by Witness 007 343 Replies latest jw experiences
"JESUS can only be who he really was. We cannot know who he "really" was because all we have to go on is hearsay written down as divine."...
maybe those that believe the Biblical accounts...have been inspired (in part) to believe, by those that believed enough to die for their belief. Jesus wasn't such a great mystery to His first devoted followers, sometimes His sayings were hard to understand, but they still believed He was the Saviour.
love michelle
There are thousands of scholars who disagree with you. If you don't look to the Bible for authority, who or what is your authority? It's easy to sit back and pontificate on what you think is the truth, but that doesn't make it so.
Persons who have never experienced a bonafide relationship with Jesus Christ and his Father cannot know the genuineness of the Bible until they do. They cannot know the profound firsthand knowledge of getting prayers truly answered nor undergo the thrilling sensation of having the spirit of God in their lives.
Two things.
First, there aren't thousands of scholars.(Who disagree with me.) There just aren't.
Honest men who study languages and the evidence about scripture come to a crossroads eventually. They either follow the evidence, or, they go in the tank and become apologists.
The scholars you point to and call thousands are really hundreds of men who went down the path of apology. Men like Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus) transform from biblical inerrantists into pragmatic realists and give up the pretense that scripture is divine.
That's the first point.
Now, the second point.
Personal experience...
Personal experience is always subjective. All that means is that you think and feel. If you attribute what you think and feel a kind of supra-reality that goes beyond actual reality--you can believe almost anything you wish.
You can see dead Elvis walking. You can witness Bigfoot strolling through the woods. You can observe the Virgin Mary on a piece of grill cheese sandwich, you can experience Alien probes in UFO's, you can get messages from the dead or even pick out who is gay just by looking at them.
Not meaning to belittle your personal experience, I do wish that you'd take a moment to comprehend with clarity that each person's "personal" experience is at odds with every other person's. That is why we have so many wacky beliefs.
Evidence is evidence for everybody. Personal experience is only good for the one having it.
Saul of Tarsus may well have had a personal experience. But, his invention of Christianity has the ring of hallucination and neo-Platonism more than it has evidentiary verismilitude.
Honestly. Think about it.
bit off-topic now we are discussing trinity not debunking the bible, which if you want to put on as a topic could be interesting terry :) how do you explain pontious pilate stone, the house of david stone etc
We can all invent a God according to our own desires and imagination but I think I personally want something less transcient than that and less self-serving. A God that says I do everything right would be as much fun as a boyfriend that followed me around as a sheep. Jehovah challenges me and my ideals and that is part of his charm and his son Jesus has words of wisdom whose simplicity is mind-blowing.
reniaa
Terry,
Dispute with me if you wish about thousands. All I can tell you is you've never visited a seminary library. More books have been written about Jesus Christ than about any other person. You will probably dispute that too, but it's easy to check out. Ask your local librarian.
I wonder why you think it's okay to frown on Christian "experience" as merely subjective when the most that can be said of your own views is that they are highly subjective. I didn't use the word, but the point of my last entry to you was that your views about the Bible and Jesus Christ are not based upon any credible evidence or sources. Bible believers have at least millions of supporters on their side who can verify that faith in God doesn't go unrewarded. On your side are billions who never put that kind of faith to the test in order to see for themselves.
You wrote:
Saul of Tarsus may well have had a personal experience. But, his invention of Christianity has the ring of hallucination and neo-Platonism more than it has evidentiary verismilitude.
Since that is your opinion, an opinion that is humourous to many who have put the Bible to the test in their lives, couldn't it also be said that you yourself are experiencing the hallucinations you mention? I'm not saying that to be mean or condescending. I just hope you will be honest in your appraisal of yourself.
fjtoth
What Trinitarians overlook, in my view, is the Biblical law of agency. As stated in The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." According to that principle, God the Father has the right to appoint others to represent him as God and to speak to others as if they were God himself. Moses was not God, but we read: "Then the LORD said to Moses, 'See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.'" (Exodus 7:1)
I am familiar with that principle, however as I have mentioned, God alone is to be worshipped. He does not share that with others. The Bible clearly shows Jesus is to be worshipped.
To an even higher degree than the angels, Jesus was "given" absolute authority to act for the One God, his Father. He said, "All authority has been given me." (Matthew 28:18) Jesus did not always possess that authority. He said: "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father." (Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22) Also, "The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand." (John 3:35)
Jesus will not always possess the authority God has "handed over" to him or placed "into His hand." "For He has put all things under His feet. But when He says, 'All things are put in subjection,' it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:27, 28)
Again, you do not understand that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit occupy different positions and roles within the Godhead. All are God by nature, but only the Father is the Father, the Son the Son, and the HS, the HS. You confuse position and being. They occupy different positions within the divine economy but share the same nature, being, and essence. This argument does not present a problem if you understand the Trinity which you do not. I mean this charitably.
And Jesus has not alway been Christ, Lord and God in the sense I've just explained. The angel Gabriel in his announcement of Christ’s birth told Mary that Jesus " will be great and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." (Luke 1:32,33) Jesus was not born as a "great" God. No, the angel said he "will be great." Years later, Peter stated: "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. ... Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ --this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2:22, 23, 36)
He WILL be etc. etc. But to whom? To humanity. Jesus had not been revealed to humanity yet. In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. (Hebrews 1:1, 2)
And Jesus has not alway been Christ, Lord and God in the sense I've just explained.
The Son became Christ in the moment in time when he came among us. But the Son was preexisting. He was always God from the beginning. His glory was preexisting. He was God from the beginning. Here is the text for you again:In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Is that so hard to understand?
I will repeat what I said earlier:
You are using Scripture to argue your point. However, the canon of Scripture was defined by the Church. This was done at the end of the 4th century. It was not done by the Arian goths in the West. It was done by Trinitarians. You are using a book which was put together by people who to you are apostate and fallen away. Think about the irony and contradiction in that and the internal contradiction in your own logic.
I have two questions for you, they reach to the heart of the matter:
Is the Bible the only thing to define what we believe as Christians?
There were many books that claimed to be from God. Many of them are extant but are not part of the Bible. Others are. How do you know which ones belong in Scripture?
Burn
The very first issue to tear the early "church" apart was this discussion about "who"/"what" Jesus' essential self is.
Hint: the division split the church and the split still stands today: Catholic vs Orthodox Church.
East and West did not split over who/what Jesus is. The Orthodox Church is Trinitarian. They split over political differences, iconoclasm, the Filioque (whether the HS proceeds from the Father alone or form the Father and the Son), questions of authority within the Church, and certain liturgical practices such as celibacy and the type of bread used in the Eucharist.
Terry, I only nitpick your threads because you are a smart fellow. ;-)
Burn
Apparently you aren't aware of how other Trinitarians speak of God. In conversations I've had with pastors and missionaries, in books I've read, and in thousands of occurrences on the internet, the triune (3 member) God has been referred to as "the Divine Three." That is in sharp contrast to the Bible which always speaks of God as "One" and never as "Three".
That doesn't matter. You are using that to attack a caricature of the Trinity, not the thing itself. Some people don't have a deep understanding of their own beliefs, you are attacking the misunderstanding, and not the doctrine itself. The one God exists in three Persons. So I don't see what the big deal is calling them the divine three.
Let me ask you a question.
Do you worship Jesus?
Burn
you have one egg. Theres the shell the yoke and the white, in one egg.
you have one egg. Theres the shell the yoke and the white, in one egg.
God is not an egg, otherwise he'd have said I made eggs in my image, he said he made man in his image who is yoke, shell and white free :s
I could pick any item that is made up of three things as an example but that is meaningless, Does an egg have 3 consciousnesses? no niether does man and niether does God,
reniaa
yucca,
you have one egg. Theres the shell the yoke and the white, in one egg.
How is your illustration applicable to three distinct persons? Is the shell a person? Is the yoke a person? Is the white a person?
Your illustration is similar to the one about water. Water can be gaseous, liquid or solid (as ice). But how can anyone see "three persons in one God" in such a loony illustration? Neither gas, nor water, nor ice are persons!
I think your illustration goes to show just how ridiculous the Trinity really is. There is no logical way to explain it, let alone illustrate it. The closest Trinitarians have come is to show a person with three heads, a real mockery of God if ever there was one!
___________________________________________________________________
Oops! Sorry, Reniaa. I should have checked for other entries before I posted my own. Well, I guess repetition is good for emphasis. I appreciate your reasoning and good expressions.
fjtoth
