If God knows everything, Pope is Catholic's Oracle

Thanks okinrus,

So God the father had forsaken God the son(Jesus), any idea what for?

Dave

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Godlied, gettign back to your original post, about all it would do is provide evidence that the Catholic church is wrong.

Trees in a forest make better lumber than a tree on a plain.

So when Jesus was baptized, he was physically in three places at once? I believe they are three seperate and distinct beings. Athiests, don't bother to answer, you ridicule the faith that leads to knowledge of these things.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jesus is using forsaken in the context of <a href="http://www.ewtn.com/vbible/search.asp?abbr=Ps&ch=22&bv1=1&ev1=32">psalm 22</a>. By death, Jesus considered himself forsaken just as David does. However in the end, "I will offer praise in the great assembly; my vows I will fulfill before those who fear him. The poor will eat their fill; those who seek the LORD will offer praise. May your hearts enjoy life forever!"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We know that Jesus is in our hearts.

I believe that they are distinct enough to differentiate between themselves and Jesus uses terminology that would refer to the Advocate and the Father as seperate persons but still One. We cannot consider them 3 seperate gods though. There's just too many passages which say that God is One and worship only one God in heaven so Jesus must be just one person in the Godhead. The Son does the will of the Father and Father gives whatever the Son askes of him.

 

God the Father, God the Sun

If Jesus actually hung on a cross (which I doubt), it is alleged that he looked up to "heaven" and uttered these Aramaic words, "Eli, Eli, Sabacthani(sp)," which is supposed to mean, "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" As I mentioned in an earlier post tonight, Jesus was a magician and astrologer as pointed out in a book I'm reading. The name "Eli" (El=God) is taken from the word "helios" (the sun). As any good Xian will tell you, it can get pretty darn hot in Hell (another word from "helios" or Eli=God). Therefore, I'm beginning to get a clear picture of Jesus the astrologer.

 

I never said there were threegods, just three personages. If you look at that, I can show yo useveral passages where they refer to multiple gods, but that doesn't mean it's true. It's true if the Holy Ghost tells you it's true. God and Jesus have bodies of flesh and blood. The HG is a spirit so he can dwell in our hearts and minds, and guide us.

 

I agree.

Dave

 

Re: God the Father, God the Sun

Ok so we are looking at Jesus as an astrologer? I don't see how that can fit. Jesus is God and God created the stars and the Earth and the sun. So why would God turn to his own creation for guidence? God made the stars, he knows there true purpose better that we ever will. Why would he copy the things of this world and look to stars for answers. It just doesn't make sence.

 

*Sarcastically*
He was rolling his eyes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re: Re: God the Father, God the Sun

I don't think much of what medicine woman said made sense.

Dave

 

Re: Re: Re: God the Father, God the Sun

 

Jenyar,

I have many issues with your analysis and I have only quoted part of it here.

The rationale behind the existence of Jesus was that he had to come to save us from our sinful nature. The first question must be where and why did we develop a sinful nature.

If the A & E story is literal then it would seem that Adam gave in to temptation and disobeyed God. But there is a paradox in the genesis story since it was the tree that gave the knowledge of good and evil that was forbidden. The catch-22 is that Adam could not have known it was bad to disobey (to sin) before he had eaten and gained the knowledge to tell good from bad. No Christian has been able to satisfactorily explain this yet. It is really just a poorly considered piece of fiction so I propose we ignore it.

If we consider A & E as symbolic and ignore the paradoxical aspect of the story, then the story implies that man has an overtly easy tendency to be tempted and to give in to that temptation. But isn’t this God’s problem since in this scenario man was designed by God in his image? The essentially sinful nature of man right from the beginning appears to be a serious design flaw. Why must man be held responsible for that?

Let’s say that there isn’t a flaw in the design in which case why would man choose actions that would cause him and the rest of humanity so much pain and agony? Isn’t this an issue of poor education? If God had adequately instructed man on the serious consequences of sinning then he would be able to avoid sinning altogether. The issue in this scenario is that God is an inadequate educator.

If we forget A & E altogether and agree that man evolved then it is not difficult to see that man’s nature is in a state of development and is still influenced heavily by primeval and primitive instincts. Our solution will be from science through psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience. The issue of sinning of course is meaningless since to sin means to disobey God, and if we evolved then he wouldn’t be our creator and we would owe him no allegiance.

Any way you look at the issue of sin or original sin that is used to justify the existence of Jesus and Christianity we always find that God must be the route cause or more likely doesn’t exist and that the basis of Christianity is fraudulent. This of course, needless to say, completely invalidates Mystee’s claims.

 

Dr Lou,

Certainly but that isn’t the issue here. What Mystee was implying was that God’s creation is all good.

As for the rest, yup the planet and life is still evolving on the basis of survival of the fittest.

 

Mystee,

Sounds good. So who was Jesus talking to when he was on Earth? He allegedly prayed many times, and when he was on the cross and asked why God had forsaken him, then was he just idly talking to himself or was he in need of psychiatric help, I hear schizophrenia is a real bummer?

Or is it more likely that the bible authors and editors didn’t fully appreciate the issue of the OT stating clearly only one god and now we clearly have two or more. The real big problem when writing mythology that isn’t based on fact is that inconsistencies easily crop up. The Nicene farce then created the Trinity story in the desperate hope of resolving the paradox, it didn’t. Christianity seems to effectively have 5 gods, father, son, ghost, Mary, and Satan.

That isn’t the issue. How does sinning cause a new born baby to die of leukemia?

 

Cris,

They were tempted by Satan, and for that he was 1)punished and 2)hell was created for his destruction.
au contraire about the tree of knowledge... Since they had no concept of good or evil, their obedience to their creator should have been natural and complete with nothing to distract it. This is probably where Faith was born - when you are young and your parents tell you not to do something, you have to believe them or not. I know "I didn't know it was wrong" didn't hold up against my parents... Whatever Adam and Eve lacked, they certainly knew God and owed Him their existence and loyalty.

Man is responsible for the choice. The consequences for the real Tempter was hell. Unfortunately, A&E chose to lie, hide and accuse instead of coming clean. They knew the difference between good and bad by that time. The natural consequence of their stealing from God and nature was having to give something back (labour and sacrifice). But God made it possible to still have a relationship with him even though we had become tainted by sin and unable to be in His presence anymore.

We are still put before that choice. The problem is that some people have ceased having any relationship with God, and persue sin as if they were the devil themselves. Whether we resist temptation or give in to it is still a direct reflection on our obedience to God. That it isn't easy to always resist temptation is a fact - which is why we need God's leadership, grace and salvation that much more.

The simple answer is that we chose/choose to listen to 1)lies 2)ourselves and 3)not God. The truth is that it probably isn't causing people more "pain and agony" now than it did then. As Mystee said, we mostly aren't aware of all the consequences. But the consequences of deceit, immorality, hatred, etc. we should recognize by now - yet there still are people who don't, or simply have no qualms over their role in the pain and suffering of others.

Some teachers would tell you that an educator is only as good as his pupils' eyes and ears.

It often surprises me to see how all "advancements" in the fields you mention point to things some understood intuitively. Morality vs. AIDS, good parentage vs. abuse, love vs. hate. The difference usually lies in the way we define it as opposed to the way the Bible defines it. Humanity are still a long way away from "ripping off the limb that causes you to sin" or recognizing "adultery by looking at a woman lustfully". I am a lay student of psychology myself, and agree with the Biblical perspective "know thyself" . We are advancing to a moral prespective on a human situation that shows less and less repect for moral virtues. Some religions and many people (especially parents) overcorrect by making rules and laws to preserve what they perceive as lost. Refer to the laws of the OT... it all serves to point out what we understand as wrong. As Paul said: "The Law exposes sin".

It seems to me that we are filling the gap left by practise with knowledge and overcorrecting enforcement/indoctrination.

If we don't return to God, there is no way we will ever achieve these ideals. If only because we are in denial about what is wrong. Unfortutely since their is no Politically Correct way of finding God, we substitute "salvation" with other gods: ourselves (through whatever kind of enligtenment), others (through whatever kind of indoctrination or force) and yes, even our perception of God changes to serve our will.

Jesus is the Word of God become flesh (Cris, was it you who pointed out my interspersed religious affirmations? Just my version of subliminal messaging

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) As a physical being, Jesus was "less" than God by nature, but not in authority or essence. As a mortal man, he had to use language, pray, have faith. That is what makes him such a perfect example. God's association with humanity became complete to the last detail - this makes it so much more significant that he chose to be a servant, enduring suffering and sadness, and had enough faith in God to follow His will even until it feeled as if God had indeed forsaken Him (a feeling everybody can identify with).

But in retrospect we know that God had not forsaken Jesus, but raised Him from death and glorified him. With this knowledge, our faith has been made complete, because we know something as history, which Jesus and everybody before him could only know by faith - that God has shown us mercy and promised salvation.

 

The experience of God since Genesis, when YHWH was only one among many gods, has only become more consistent and particular. Our knowledge of the God of Israel culminated in Jesus Christ.

But knowledge is not the thing known. The map is not the territory... What Christians understand about the Trinity of God was neccesitated by of a growing body of knowledge about one God. No more. If Jesus was a "competing god", He would not have prayed to the God of David. If Jesus was merely human, He would not have said: "I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, but I know him because I am from him and he sent me." (John 7) or "before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58)

 

"Another member of the religious meme complex is called faith. It means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence. The story of doubting Thomas is told, not so that we shall admire Thomas, but so that we can admire the other apostles in comparison. Thomas demanded evidence. Nothing is more lethal for certain kinds of meme than a tendency to look for evidence. The other apostles, whose faith was so strong that they did not need evidence, are held up to us as worthy imitation. The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.

Blind faith can justify anything. If a man believes in a different god, or even if he uses a different ritual for worshipping the same god, blind faith can decree that he should die---on the cross, at the stake, skewered on a Crusader's sword, shot in a Beirut street, or blown up in a bar in Belfast. Memes for blind faith have their own ruthless ways of propagating themselves. This is also true of patriotic and political as well as religious blind faith."

Source: the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins

 

This is not true though. Never does the Bible say "Thomas doubted and so no one liked him any more, but the other 10 believed without proof so they were seen as better." what it does say is

Mark 16:14
Jesus latter appered to the 11 as they were eating; He rebuked them for their lack of faith and stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

and

John 20:29
29 Then Jesus told [Thomas], "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not see and yet have believed."
30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.'

So not only was Thomas still a great apostle even through his doubt, but because we have not seen Jesus in the flesh we will be blessed if we still believe.

Christ's love,

Mystee

 

Mystee,

But Richard was not claiming that.

The story of doubting Thomas is told, not so that we shall admire Thomas, but so that we can admire the other apostles in comparison.

and from your quote -

John 29 Then Jesus told [Thomas], "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Jesus remains neutral towards Thomas but congratulates the others for having faith. The implication and message is that having faith is better than asking for evidence.

Which is what Richard is saying –

The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry."

I am also reminded of Martin Luther's famous statement:

 

Jesus forsaken

okinrus, surely, a died in the wool, Bible-thumping Xian like you should know that, of all people, Jesus (allegedly) was on the cross when he cried out "eli, eli, sabachthani" (in Aramaic), which (translated into English), is "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This was supposed to have been cried out by Jesus as such a poignant expression of his total failure on Earth (also alleged). His last words were "it is finished." His (alleged) purpose for coming to Earth, for being put into the (alleged) position (as savior) he was in, to fail his purpose (alleged) in such an undignified manner, that when Jesus said, "it is finished," he meant just that! That's all folks--I'm outta here--go save your own asses!