Posts by FireNBandits

30

HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY and the DUAL NATURES OF CHRIST :-)

by FireNBandits in

i'm not a trinitarian, but i understand the doctrine...oh...as well as such a mysterious doctrine can be understood.

same with chalcedonian orthodoxy, the dual natures of christ.

so, i will herein give you my way of explaining the trinity, etc.. .

FireNBandits

Hello all: Each of you has your own pet agenda. This post isn't the place for it. Start your own thread to disucss your pet agenda. Thanks. This post was simply a mental exercise to imagine how one being can be three persons, nothing more than that. Folks, I just post here to have some fun before facing the world again, not to save the world.

Well, I'm going outisde now to do something utterly pointless. Play some baseball with my nephew.

30

HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY and the DUAL NATURES OF CHRIST :-)

by FireNBandits in

i'm not a trinitarian, but i understand the doctrine...oh...as well as such a mysterious doctrine can be understood.

same with chalcedonian orthodoxy, the dual natures of christ.

so, i will herein give you my way of explaining the trinity, etc.. .

FireNBandits

Hi Terry. That's an interesting post, but utterly unrelated to the purpose of my post, which was merely to show that one can indeed imagine how one Being can manifest as three persons yet remain only One. That's all. You're using my post to sprinboard into something else entirely unrelated. I probably agree with you, but that doesn't make your post relevant to my thread. Thanks. -Martin

30

HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY and the DUAL NATURES OF CHRIST :-)

by FireNBandits in

i'm not a trinitarian, but i understand the doctrine...oh...as well as such a mysterious doctrine can be understood.

same with chalcedonian orthodoxy, the dual natures of christ.

so, i will herein give you my way of explaining the trinity, etc.. .

FireNBandits

Mad Christian...You missed the point othe post. That's kinda...sad. If you recall (if you don't recall, just re-read the first sentence) I said I'm not a Trinitarian. I also said I consider the whole thing to be mythology. My purpose was to help folks open their poorly operating minds...yours comes to mind...and demonstrate how one Being could be manifest as three persons yet really be only one person. Please quote your Bible to someone else, I really don't care. Or, better yet, ignore my posts unless you're going to try to actually UNDERSTAND them rather than scurry along looking for some rerason to quote a bible verse at someone.

30

HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY and the DUAL NATURES OF CHRIST :-)

by FireNBandits in

i'm not a trinitarian, but i understand the doctrine...oh...as well as such a mysterious doctrine can be understood.

same with chalcedonian orthodoxy, the dual natures of christ.

so, i will herein give you my way of explaining the trinity, etc.. .

FireNBandits

Yeah Big, he's apparently none too bright. He must be a GB spy or else why would be be hanging with a bunch of apostates?

30

HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY and the DUAL NATURES OF CHRIST :-)

by FireNBandits in

i'm not a trinitarian, but i understand the doctrine...oh...as well as such a mysterious doctrine can be understood.

same with chalcedonian orthodoxy, the dual natures of christ.

so, i will herein give you my way of explaining the trinity, etc.. .

FireNBandits

Hi Needproof. I'm a thoroughgoing Mythicist, and a friend of Acharya S, the author of Suns of God; Krishna, Buddha, and Christ Unveiled, as well as The Christ Copnspiracy. Methinks you missed the point of the post too, I said I'm not a Trinitarian, but that I was merely giving folks a new way to conceive how such a thing could be possible. -Martin

30

HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY and the DUAL NATURES OF CHRIST :-)

by FireNBandits in

i'm not a trinitarian, but i understand the doctrine...oh...as well as such a mysterious doctrine can be understood.

same with chalcedonian orthodoxy, the dual natures of christ.

so, i will herein give you my way of explaining the trinity, etc.. .

FireNBandits

Thank you James. I Know.

30

HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY and the DUAL NATURES OF CHRIST :-)

by FireNBandits in

i'm not a trinitarian, but i understand the doctrine...oh...as well as such a mysterious doctrine can be understood.

same with chalcedonian orthodoxy, the dual natures of christ.

so, i will herein give you my way of explaining the trinity, etc.. .

FireNBandits

Indeed James Thomas. You are speaking wisely. Do continue. That JW fellow quite missed the entire point, but what else can one expect from those with sub-par intellects?

30

HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY and the DUAL NATURES OF CHRIST :-)

by FireNBandits in

i'm not a trinitarian, but i understand the doctrine...oh...as well as such a mysterious doctrine can be understood.

same with chalcedonian orthodoxy, the dual natures of christ.

so, i will herein give you my way of explaining the trinity, etc.. .

FireNBandits

I'm not a Trinitarian, but I understand the doctrine...oh...as well as such a mysterious doctrine can be understood. Same with Chalcedonian orthodoxy, the Dual Natures of Christ. So, I will herein give you my way of explaining the Trinity, etc.

For the sake of argument let's say that "God" is actually a personal Being as mainstream Christians maintain. This God could zap you and sends you back in time an hour. Then you culd walk up to yourself and carry on a conversation with yourself. Yet, there really is only ONE you, not two, though it would appear there are two of you. Then God could take the "two" and send them back another hour in time. There would then be “three” of you, but really only one. There would be one ousia (OOZ iah, essence) in the three distinct equal persons.

The Dubs I have sprung this on have gotten all bent out of shape and replied, "That's not in the Bible!" I replied, "No s*** Sherlock, but you were asking if the Trinity is taught in the Bible, and if so, how could such a Mystery be understood. So I gave you an illustration!" They remained bent out of shape and left. My illustration is not meant to be taken in such a way that God's three-in-one nature is the result of time travel, m'k? It's merely an illustration meant to open rusty minds to new possibilities, new ways of looking at problems.

As to the dual natures of Christ, this is actually simple when it comes to such matters, comparatively speaking. I don't know why it's worded in such a complex manner. The doctrine boils down to this: When Jesus was a zygote in Mary's womb, he was the same as any other human zygote. No more power or knowledge than any other zygote. Just "sinless.” Yet, at the same time, simultaneously, Jesus also existed as God the Son, an omnipotent omnipresent Spirit filling the universe and heaven. In other words, two simultaneous modes of existence. A human nature and human mode of existence, plus a Divine nature and Divine mode of existence. When Jesus prayed, it was his human nature and mode of existence praying to the Father, or perhaps to his own Divine nature.

Even as an adult human male Jesus didn't have any more power or knowledge than was normal for a man of his time, except when the Father revealed such knowledge to him or imparted power to him. So, these fundie fantasies of Jesus walking around in first century Palestine contemplating quantum mechanics and relativity theory are ridiculous. In his human nature/mode of existence Jesus was a man, and a man of his time. God incarnate, but a man nonetheless. There's always been a STRONG streak of Docetism in Christianity, a belief that the human nature of Jesus wasn't exactly REAL in some way or manner. This was condemned by the early Church as a heresy. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon hammered these problems out, and stated their solution in the Chalcedonian creed. circa 451 AD:

"Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us."

The language is complex but the actual understanding they're trying to impart is fairly simple, comparatively speaking as I said. One of the main problems for non-evangelical Christians who won't accept the Trinity is their strong rationalistic bias. If it doesn't make logical sense it must not be true. Well, what exactly is logical about a talking snake that is really a demon-possessed talking snake in an enchanted garden with two magic trees? That's logica??? There's NOTHING logical about ANY religion UNLESS one bites into its presuppositions. Then of course it has its own INTERNAL logic. But logic per se? No way Jose.

I can further destroy the fundagelical problem with logic by pointing out that light behaves like particles sometimes and like a wave at other times, depending on the experiment. So, the term "wavicles" has been coined. The problem is not solved by thinking of particles moving in waves. That's not it at all. A wave is an oscillation of the whole. A wave on the surface of the ocean is not pieces of ocean moving along the top, but is an oscillating motion of the entire ocean. Have you ever taken a long rug and snapped one end and watched the wave move along the rug? it wasn't "pieces of rug" moving along but an oscillation of the rug itself. The same with light. It is really neither particles nor a wave, nor both. It displays wave behavior under certain conditions and particle behavior under others, but it's actual nature is a mystery. It's completely beyond our logic and reason to grasp fully. Hence, light is referred to as wavicles.

The further one studies relatvity, quantum mechanics, and string theory the less "logical" the universe becomes. "Laws of nature" become statistical probabilities and there are "irrational" paradoxes aplenty. Rather, "supra-rational" in that they are above mere logic and reason. So, Aristotelian logic is not the end all and be all in determining truth. Human logic and reason are inadequate to grasping the true nature of light. How much more inadequate is it to grasping the true nature of God...if in fact such a Being exists? Any God that you can fit into your little mind and "understand" is nothing more than an idol of your imagination, existing only in your head. Made in your own image and likeness.

Leolaia should write a bit about the limitations of human language. Here's a quotation from the Gospel of Philip:

"Names given to worldly things are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is real to what is unreal. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is real, but perceives what is unreal. So also with "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit" and "life" and "light" and "resurrection" and "the Church" and all the rest - people do not perceive what is real but they perceive what is unreal, unless they have come to Know the Real. The names which are heard in the world deceive."

Are you really so foolish as to think you truly comprehend eternity? Or infinity? That by understanding the word "God" you have thereby grasped God? If so you're foolish indeed. God help you.

Martin

P.S. No, I don't accept Chalcedonian orthodoxy either, but not because it's illogical or anything like that. Christ is entirely mythological in my view, so all this is a discussion of interpreting mythology.

29

The Hebrew Text Of The OT -OR- The Septuagint; Which Does GOD Prefer?

by FireNBandits in

the nt writers, when they quote the ot, mainly do so from the lxx, the septuagint.

a majority of the ot quotations in the nt are in fact from the septuagint, only a minority from hebrew.

when the nt writers do use a hebrew text it generally isnt the masoretic text, but another form of the hebrew text.

FireNBandits

Hi Narkissos

"Kiss the Son" is a very strange conjectural emendation no matter what the original reading was. My main point, though, is the overall (not total) rejection of the LXX by todays Christians, starting with the reformers. Clearly the NT writers preferred the LXX to the Hebrew text, and preferred other Hebrew texts to the Masoretic. The kicker, which I didn't include, is the way the NT writers slightly alter the OT texts they're quoting (whether from the LXX or the Hebrew text) so the texts better suit their purposes. If one is going to believe these men were inerrantly and infallibly inspired, that has some important implications for the doctrine of inspiration. Regardless, fundies only tackle issues of little consequence, such as whether or not God wants you to paint your toenails or whatever.

The Hebrew reading of Psalm 2 that I gave is from from a Jewish rabbi's web-site. So I assumed it was accurate.

Parts of the Bible are to me inspired but only in the way that Brahms or Bach were inspired. The human mind touching it's divine core. Epinoia.

Martin

29

The Hebrew Text Of The OT -OR- The Septuagint; Which Does GOD Prefer?

by FireNBandits in

the nt writers, when they quote the ot, mainly do so from the lxx, the septuagint.

a majority of the ot quotations in the nt are in fact from the septuagint, only a minority from hebrew.

when the nt writers do use a hebrew text it generally isnt the masoretic text, but another form of the hebrew text.

FireNBandits

The NT writers, when they quote the OT, mainly do so from the LXX, the Septuagint. A majority of the OT quotations in the NT are in fact from the Septuagint, only a minority from Hebrew. When the NT writers do use a Hebrew text it generally isn’t the Masoretic text, but another form of the Hebrew text. The LXX was the “Bible” used by Christ and the Apostles, as well as the early Church, and this includes the so-called deuterocanonicals, or “second canon” which evangelicals and fundamentalists disparage as “apocrypha.” (My response to these people is, “If it was good enough fer Jesus well then by-cracky it’s good enough fer me!”) It was the Christian reliance on the LXX that led the Jewish people to repudiate the LXX and rely on Hebrew texts. The Christian Church had such success in evangelizing Jews using such books as The Wisdom of Solomon that the Jewish people repudiated the “second canon” and closed their canon, accepting only the thirty nine books that protestants use today.

In other words, protestants, evangelicals, and fundamentalists are not following Christ and the Apostles, but the Jews, in their selection of OT text. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the NT is in fact inspired by God in the manner and extent that evangelicals and fundamentalists insist that it is. Why, then, do these groups insist on using the Masoretic text (for the most part) in clear opposition to Jesus Christ, the Apostles, the other NT authors, and the early Christian Church? (The Roman Catholic Church eventually embraced the Latin Vulgate, but the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church continued using the LXX just as Jesus and the apostles did, right up to the present day.) If you believe the NT is inspired by God and is “inerrant and infallible in the original languages and manuscripts” then by golly that means that Jesus, the Apostles, and the other NT writers WERE INSPIRED BY GOD--INERRANTLY AND INFALLIBLY--IN PREFERRING THE LXX OVER THE HEBREW TEXT!

Why aren’t you following suit? Do you know better than God? Better than Jesus, the Apostles, and the NT writers? If you’re interested, you can download the Apostolic Bible for free. It’s to be found here (Thank you for the link Leolaia):

http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com/

One of the interesting features of the LXX is that it's noticeably more “Messianic” than the Masoretic text. By that I mean the LXX is worded in such a way that more of the OT can be taken in a Messianic way than can the Hebrew text. This is one of the reasons (not the ONLY reason) why the early Christians much preferred it to the Hebrew text, and apparently God Himself concurred as He inspired the NT writers and Jesus Himself to rely mainly on the LXX!

A well known example of the LXX being more “Messianic” than the Masoretic text is the use of the Greek word “parthenos” (virgin) rather than the Hebrew word “almah” (maiden or young woman) when quoting Isaiah, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive…” etc. The NT writer quoted th LXX, not the Hebrew text.

Another example is the LXX of Psalm 2:11-12: “Kiss the Son lest he be angry and ye perish in the way.” The Masoretic Hebrew text merely says: “Do obeisance to purity lest He be angry and you perish.”

These are just two examples. I’m sure Leo and Narkissos can give more, as well as take this topic into the stratosphere.

However, one of the principles of Textual Criticism is that one takes as authentic the reading that best explains the genesis of the variant readings. So, to determine which reading is authentic, we must ask ourselves, Does it make more sense that Psalm 2:11-12 originally read “Kiss the Son” in Hebrew, but because of the Christian church the Jews altered it to “Do obeisance to purity” OR does it make more sense that it originally read “Do obeisance to purity” and the Jews altered it to “Kiss the Son” when they made the LXX? The second scenario does not make much sense at all, whereas the first scenario makes a lot of sense. So, I propose that the LXX better reflects the earliest Hebrew text in this instance. The Masoretic Hebrew text does not. Plus, God Himself concurs with me! I have proof because the Holy Spirit inspired the use of the LXX over and above the Hebrew text!
So, I leave the argument there, but encourage all of you born-againers to familiarize yourself with the LXX, the Bible of Jesus, the Apostles, the other NT writers, and the early Christian Church. (In fact, as I said, the LXX has always been the OT of the Christian East.)

As to the deuterocaonicals, they were universally accepted in the Christian Church, east and west, until Martin Luther (and other "reformers") decided these books needed to be excised from the Bible. Luther alos excised the book of James, which he labeled “an epistle of straw.” Why aren’t you fundamentalists and evangelicals following the early Church as to the deuterocanonicals but are instead following Martin Luther? (BTW Luther was also a rabid anti-Semite and his ravings served as one of the inspirations of Adolph Hitler, who quoted Luther quite often as justification for his treatment of the Jews.)

If one objects to the deuterocanonicals because they aren’t quoted in the NT, well, neither are Esther, Ecclesiastes or the Song of Solomon. Does that make those books uninspired? If not, then neither does it make the deuterocanonicals uninspired. Ya'll cain't have yer cake and eat it too!

Neener neener neener. -Saint Martin of the Motor City.