches things that Jesus didn't teach. As does St James, and the other early Christian writers. Does this make them not of God, or shall we say that they had their teaching from Christ (but not teachings that found their way into the Gospels)? After all it was St John himself that wrote:
Quote Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. And if this is so, could it not also follow that the Holy Spirit could lead us in the teachings of Christ – but teachings that didn't find their way into the Gospels or the early Christian writings?
Hi Casiphus,
Yes John did write that.
Since then men have been claiming that their speculations form part of that unwritten truth.
It does not wash.Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 24 2007,04:19) Quote Jesus told his followers the Spirit he would leave them would not speak of His own initiative but take us back to his teachings.
Hi NH,
I think we need to read that verse in context.John 16:12-14
12″I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13″But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14″He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.Yeshua was actually saying that He didn't give them all the truth because they could not bear it. He reassured them by telling them that they would get the truth transmitted to them by Him via the Holy Spirit, but this declaration was not present tense, it would happan at a later date (post ascention).
My thoughts.
There's no doubt. But do you actually believe that the Trinity — a doctrine that is supposed to be foundational to Christianity — would have been one of the things he would have left off? If you believe this then you also believe that the 1st century Christians were lost in their sins and it was not until 2nd and 3rd century that the people were able to truly be saved. And I'm sure there were many in the centuries of 2nd, 3rd, and even beyond who had not even heard of the Trinity still. All of those people, lost in their sins because Yeshua failed to teach it. You don't think much of the Teacher and Master if you believe this.Perhaps you need to rethink this philosophy.
Hi Is 1.18,
You have declared in another thread that the
Angel of the Lord
is the Lord.So that makes four?
A quadrinity?
Hi Is 1.18
“John 16:12-14
12″I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13″But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14″He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.”So the Spirit reveals nothing new.
The Spirit does not thus reveal a new God.
The Spirit shows what is happening and will happen from what is written.——————————————————————————–
Nick Hassan writes:
Hi Casiphus,
Indeed the trinity doctrine, which never appeared in any of the sacred writings, has continued to evolve ever since it appeared 200 years or so after Christ. Both facts argue against it having any origin in God at all.Mary>>>I couldn't agree with you more, Nick.
Of course, archaeology being what it is, many ancient writings, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, have come to light since the Bible was translated from the Greek. However, our endeavor should be, one would think, to understand these basic Christian beliefs the very same way that those first century followers of Christ understood them, who were taught by the Master himself, as God revealed himelf to the Jews, then to the Christians, and thus those peoples would have held the key to whether or not God Almighty exists triune.In going back and reading the Bible as a whole and in context, no hint of trinity doctrine as it has been understood for hundreds of years, comes to light. There is not one non-spurious, legitimate text that describes God existing made up of three separate and distinct persons who are all equal. Such a situation only leads to the obvious belief in three equal “Gods,” rather than one “God” existing in 1/3rd increments. Such a belief certainly is not found between the pages of any Bible translation I have seen, to date, in 20-plus years.
: )
Hi OLB,
Old traditional habits die hard.
Men prefer new speculations to the words of Jesus.
But the Word of God was before these new teachings and is life to those who would find it.Mary>>
Recall Jesus' heartfelt prayer throughout John 17 where he began “Father…”
In the course of that chapter, Jesus asks HIS GOD/Father to allow him, after his earthly life is done, to merely gain back the same position he had in heaven before he came to earth. For his faithfulness, of course, HIS GOD/Father gave him more than he had before, and exalted him to a position even higher than he ever had before in heaven. However, before his earthly life, for aeons unknown, he was God's “Only-begotten Son” in heaven. John 3:16 says that God sent his “only-begotten Son,” thus showing that he already consideed the “only-begotten Son” before he came to earth. He is the one to whom HIS GOD/Father is speaking in Genesis 1, when he says “Let US make man in our image…”
God was not talking to himself in that verse.: )
Hi OLB,
Trinity theory cannot be proven from scripture as it is never taught there.
That puts it in the realm of speculationRomans 1:21
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.2 Corinthians 10:5
We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,1 Timothy 1:4
nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.2 Timothy 2:23
But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.Hi Nick,
Quote Hi Casiphus,
Yes John did write that.
Since then men have been claiming that their speculations form part of that unwritten truth.
It does not wash.
Perhaps this is a fair comment, but when you choose to interprete a word or a passage in one way, as opposed to another, you are speculating – regardless of how educated a guess you make. It is all speculation and conception – we read a passage about God, and we conceive from that passage an glimpse of God. But our glimpse is purely speculation. It is personal. It differs from the glimpse another person gets.By piling together all the glimpses throughout the Bible, we build up an image of God – but again, it is just a personalised image. It is speculation. We can't get away from this – it is the nature of abstract forms.
Words are abstract, in that there is no meaning inherent in a word. The meaning is what we attach to that word – the word is only a representation. Moreover, the written word, is just a representation of the spoken word. So even by merely reading or listening, we speculate.
Hi T8,
Quote Hi Casiphus. Assumed knowledge is one thing, a foundational doctrine that if rejected leads a man to Hell, and yet is not mentioned in either the Old or New Testaments is another.
I find it difficult to accept that such a foundational doctrine isn't taught, written about, or referred to in scripture. Worse (or better) still, Jesus, Paul, and John taught things that completely contradict such a doctrine.
Agreed – though I would broaden the argument to include all foundational doctrines [sic], as I am of the opinion that who shall be saved, and who shall not, is not for us to judge.I don't personally believe in the Trinity, but I don't think that it can be proved or disproved any more than God can be. It is only by faith that anyone can believe in God – and the form of God even more so.
Hi Nick,
Quote Hi Casi,
The bible is not a world of mystery.
Are you not yet born from above?
I don't wish to offend you, but your statement shows that you haven't understood my post.The Bible* may represent a deep and abiding truth, but in and of itself it can never be truth – it is just words. As St Paul says, we see only in part, a mere shadow. With words we can only convey in part, a mere shadow. And what is seen and conveyed will be understood differently by each – I'm speaking here not about Truth, but about its presentation in the ambiguous world of sensory perception and intellectual cognition.
Truth – absolute truth – can't be understood through ambiguous media. If you want the whole truth, you will need to converse with God in the spiritual realm. Here on earth we don't deal in absolutes – and we don't understand absolutely.
So we should not be surprised if others adopt doctrines that are unfounded; and we should continually look to our own beliefs – no doubt we are as blind, and as much in error in some regard or another.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*This is without raising the topic of canonisation, rewording, reinterpretation, translation, and all the other arbitrary refinements that the Bible has been subjected to.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
