Search Members

[Kyle]

Thanks for all the info. I expected that the King James had a more correct reading of that verse. It just seemed weird to me that there would be such an obvious addition still in print. But then again, 1st John 5:7 is still firmly planted in the King James, and that's even worse.

[Kyle]

I find this quite interesting. T8's view of this verse troubles me a bit. I don't see how it's grammatically impossible for it to refer to YHWH as the one being pierced. That seems to me to be the most plain understanding of this scripture. It does seem a bit odd that the one speaking would say “me” and then “him”, but take John 17:3 for instance:

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

Christ speaks of himself in the third person here – at least in most of today's english translations. You obviously can't use logic in this case to prove that the one speaking isn't Jesus Christ.

Anyway, I just found that interesting.

[Kyle]

Tim's got a point. Tradition isn't always bad, just blindly following false tradition. Every culture is deeply rooted in tradition of every kind. We all follow all kinds of traditions and break many others. We just need to recognize tradition for what it is, just tradition.

[Kyle]

Good question, Nick. Most would say another one, some would say Satan, and about twelve million (relatively very few) would say Christ. So the vast majority of the world would vote that Christ has no part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but we all know that already.

[Kyle]

Ha ha. You know it, Nick. Can't get in the door without your card and your secret password 😉

[Kyle]

Yep.

[Kyle]

Yeah, there are a number of groups that technically fall under the name of “Mormon”. All of them trace their history back to the same roots. The LDS church is by far the largest, and most (but not all) would agree that the others are better classified as splinter groups that peeled off the main church. I don't know all of the names, but they range from normal to crazy Utah fundamentalist groups who practice polygamy to this day.

In almost all cases, the term Mormon refers to the LDS.

[Kyle]

Those encyclopedias confuse me too, because I was never taught any form of a triune god. I would guess that most Mormons would think you were crazy if you accused them of believing that the three members of the Godhead sometimes act together as one “entity”. But I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. Doesn't seem like so many credible outside sources would act on false information. So who knows.

[Kyle]

Sounds fair. Twelve is quite a large amount for something like this. I was thinking it would take way too long when things first changed from three (six total) to twelve (24 total). I definitely look forward to your post.

Would you be against someone else continuing in your place, Isaiah? Perhaps WJ would be a good candidate if he's got the time. If this continues, let's agree that things should always be as timely as possible for the obvious reasons. But if someone needs more time hear or there, lets be flexible. Three days should just be the general rule of thumb whenever possible. How does that sound?

[Kyle]

That's cool, no big deal. That just seems to be the nature of these discussions. Besides, this one seems to be going places most of them don't.

[Kyle]

Give him a break, Isaiah. Nobody's perfect. He obviously must have been quite busy with other things in his life, and didn't spend hour upon unfair hour researching his response. He did the best he could. I could see saying it's over if he ends up days late for every thread, but this is only the first strike. Lets give him another chance, because I've been looking forward to your response, and I would hate to see things end here. If the rules need to be changed a bit or re-clarified, that's cool. But lets not make this into a bigger deal than it actually is.

[Kyle]

I noticed that too, Isaiah. Growing up (before I had really studied this stuff out in detail on my own) what I knew was that there was God the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and also the Holy Ghost. So when I first heard the idea of these three being “mashed” together into one person or being without body, parts, or passions for some reason, it seemed really weird to me. My natural conclusion was that people believed God, his son Jesus, and the Holy Ghost were being integrated. Never would I have come to the conclusion on my own that Jesus and the Holy Ghost were actually believed to be God himself in addition to the person I thought to be exclusively God. This makes a bit more sense than those two being just part of some mysterious “blob” with God (forgive my terminology as this was just my thought process as a child), but isn't necessarily any easier for me to accept for some reason. Tim also looks to have not made the distinction you make between what a person or seperate intelligence is and what a “being” is. And please do correct me if I'm wrong.

I definitley notice the misrepresentation on both sides. What with Nick telling people that they think Jesus is his own father and others telling t8 he's a henotheist or polytheist, it's quite easy to feel misunderstood. I think most here understand the ideas of their opposing sides, but end up applying their own logic to say people believe things that they don't. Some people can't get behind the Trinity without concluding that Jesus is his own Father. For others, they can't see Jesus as anything other than a normal man without divine attributes, a false or seperate god, or God himself (the obvious choice between these three being the latter).

I hope I'm making some sense.

[Kyle]

Thanks for the replies. That's kind of what I've been expecting to hear from some people, Tim. While I get the concept, I definitely have a hard time understanding why that's the best and most simple way to look at scripture. I'm sure you do to 😉

Anyway, I look forward to more replys. I'd especially like to hear any thoughts on if this verse is any more significant than say John 3:16 (and hundreds of others) since the personal name is used rather than just a title.

[Kyle]

Quote (david @ April 08 2007,13:18)

And I assume no one will ever answer those questions.

I sure hope you're wrong!

[Kyle]

Personally, I'd love to hear some other interpretations of those scriptures. The way WIT sees them is pretty staight forward, and I'm sure anyone can understand why he looks at them that way (even if you don't agree). But it'd be awesome to see some different interpretations.

I really don't think WIT meant to say that Jesus is weak and powerless. It is afterall, all relative. I think he just meant to show how those scriptures could indicate that God is much more powerful and knowledgeable than Christ, and that Christ recieves his power and knowledge from God. The point is fairly simple (again, even if you don't agree you can still understand it). How could Jesus be God if he recieves his power from God? Wouldn't God already have that power? How could God be tempted and even die? Didn't God raise Christ from the dead rather than Christ raising himself? I think I might be adding a bit, but it's along the same lines.

But seriously, I would love to hear ideas about how Christ could have shown slight weaknesses that most people think God can't show, and still be God under the surface. I say that not sarcastically, but genuinely. I truly do want to know. This is one aspect of the Trinitarian viewpoint that I haven't quite been able to grasp yet. This bothers me, because there must be some way to understand it if so many believe it. Even if I don't believe it, I should be able to understand why others do. Help me do just that.

[Kyle]

Quote (Phoenix @ Mar. 28 2007,23:57)

I AM with the bible and scriptures. Also I forgot to mention that I AM an openminded person.

And she's also God! She said it not once, but twice!

*don't get mad anyone, I'm just joking around here 😉

[Kyle]

Are you saying that believers are more justified in making that jump from knowlege to belief? Because they have prayer and the Holy Ghost helping them along, whereas an atheist's belief that God doesn't exist is completely dependant on knowelge?

If that's what you're saying then I get the point and I see the difference. But I still think it's a little harsh to say that they can't truly disbelieve God exists just because they can't prove it.

[Kyle]

I found that interesting as well, Phoenix. I never knew that God called his son by that title. Although, I think most would agree that Christ is the creator. Scripture is pretty clear that God created the worlds through his son.

[Kyle]

Ha ha. I'm definitely inclined to agree with you, Nick. I just wanted to point out that Isaiah isn't saying those verses apply only to the Father or only to the Son. His way of thinking asigns them to both, making them both God. Use of common logic would obviously go against this, but it seems to me that logic needs to be thrown out the window (or at least modified) to have a belief in the Trinity.

[Kyle]

I don't think he's saying that they apply only to the Son, but to both. The idea is that that makes them both the one true God.

[Author]

Posts