Knight Of Shadows Posted May 4, 2012 Author #126 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Given as how the US government considers a corporation a person, I thought of a corporation as a frame of reference. You RavenHawk have caused these strange thoughts, lol. God Inc. Chairmen of the Board - Ancient of Days President - Jesus Christ Board Members - Angelic hosts of heaven. Share holder lists include mega-churches to smaller individual personal believers. Corporate ideology - Holy Spirit Mission statement - World peace, justice, mercy, and increased quality of life. hahaha .. no comment but it's funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Shadows Posted May 4, 2012 Author #127 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Hi Knight. I think what you are failing to see and understand is that Jesus is both an individual and God. The Bible does indeed reference Jesus in both of these terms. I think you are "cherry-picking" quotes that try to prove your point, without understanding everything as a whole (you are apparently unwilling to accept that Jesus can be both human and God - in other words for you its either/or not both). Jesus is the living manifestation of the divine on Earth. Jesus is the physical embodiment of God. He is a man while at the same time He is God. As a man, He must be human (ie. He must sleep, eat, feel pain, etc.) But at the exact same time (and this is what Mr. Walker pointed out), Jesus also has that connection to God that allows him to have special powers and knowledge of people/places/events/etc. As a man, Jesus is dependent on God for everything (just as we are - we depend on God to heal our sick friends, comfort us in our time of need, etc). As God Jesus is able to heal the sick, raise the dead, create fish, calm storms and and any other control over our temporal/physical universe. Jesus even forgives sin in someone, which is something only God himself can do. Jesus knows WHO and WHAT He is and clearly states this in the relevant passages. Several people in this thread have given you examples of how this is possible, and for some reason you refuse to accept the postulation that Jesus can be both human and divine even though the Bible clearly points out both. I agree with Jor-el that you are basing your argument on your preconceived notions. I'm off for the night and will read your (and others) responses tomorrow. actually i did linked between things in the bible as whole.. and it even proves me right further on say look at my post above directed to raven and see how linking between two lines in the bible regarding jesus being a servant of god .. and a servant cannot be greater than the master it even proves me further on that jesus wasn't the god and yes i heard that jesus is manifest of god on earth but also the bible reject that god can dwell on earth .. or a human body of curroption can endure god again already posted the prove lines from the bible to raven look at one post above we'll discuss more when you read the rest of my case and proves coming from the bible nice to meet you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted May 4, 2012 #128 Share Posted May 4, 2012 can you refuse lines from the bible because they didn't fit your mindset ? What mindset would that be? That you can't cherry-pick your way through the verses, keeping the ones you like, and leaving all the rest? Yes, I refuse cherry-picked lines. This approach consistently misrepresents what any author is saying. As I have pointed out more than once, just looking at the immediately preceding and succeeding lines defeats many of your examples, never mind looking at the whole Gospel in question. say you think the bible is not right on some passages ? Actually, I think you're not right on some passages. As I mentioned up front, I am an agnostic. I care that the sources of the Trinitarian position be described fairly and accurately, so they can be discussed fruitfully. Whether the position is true or not is for those who believe it to argue. So far, you're still working on portraying its sources accurately. You have a way to go. and i take every line of it as fact for my debate No, that's not what you do. You don't take every line, you take just the ones you like, see above. Now, you refuse to read what the majority of Christians believe, the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. You then dictate to all Christians what you think they should believe, because you've read a carefully selected smattering of Bible verses. How does that not make you arrogant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthexposes Posted May 4, 2012 #129 Share Posted May 4, 2012 When Jesus was baptized, the heavens open up and a loud voice said "this is my son, whom I have approved" Jesus mad it very clear that he did not come here to do his will, but the will of his father. It's interesting about the trinity, all people have to do is look up the origin of this doctrine in the library and they will find that 400 years after Jesus and his apostles died Constantine implemented pagan philosphies and true christianity together and out came a mix bag of teachings that Jesus never taught including the trinity. It is also noted that Jesus warned his followers that a great apostasy would take place once he left earth to go back to his father. "Only Begotten" son means directly produced. Our creator before he created anything created Jesus and together worked alongside of each other to create the heavens and the earth. Very simple logic according to the scriptures. There is no mystery about God's word, he wants us to know about him and his purpose for the earh and his kingdom ruled by his son Jesus Christ from his heavenly throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Shadows Posted May 4, 2012 Author #130 Share Posted May 4, 2012 What mindset would that be? That you can't cherry-pick your way through the verses, keeping the ones you like, and leaving all the rest? Yes, I refuse cherry-picked lines. This approach consistently misrepresents what any author is saying. As I have pointed out more than once, just looking at the immediately preceding and succeeding lines defeats many of your examples, never mind looking at the whole Gospel in question. Actually, I think you're not right on some passages. As I mentioned up front, I am an agnostic. I care that the sources of the Trinitarian position be described fairly and accurately, so they can be discussed fruitfully. Whether the position is true or not is for those who believe it to argue. So far, you're still working on portraying its sources accurately. You have a way to go. No, that's not what you do. You don't take every line, you take just the ones you like, see above. Now, you refuse to read what the majority of Christians believe, the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. You then dictate to all Christians what you think they should believe, because you've read a carefully selected smattering of Bible verses. How does that not make you arrogant? well am trying to prove a point so am not gonna take lines that talk about battles etc etc etc beside .. let me guess .. so if those lines does not fit with the trinity concept they should be left out ? just because they conflict with the trinity any one is look at them is simply cherry-picking ? like they're not part of the bible ? what lines you ever gave to defeat my lines and if such lines exist how are they suppose to defeat other lines from the bible .. god knows there's only one line who some one made me drop which was jesus last words was a song .. that's the only line that was logically defeated by some one and the funny thing is .. i didn't even post every line i have so I AM cheery picking .. but through the long list of proves i have from the bible you think those are the only lines in the bible refuse jesus being a god ? wait more and you'll see i have read what the majoritiy says .. but only because the majority disagree with me it doesn't mean i have no case or proves am not trying to tell anyone what to believe it's obvious i said no such thing debate is not the problem .. the problem when you unable to win a debate you accuse people of things it was only a debate and i've never told anyone to follow what i think that's you assuming so i have a point .. i brought my proves from the bible and we debate you keep saying i picked few lines from the bible that fit my point .. of course i did ! you want me to post the whole bible here ?! i pick the lines that proves my point .. am not gonna post about turning water to wine while trying to debate the trinity ! come on you're smart than that it's A debate ! there suppose to be two sides otherwise it wouldn't be a debate and to final question .. no a debate does not make me arrogant but failure to debate and make it personal when i fail to prove my point .. that's arrogant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Shadows Posted May 4, 2012 Author #131 Share Posted May 4, 2012 When Jesus was baptized, the heavens open up and a loud voice said "this is my son, whom I have approved" Jesus mad it very clear that he did not come here to do his will, but the will of his father. It's interesting about the trinity, all people have to do is look up the origin of this doctrine in the library and they will find that 400 years after Jesus and his apostles died Constantine implemented pagan philosphies and true christianity together and out came a mix bag of teachings that Jesus never taught including the trinity. It is also noted that Jesus warned his followers that a great apostasy would take place once he left earth to go back to his father. "Only Begotten" son means directly produced. Our creator before he created anything created Jesus and together worked alongside of each other to create the heavens and the earth. Very simple logic according to the scriptures. There is no mystery about God's word, he wants us to know about him and his purpose for the earh and his kingdom ruled by his son Jesus Christ from his heavenly throne. ok i can accept that jesus is the son of god but as to jesus is god him self seems far fetched according to the bible he maybe a son of god that'll make more sense than being a god him self because the bible clearly dismiss this concept therefore you mention jesus came to made the will of his father .. also the bible said so and did copy the line from the bible and put it here not to mention all other lines that jesus states he's unable to do things on his own just look at these lines << Luke 22:43 >> An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. --------------- << Jeremiah 10:10 >> But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he is angry, the earth trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath. -------------- so if the lord is the true god .. power enough to give him that describtions that trembles the earth would that lord .. need an angel to strengthen him ? a definition in words that when something strenghten me .. it means am weak and then jesus was god but he was weak ? and needed an angel ? still the bible states and describe god with such powerful words up there that can only mean jesus wasn't really the god otherwise he wouldn't need an angel " a creation of his " to make him stronger and who sent the angel to him ? if he was god and reliaze everything and know everything he wouldn't need the angel to strengthen him thanks for your comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. K. Posted May 4, 2012 #132 Share Posted May 4, 2012 so if the lord is the true god .. power enough to give him that describtions that trembles the earth would that lord .. need an angel to strengthen him ? a definition in words that when something strenghten me .. it means am weak and then jesus was god but he was weak ? and needed an angel ? still the bible states and describe god with such powerful words up there that can only mean jesus wasn't really the god otherwise he wouldn't need an angel " a creation of his " to make him stronger and who sent the angel to him ? if he was god and reliaze everything and know everything he wouldn't need the angel to strengthen him You are not taking into account that Jesus was inhabiting a biological human body at that time, and was facing a tremendous physical and spiritual ordeal. How do you interpret John 1:1-14? 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it. 6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. and ... Do you understand what we mean by God existing outside of the time and space that humans inhabit? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted May 4, 2012 #133 Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) beside .. let me guess .. so if those lines does not fit with the trinity conceptthey should be left out Guess again. The lines that you think conflict with Trinitarian doctrine should be read along with the rest of the passages you, or islam answers dot com, yanked them out of. The passages don't conflict with Trinitarian doctrine, they only conflict with your ideas. You still refuse to read even the briefest description of the Triniatrian position, the Creeds. Where's the surprise that you think there's some kind of conflict, when there isn't any? have read what the majoritiy says .. but only because the majority disagree with me it doesn't mean i have no case or proves am not trying to tell anyone what to believe it's obvious i said no such thing Quite so, the reason why you have no case is that you've cherry picked. Neither the majority nor the minority accepts that kind of thing. Where the majority comes in is to tell you that you haven't even scratched the surface of the Deposit of the Faith if all you've read is the Bible. And, as mentioned, you aren't offering the Bible. You're offering the Islam Cheerleader's Condensed Version®. i pick the lines that proves my point .. Well, at least you try to prove your point that way, and I do appreciate your honesty about how you debate. am not gonna post about turning water to wine while trying to debate the trinity ! come on you're smart than that OK, I see you've found chapter 2. Try the page or two before that. The conversation about John's view of the divinity of Jesus begins with chapter 1. Edited May 4, 2012 by eight bits 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artaxerxes Posted May 4, 2012 #134 Share Posted May 4, 2012 It has to do with this. By the way, the following essay is NOT copywrited so it is okay to copy and paste it. The New Testament is full of parallels to the holographic universe theory. The trinity "God in three persons" has a very holographic, oneness, connectedness flavor to it. The following essay is fascinating by the way. The Universe as a Hologram Michael Talbot Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm? In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science. Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations. University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram. To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser. To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears. The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole. The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes. This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something. To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case. This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality. Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram. In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected. The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky. Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web. In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order. At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past. What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is." | Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a "mere stage" beyond which lies "an infinity of further development". Bohm is not the only researcher who has found evidence that the universe is a hologram. Working independently in the field of brain research, Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram has also become persuaded of the holographic nature of reality. Pribram was drawn to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories are stored in the brain. For decades numerous studies have shown that rather than being confined to a specific location, memories are dispersed throughout the brain. In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious "whole in every part" nature of memory storage. Then in the 1960s Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram. Pribram's theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little space. It has been estimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information during the average human lifetime (or roughly the same amount of information contained in five sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica). Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage--simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information. Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word "zebra", you do not have to clumsily sort back through some gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like "striped", "horselike", and "animal native to Africa" all pop into your head instantly. Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information--another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with every other portion, it is perhaps nature's supreme example of a cross-correlated system. The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions. Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions. An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists. Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability. Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism. Pribram's belief that our brains mathematically construct "hard" reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support. It has been found that each of our senses is sensitive to a much broader range of frequencies than was previously suspected. Researchers have discovered, for instance, that our visual systems are sensitive to sound frequencies, that our sense of smell is in part dependent on what are now called "osmic frequencies", and that even the cells in our bodies are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies. Such findings suggest that it is only in the holographic domain of consciousness that such frequencies are sorted out and divided up into conventional perceptions. But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion. We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram. This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature. Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many para-psychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm. In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level. It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolved puzzles in psychology. In particular, Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness. In the 1950s, while conducting research into the beliefs of LSD as a psychotherapeutic tool, Grof had one female patient who suddenly became convinced she had assumed the identity of a female of a species of prehistoric reptile. During the course of her hallucination, she not only gave a richly detailed description of what it felt like to be encapsuled in such a form, but noted that the portion of the male of the species's anatomy was a patch of colored scales on the side of its head. What was startling to Grof was that although the woman had no prior knowledge about such things, a conversation with a zoologist later confirmed that in certain species of reptiles colored areas on the head do indeed play an important role as triggers of sexual arousal. The woman's experience was not unique. During the course of his research, Grof encountered examples of patients regressing and identifying with virtually every species on the evolutionary tree (research findings which helped influence the man-into-ape scene in the movie Altered States). Moreover, he found that such experiences frequently contained obscure zoological details which turned out to be accurate. Regressions into the animal kingdom were not the only puzzling psychological phenomena Grof encountered. He also had patients who appeared to tap into some sort of collective or racial unconscious. Individuals with little or no education suddenly gave detailed descriptions of Zoroastrian funerary practices and scenes from Hindu mythology. In other categories of experience, individuals gave persuasive accounts of out-of-body journeys, of precognitive glimpses of the future, of regressions into apparent past-life incarnations. In later research, Grof found the same range of phenomena manifested in therapy sessions which did not involve the use of drugs. Because the common element in such experiences appeared to be the transcending of an individual's consciousness beyond the usual boundaries of ego and/or limitations of space and time, Grof called such manifestations "transpersonal experiences", and in the late '60s he helped found a branch of psychology called "transpersonal psychology" devoted entirely to their study. Although Grof's newly founded Association of Transpersonal Psychology garnered a rapidly growing group of like-minded professionals and has become a respected branch of psychology, for years neither Grof or any of his colleagues were able to offer a mechanism for explaining the bizarre psychological phenomena they were witnessing. But that has changed with the advent of the holographic paradigm. As Grof recently noted, if the mind is actually part of a continuum, a labyrinth that is connected not only to every other mind that exists or has existed, but to every atom, organism, and region in the vastness of space and time itself, the fact that it is able to occasionally make forays into the labyrinth and have transpersonal experiences no longer seems so strange. The holographic prardigm also has implications for so-called hard sciences like biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces consciousness. Rather, it is consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain -- as well as the body and everything else around us we interpret as physical. Such a turnabout in the way we view biological structures has caused researchers to point out that medicine and our understanding of the healing process could also be transformed by the holographic paradigm. If the apparent physical structure of the body is but a holographic projection of consciousness, it becomes clear that each of us is much more responsible for our health than current medical wisdom allows. What we now view as miraculous remissions of disease may actually be due to changes in consciousness which in turn effect changes in the hologram of the body. Similarly, controversial new healing techniques such as visualization may work so well because in the holographic domain of thought images are ultimately as real as "reality". Even visions and experiences involving "non-ordinary" reality become explainable under the holographic paradigm. In his book "Gifts of Unknown Things," biologist Lyall Watson discribes his encounter with an Indonesian shaman woman who, by performing a ritual dance, was able to make an entire grove of trees instantly vanish into thin air. Watson relates that as he and another astonished onlooker continued to watch the woman, she caused the trees to reappear, then "click" off again and on again several times in succession. Although current scientific understanding is incapable of explaining such events, experiences like this become more tenable if "hard" reality is only a holographic projection. Perhaps we agree on what is "there" or "not there" because what we call consensus reality is formulated and ratified at the level of the human unconscious at which all minds are infinitely interconnected. If this is true, it is the most profound implication of the holographic paradigm of all, for it means that experiences such as Watson's are not commonplace only because we have not programmed our minds with the beliefs that would make them so. In a holographic universe there are no limits to the extent to which we can alter the fabric of reality. What we perceive as reality is only a canvas waiting for us to draw upon it any picture we want. Anything is possible, from bending spoons with the power of the mind to the phantasmagoric events experienced by Castaneda during his encounters with the Yaqui brujo don Juan, for magic is our birthright, no more or less miraculous than our ability to compute the reality we want when we are in our dreams. Indeed, even our most fundamental notions about reality become suspect, for in a holographic universe, as Pribram has pointed out, even random events would have to be seen as based on holographic principles and therefore determined. Synchronicities or meaningful coincidences suddenly makes sense, and everything in reality would have to be seen as a metaphor, for even the most haphazard events would express some underlying symmetry. Whether Bohm and Pribram's holographic paradigm becomes accepted in science or dies an ignoble death remains to be seen, but it is safe to say that it has already had an influence on the thinking of many scientists. And even if it is found that the holographic model does not provide the best explanation for the instantaneous communications that seem to be passing back and forth between subatomic particles, at the very least, as noted by Basil Hiley, a physicist at Birbeck College in London, Aspect's findings "indicate that we must be prepared to consider radically new views of reality". http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Shadows Posted May 4, 2012 Author #135 Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) Guess again. The lines that you think conflict with Trinitarian doctrine should be read along with the rest of the passages you, or islam answers dot com, yanked them out of. The passages don't conflict with Trinitarian doctrine, they only conflict with your ideas. You still refuse to read even the briefest description of the Triniatrian position, the Creeds. Where's the surprise that you think there's some kind of conflict, when there isn't any? Quite so, the reason why you have no case is that you've cherry picked. Neither the majority nor the minority accepts that kind of thing. Where the majority comes in is to tell you that you haven't even scratched the surface of the Deposit of the Faith if all you've read is the Bible. And, as mentioned, you aren't offering the Bible. You're offering the Islam Cheerleader's Condensed Version®. Well, at least you try to prove your point that way, and I do appreciate your honesty about how you debate. OK, I see you've found chapter 2. Try the page or two before that. The conversation about John's view of the divinity of Jesus begins with chapter 1. clearly you try to bring up islam as result of inability to keep up with the discussions and debate which were strictly based on the bible so i think i'll just thank you for your time .. and wish you the best and in case you're up for debate without mixing topics with each other .. am here if not .. please address my points and not me . for i have only taken parts of the bible and as i stated i haven't written it so please don't pin blame your inablity to keep on my person or background i haven't mentioned the word quran or islam in this topic once " without being addressed or asked by someone " so thank you .. see you later Edited May 4, 2012 by Knight Of Shadows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted May 4, 2012 #136 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Part I: well what you mean not for me ? i have not yet posted anything or viewed anything based on my own faith am only reviewing the bible's words .. nothing more nothing less you can consider me an agnositc if that's more suitable to you while we in this debate That is what I was pointing out. You do view it colored with your background. And this is not meant as an attack on you. It doesn’t matter if you are an agnostic or not. You had some kind of exposure to some kind of religion in your rearing and it doesn’t appear to be Christian. because am not using in my debate anything from other than christianty and the bible if i was christians i will view things different ? you mean " my own view " will be different but the bible is always the same so what will change is not the bible's words what will change will be my own view of it .. so again am not mistaken here You’re using your own understanding of the Bible on perhaps the most complex and complicated concept there is. It’s not like reading the Ten Commandments and clearly understanding what it means. You really can’t take the TC out of context. Indeed, the Bible is always the same, but you are not understanding what you read. This is not an attack on you, but several here have tried to correct you. You’re mistaken on what you are trying to prove. and now you accuse me of attacking the faith because you can't argue with me ? No, I have not. I’m just telling you how you come across to many here. I asked it as a question. I do apologize if you thought I was attacking you. I was not. As far as arguing with you, it is quite easy to because you are not learning. listen these quotes are not made by me .. they were in the bible i just happen to post them here if you find it hard to debate with me no one is forcing you .. Yes, I know they are not made by you. But you are cherry picking them. Taking them out of context. You have shown verses where, in your mind, Jesus is subordinate. And you’ve been shown by others where verses from the very same Bible show Jesus is GOD, but you seem to ignore these. Why? At the very least you should understand that both exist. There is no abrogation here. But for the sake of argument, let’s say you are right, then what is your Biblical proof that your verses that show that Jesus is subordinate to GOD abrogates those verses that show that Jesus and GOD are one? beside no one accused me of being offensive other than you of course .. No, I didn’t accuse you of being offensive. I only assumed that you used deodorant this morning… i show great respect during my debate and it's free of insults all of my posts shows qoutes from the bible .. if you consider THAT offenseive .. that's your problem not mine .. Yes, you are showing quotes from the Bible. And I do not consider that offensive. But some verses you do not understand the context and when corrected, you turn around and say that you are winning the argument. You are cherry picking and losing. sorry about that and of course i got motive it's a debate i got point it's eiather proved wrong or right you are familiar with the debate concept aren't you ? Yes, I am familiar with the debate concept as is everyone else here. That is why I question your motive here. It is just not clear and I think others see that too. I’m beginning to think that you are not aware of it, but you have been losing. But the thing is that I don’t think anyone here cares about winning or losing. We’re more concerned that you just aren’t getting it. listen you spending too much talking about me instead of addressing the point at hands i think you should forget about me .. and post about the topic instead Actually, that is incorrect. I probably have about three paragraphs in two posts where I question your motives (none of them attacks). But understanding your mindset is an important part of this. But it is you that drags out spending too much time on yourself. Half of this reply has been in reply to that. now to address the part of your post that actually talk about the topic : you saying jesus is god existed before and the son is just role he played i can easily argue with that based on the bible's words jesus is not a god and does not hold the attributes of god .. in the bible << Luke 22:43 >> An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. --------------- so does this exactly mean that an angel is stronger than jesus " which the trinity suggest he's a god " ?! could an angel " created " by god is stronger than him .. and why would god need to see angel to get stronger ? this doesn't seem like god at all No, this does not mean that an angel is stronger than Jesus. But it’s a great example. Looking at context will help understanding. Jesus is about to be arrested. He knows what is coming. The human part is experiencing anxiety. Have you ever experienced being far from home and under hardship but you see a familiar face from home? It gives you strength. Same thing going on here. The angel is comforting him and giving him strength (or that Jesus is taking strength from this encounter) so that the flesh can complete his mission. Jesus is in a very vulnerable position and as GOD has never felt this way before. He is about to experience the ultimate truth in human existence – death. It is at this time that GOD is perhaps the closest to his creation (us). He now understands what it is to be human. It is more than some cosmic mathematical formula. Matthew 26:36-46, Mark 14:32-42, Luke 22:39-46, and John 17 are all the companion verses. Here you see Jesus talking to GOD as a subordinate (hierarchy) But in John 17, you see verses like 17:10 “All I have is yours, and all you have is mine” and 17:21-23 “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me.” When you take all of this together, it combines the two concepts together. There is no abrogation. But the Bible does say there is equality. now .. carrying on you again say that God or the father is not superior to jesus Superior only in the sense of Hierarchy (roles). That which is attributed to GOD is higher than that which is attributed to Jesus. Not in the sense that Jesus is subordinate to GOD. and again i can argue with that using the bible as prove that jesus admits being servant of god this the line i posted before << Acts 3:13 >> The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. -------------- so how come if jesus god .. he was also glorified by god Jesus is glorified by GOD because Jesus is GOD. and he's a servant of god ? This is a reference to the good servant. It does not mean slave. A servant in this sense is much more than a slave. I.e. Simonides (Sam Jaffe) in the movie “Ben-Hur”. The good servant is of the same thought, mind, and action as the master as if they are one. And indeed they are. This is probably a good example of how they relate as far as roles go and also how they are one. don't you think it's far fetch ? but looks to me that this part of bible suggest that jesus is mere servant for god .. and another line suggest that a servant never good as master It’s not farfetched at all if you are trying to understand it. Are you trying to understand it? You are adding “mere”. See what I mean with the parlor story?? You don’t get it and you turned servant into a slave because you are cherry picking. << John 13:16 >> I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. ------------ i already posted this but you didn't bother to read so i have to post them again so there is not real equality between them " bible says " I haven’t read all of them and the ones I have, I thought that the op had adequately responded to you. Again, your quote is taken out of context and this is why. This verse is part of the event when Jesus washes the disciple’s feet. If you look at the pertinent passage, John 13:12-17 “When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.” Jesus was teaching them humility but also showing that if you are a leader, you are a servant of those that you lead. That also explains why you may see the term servant used to describe Jesus. And what I bolded confirms his oneness with GOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Shadows Posted May 4, 2012 Author #137 Share Posted May 4, 2012 It has to do with this. By the way, the following essay is NOT copywrited so it is okay to copy and paste it. The New Testament is full of parallels to the holographic universe theory. The trinity "God in three persons" has a very holographic, oneness, connectedness flavor to it. The following essay is fascinating by the way. The Universe as a Hologram Michael Talbot Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm? In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science. Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations. University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram. To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser. To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears. The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole. The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes. This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something. To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case. This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality. Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram. In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected. The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky. Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web. In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order. At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past. What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is." | Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a "mere stage" beyond which lies "an infinity of further development". Bohm is not the only researcher who has found evidence that the universe is a hologram. Working independently in the field of brain research, Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram has also become persuaded of the holographic nature of reality. Pribram was drawn to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories are stored in the brain. For decades numerous studies have shown that rather than being confined to a specific location, memories are dispersed throughout the brain. In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious "whole in every part" nature of memory storage. Then in the 1960s Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram. Pribram's theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little space. It has been estimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information during the average human lifetime (or roughly the same amount of information contained in five sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica). Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage--simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information. Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word "zebra", you do not have to clumsily sort back through some gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like "striped", "horselike", and "animal native to Africa" all pop into your head instantly. Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information--another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with every other portion, it is perhaps nature's supreme example of a cross-correlated system. The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions. Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions. An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists. Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability. Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism. Pribram's belief that our brains mathematically construct "hard" reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support. It has been found that each of our senses is sensitive to a much broader range of frequencies than was previously suspected. Researchers have discovered, for instance, that our visual systems are sensitive to sound frequencies, that our sense of smell is in part dependent on what are now called "osmic frequencies", and that even the cells in our bodies are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies. Such findings suggest that it is only in the holographic domain of consciousness that such frequencies are sorted out and divided up into conventional perceptions. But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion. We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram. This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature. Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many para-psychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm. In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level. It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolved puzzles in psychology. In particular, Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness. In the 1950s, while conducting research into the beliefs of LSD as a psychotherapeutic tool, Grof had one female patient who suddenly became convinced she had assumed the identity of a female of a species of prehistoric reptile. During the course of her hallucination, she not only gave a richly detailed description of what it felt like to be encapsuled in such a form, but noted that the portion of the male of the species's anatomy was a patch of colored scales on the side of its head. What was startling to Grof was that although the woman had no prior knowledge about such things, a conversation with a zoologist later confirmed that in certain species of reptiles colored areas on the head do indeed play an important role as triggers of sexual arousal. The woman's experience was not unique. During the course of his research, Grof encountered examples of patients regressing and identifying with virtually every species on the evolutionary tree (research findings which helped influence the man-into-ape scene in the movie Altered States). Moreover, he found that such experiences frequently contained obscure zoological details which turned out to be accurate. Regressions into the animal kingdom were not the only puzzling psychological phenomena Grof encountered. He also had patients who appeared to tap into some sort of collective or racial unconscious. Individuals with little or no education suddenly gave detailed descriptions of Zoroastrian funerary practices and scenes from Hindu mythology. In other categories of experience, individuals gave persuasive accounts of out-of-body journeys, of precognitive glimpses of the future, of regressions into apparent past-life incarnations. In later research, Grof found the same range of phenomena manifested in therapy sessions which did not involve the use of drugs. Because the common element in such experiences appeared to be the transcending of an individual's consciousness beyond the usual boundaries of ego and/or limitations of space and time, Grof called such manifestations "transpersonal experiences", and in the late '60s he helped found a branch of psychology called "transpersonal psychology" devoted entirely to their study. Although Grof's newly founded Association of Transpersonal Psychology garnered a rapidly growing group of like-minded professionals and has become a respected branch of psychology, for years neither Grof or any of his colleagues were able to offer a mechanism for explaining the bizarre psychological phenomena they were witnessing. But that has changed with the advent of the holographic paradigm. As Grof recently noted, if the mind is actually part of a continuum, a labyrinth that is connected not only to every other mind that exists or has existed, but to every atom, organism, and region in the vastness of space and time itself, the fact that it is able to occasionally make forays into the labyrinth and have transpersonal experiences no longer seems so strange. The holographic prardigm also has implications for so-called hard sciences like biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces consciousness. Rather, it is consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain -- as well as the body and everything else around us we interpret as physical. Such a turnabout in the way we view biological structures has caused researchers to point out that medicine and our understanding of the healing process could also be transformed by the holographic paradigm. If the apparent physical structure of the body is but a holographic projection of consciousness, it becomes clear that each of us is much more responsible for our health than current medical wisdom allows. What we now view as miraculous remissions of disease may actually be due to changes in consciousness which in turn effect changes in the hologram of the body. Similarly, controversial new healing techniques such as visualization may work so well because in the holographic domain of thought images are ultimately as real as "reality". Even visions and experiences involving "non-ordinary" reality become explainable under the holographic paradigm. In his book "Gifts of Unknown Things," biologist Lyall Watson discribes his encounter with an Indonesian shaman woman who, by performing a ritual dance, was able to make an entire grove of trees instantly vanish into thin air. Watson relates that as he and another astonished onlooker continued to watch the woman, she caused the trees to reappear, then "click" off again and on again several times in succession. Although current scientific understanding is incapable of explaining such events, experiences like this become more tenable if "hard" reality is only a holographic projection. Perhaps we agree on what is "there" or "not there" because what we call consensus reality is formulated and ratified at the level of the human unconscious at which all minds are infinitely interconnected. If this is true, it is the most profound implication of the holographic paradigm of all, for it means that experiences such as Watson's are not commonplace only because we have not programmed our minds with the beliefs that would make them so. In a holographic universe there are no limits to the extent to which we can alter the fabric of reality. What we perceive as reality is only a canvas waiting for us to draw upon it any picture we want. Anything is possible, from bending spoons with the power of the mind to the phantasmagoric events experienced by Castaneda during his encounters with the Yaqui brujo don Juan, for magic is our birthright, no more or less miraculous than our ability to compute the reality we want when we are in our dreams. Indeed, even our most fundamental notions about reality become suspect, for in a holographic universe, as Pribram has pointed out, even random events would have to be seen as based on holographic principles and therefore determined. Synchronicities or meaningful coincidences suddenly makes sense, and everything in reality would have to be seen as a metaphor, for even the most haphazard events would express some underlying symmetry. Whether Bohm and Pribram's holographic paradigm becomes accepted in science or dies an ignoble death remains to be seen, but it is safe to say that it has already had an influence on the thinking of many scientists. And even if it is found that the holographic model does not provide the best explanation for the instantaneous communications that seem to be passing back and forth between subatomic particles, at the very least, as noted by Basil Hiley, a physicist at Birbeck College in London, Aspect's findings "indicate that we must be prepared to consider radically new views of reality". http://www.earthport...m/hologram.html this gonna take alot of time of reading i'll take look at it and return to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted May 4, 2012 #138 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Part II: yet further in your post you keep talking about me and not knowing the meaning of what i post i again suggest you should forget about me .. and focus on what am posting you seem to do this alot .. listen if you are unable to debate me " as human being with no religion " it's alright you don't need to keep saying i have muslim mind set But you are the focus or at least part of the focus. You want to understand the Trinity. Before that can happen, then we must both be aware of your background (where you are coming from). I’m not doing this “a lot”. It is a portion of my post in its proper place. I’m pointing out that no matter how much you want to be neutral, it has been clear from your replies that your background is hindering your ability to understand. This is not an attack, just pointing out the obvious. I’ve been as have just about everyone else been educating you, not debating. If you are debating then you have been losing the debate. Your questions are good questions but your willingness to understand is lacking. Again, this is not attacking you or spending any exorbitant amount of time on you. when i started this debate i dumped all of my beliefs aside and started discussion based on the bible " which is a christian faith " so technecially .. am christian within this debate given that through this debate i believe the bible as much as you do so eiather address the point .. or stop talking about me please the topic is not about me But as I’ve been pointing out and that you’ve been proving, one can’t totally put all of their beliefs aside. Cherry picking the verses the way you are doing, you’re showing that you don’t believe in the Bible (or at least don’t understand it). You’re looking at it as just words. You’re not looking at the meaning. If I did that with the Quran, you’d think I’m an idiot. I try to understand the context of an Ayah before quoting it. But I do address the point. Every time I do, it seems to go right over your head and you say that I’m spending too much time on you. The reason it seems to you that I spend too much time on you is that you don’t understand the examples that I give. It doesn’t register with you that the majority of my posts have been counters to your examples. again i'll carry on to the rest of the post that address the true point you say jesus came to experince what it was to be human but again the bible says god cannot be contained on earth .. or such curroption as human body cannot contain god .. want the passages ? << 1 Kings 8:27 >> "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! Guess what? Yup that’s right – out of context. Solomon is dedicating the Temple in a public prayer. He was being humble asking for GOD’s blessings indicating that their (Israelites) act of building the Temple was not to confine GOD to an Earthly dwelling, but to provide a “house of GOD” where the people can congregate to worship. (As with any Temple, Mosque, or Church). << 1 Corinthians 15:50 >> Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. -------------------- you see am using the bible to prove you wrong .. if you have read my replies to other people you'd save us both time coz i already posted some of those lines the way in debate is to disprove me of my proves .. as long i have proves that makes you wrong i have debate .. instead of wasting time talking about me try to remove my proves Sorry… You are not proving me wrong. Or anyone else. In context, Paul is telling us about the resurrection of the body: 15:35-54 “But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed — in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”” If you want to read more, you know where you can find it. But this is not talking about Jesus but the resurrection of the body in general. To me this is straight forward, so if you have questions we could discuss it in another thread. But in general, the body we have now cannot inherit Heaven, it must be transformed and those that believe in Christ will be transformed as Jesus was transformed. In John 20:17, Jesus tells Mary to not touch him because he has not ascended to the Father. Meaning that he had not yet transformed and that he was still unclean. as to why mohammad why could not comprehend the trinity .. why would he ? if the bible it self did not prove that concept of trinity of god " by proof " But the Bible does and this thread is a good proof. It’s what the Council of Nicaea agreed on and they based that agreement on many of the texts that would later appear in the Bible. The Bishops probably covered the very same ground that we all have in this thread. We’ve revisited the same historical ground. This is proof of the Trinity and proof that Mohammed (you being today’s extension of him – pboh) did not understand it. And how Mohammed memorized what Allah told him in the manner that Mohammed wanted to believe. Just as in the way you said “mere” when referencing the servant verse. i do hope in your next point you'll address the point instead of addressing my person coz i didn't write the bible am only using it as prove in my debate neither my background as muslim written the bible .. How ‘bout both? For that’s what I did. Because both are part of this thread. My counters to your verses are pretty separate from talking about your mindset, so that if you don’t want to reply to the parts about you, shouldn’t stop you from replying to my replies on the verses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jor-el Posted May 4, 2012 #139 Share Posted May 4, 2012 hey there and it's ok no pressing answer whenever you have the time and i'll answer your question the way you want it Thank you for your response. I have a number of things to comment on and I will be using a number of examples from the bible in my answers. This will make this a large post, You can edit it in your response. i view god as a superior creator which created every being he's unmatched by anyone or any being he created. he has no form that i know of and most importantly would not take any form his form no one have seen or can see in this life time .. I have to agree to the 1st part, but a question comes to mind, why are you so convinced that God WOULD NOT take any form for our benefit? I'm sure you don't mean that he CAN'T take a form, nothing is impossible for God, is that not so? But I have to ask why he would n't want to do so? He didn't give us the capacity to see him, he didn't give the angels the capacity to see him, so how would he communicate and make himself known to us and to them? Even when we die we won't be able to see God, not in Heaven or anywhere else. Yet the bible is absolutely clear that men do see him. Genesis 3:8-10 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden toward the cool of the day; and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the LORD God called unto the man, and said unto him: 'Where art thou?' 10 And he said: 'I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. Notice how the red parts are very strange. The voice of God is walking in the Garden? Since when does a voice walk? To walk he has to have legs!!! Notice that it is not the voice of God who actually speaks to Adam. The voice is a totally seperate from God! But he is still called God! ____________________________________________________________________________________________ A very detailed account of God appearing as man to Abraham is recounted in Genesis 18. Genesis 18:1-2 1The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. In the very same account we find the following passage: 16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him." 20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." Notice Gods question and then God answering the question asked by HIMSELF? Unless we want to accuse God of not being altogether there, we must accept that the textual context refers to two entities called God. Immediately following this conversation we have in Genesis 19:24 a very interesting phrase... Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. How many Lords are there? According to the text the are TWO of them. One in the form of a man who was with Abraham and one in Heaven. It is clear in the text word for word and I'm not inventing it. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ The Call of Jeremiah, Jeremiah 1:4-10 4 The word of the LORD came to me, saying, 5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knewa you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” 6 “Ah, Sovereign Lord,” [Adonai-Yahweh] I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am only a child.” 7 But the LORD [Yahweh] said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am only a child.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the Lord. 9 Then the LORD [Yahweh] reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “Now, I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.” It is quite clear from the 1st 8 verses in this chapter that the prophet is conversing with Yahweh, who in verse 4 is referred to as "The Word". We could easily take this as Jeremiah speaking to the air or responding to something only in his ear. But Then comes verse 9, where the word reaches out and touches Jeremiah. Sounds don’t physically touch people. Physical persons touch people. In Jeremiah 1 the word (pardon my borrowing from John 1:14) is made flesh and does something only a physical entity can do. "The Word" appears physically to men, interacts with them, touches them, eats with them. It is quite a distinct entity from Yahweh, the invisible Spirit, yet... both are God. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Jacob Wrestles With God, Genesis 32:22-27 22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two maidservants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.” But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” 27 the man asked him, “What is your name?” “Jacob,” he answered. 28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.” 29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.” But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him There. 30 So Jacob called the place Peniel,f saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” 31 the sun rose above him as he passed Peniel,g and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon. Unless you want to accuse Jacob of lying to us all, or justifying it as a dream of some kind, neither of which can be supported in any way, Then we have again, God in physical form, wrestling with Jacob. It is so clear that Jacob categorically states... I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared. This no metaphor, it is not poetic language. It either is, or you call them liars. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Finally we have a spectacular passage that confirms everything I've been saying... Ecclesiastes 12:1 Remember also thy Creators in days of thy youth, While that the evil days come not, Nor the years have arrived, that thou sayest, 'I have no pleasure in them.' So is there one creator or more? The original Hebrew renders this verse in the 2nd person PLURAL. he is not part of this universe he created this universe and other universes " should they exist " the reason i said he's not part of this universe coz the universe is creation of his he is every where and can do anything but he's not part of anything nor part of anyone so yes you get it right i think god is not part of us .. i have feeling you'll argue here with this point which i already got the passage to prove you wrong just in case coz simply in my opinion god is too great to be " part " of something his glory cannot be withstood in anything human or not .. alive or dead I agree, God created the universe, he is not part of the universe. The universe is a construct, a creation and is apart from its creator. So How would God communicate with his creation, if everything including the angels themselves are part of this construct. It is the reason why nobody can see God, we are too tiny to unimportant within the universe. But God loves us, he desires to communicate with us, to live in our hearts, so how would God a supreme being show himself to us. Naturally he will not show his entire being, his glory, as we say, what he would show is a part of himself. Here is a video that captures what I am trying to say. This is how God would appear to us, we would only see a part of him and that part is clothed in a flesh and blood body for our convenience.he isn't a part of anything or anyone he is the creator of all things and doesn't share his power with anyone neither human or angel he is eternal he never die nor he can be killed sick or damaged always was there and always be but he is everywhere regardless and see and know and hear everything and see everything djinns created by him shares different characters than humans but they do not see him or match him or hear him angels also created by him don't match him as well as they are merely servants to him some of them may see him and hear himIn my opinion not even the angels can see him. It is why he has what we call his material representation, His visible manifestation, who he calls "The Word of the Lord". And it is this very representation who we also call Jesus Christ. He, this visible representation is in fact God himself but in a form that we humans and the angels can interact with and detect. Most times, when God speaks, it is through the "Word of the Lord" We find this very term and example in the call of Jeremiah, which I quoted above.in my opinion god can do anything without any servants but the reason he created them is to show us that every thing should be done on levels and steps but i hope this won't turn into my personal opinion of god debate coz it's not about how i view god it's strictly about how the bible view god and about how can god be 3 in trinity .. while the bible prove he's only one which is not jesus according to the bible and jesus's words within the bible tis not about how i view god coz i have never brought my personal view into the debate but i answered your question the way you wanteddidn't get what you wanted with the PS though I have not turned this into an opinion contest, the above passages demonstrate quite clearly who we consider Jesus Christ to be and if you have any doubts, I will quote the New Testament on this...Since God, as uncreated spirit (Gen 1:1; John 4:24) is not of the created material world, He by nature cannot be detected with the five human senses. We have no way to process who and what He is. As a result, God has always choosen some "intermediary strategy" to make himself known to humankind. This is God’s normal modus operandi with only one or two spectacular exceptions. We are inhabitants of the physical world, and so we can only process as reality that which our senses (particularly the visual) can detect, either directly or with respect to things that tangibly affect the physical world around us. Christians know that the ultimate solution to this dilemma was the incarnation, where God became human in the person of Jesus Christ. This is why Jesus was called the “exact representation” of God (Heb. 1:3). Hebrews 1:3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.Everything you quote must be considered in light of these words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted May 4, 2012 #140 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Knight clearly you try to bring up islam as result of inability to keep up with the discussions and debatewhich were strictly based on the bible so i think i'll just thank you for your time .. and wish you the best and in case you're up for debate without mixing topics with each other .. am here if not .. please address my points and not me . for i have only taken parts of the bible and as i stated i haven't written it so please don't pin blame your inablity to keep on my person or background i haven't mentioned the word quran or islam in this topic once " without being addressed or asked by someone " so thank you .. see you later If you have a problem with the contents of my posts, then the report button will summon a moderator. There is no mixing of topics. You have untruthfully stated that your posts "were strictly based on the bible." They are not. I am entitled to say that they are not, to say what is in the Bible concerning any of the points you raise, to say what most Christians believe to be the Deposit of Faith in addition to the Bible, and finally, I am entitled to point out what your exegetical resources actually are. They are not the Bible, contrary to your claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Shadows Posted May 5, 2012 Author #141 Share Posted May 5, 2012 You are not taking into account that Jesus was inhabiting a biological human body at that time, and was facing a tremendous physical and spiritual ordeal. How do you interpret John 1:1-14? 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it. 6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. and ... Do you understand what we mean by God existing outside of the time and space that humans inhabit? hey there J.K actually i did take it into account and also proved it wrong within the bible that says god cannot be contained in human body based on the bible of course nor does the kingdom of god can be inherted by human bodies but i'll interpet your lines " using the bible " 1 : in the begging there was the word , and the word was with god and the word was god 2 : He was with God in the beginning. --------------------- Luke 24 13 : Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 : They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 : As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 : but they were kept from recognizing him. 17 : He asked them, "What are you discussing together as you walk along?" They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 : One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, "Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?" 19 : "What things?" he asked. "About Jesus of Nazareth," they replied. "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 : The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; and the story goes on to the most interesting part .. say jesus died at the cross BUT 39 : Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." 40 : When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. -------------------- << John 5:37 >> And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, so the father no one seen his form nor heard his voice .. you can say god manifested in human body but after jesus death supposedly he was one with god again so how can he be god and still have human body after his was killed there's more than one point here first one .. god cannot be killed .. jesus was god would not manfist in human body " the bible prove is few posts before " and they descrbie him as prophet within the bible too and lastly jesus says he's not spirit and shows people his flesh and bones so basically with more proves from the bible .. god cannot be jesus for numberous of reasons not just one .. or two .. or three .. there's alot of reasons of some too i didn't post too and still much to post -------------------- 3 : Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. << 1 Corinthians 8:6 >> But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life. -------------------- this line counter yours and says that god is the only lord and he who created everything jesus is described as the lord .. as for everything was given life through him it's basically could mean life = faith of christianty a way to life through believe in him which could lead to heaven where true life is .. so god .. made jesus created him and sent him it didn't say HE made everything .. but THROUGH him every thing was made so through .. a link does not have to be the source like electric cord that supply electricity through it " no offense intended just example " but it's not the source .. without the source nothing it's made through it -------------------- 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it. -------------------- doesn't prove he's a god it only says he brought light and life which easily can mean the faith and the words of god which was light and life for all non-believers still that doesn't prove exactly jesus was god it's not really strong line neither it suggest he was god all prophets were light to all mankind -------------------- 6 : says there was a " Man " sent from god who's name is john if he is god .. how can he be sent from god also . that makes two gods through him all might believe " therefore it doesn't mean he's god but a man carrying god's words " he was not the light " hmm you trying to prove my point for me J.K ? " -------------------- 7: He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. -------------------- simply put he is a witness to that light .. just like every one else it doesn't testify he's the god << Luke 22:42 >> "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." here jesus making it clear that it's not his will that's being done .. but the will of his father " his god " -------------------- 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. just read it .. it support my case more than it support yours it says cleary he him self was not the light .. but the witness to that light therefore it support my above thought that he was just like everyone else a witness to that light which line 9 proves me right that the true light was " god " the father and jesus was merely the messanger to deliver that light through him -------------------- 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God ---------------- Luke 4:23 Jesus said to them, "Surely you will quote this proverb to me: 'Physician, heal yourself! Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.'" Luke 4:24 "I tell you the truth," he continued, "no prophet is accepted in his hometown. so in jesus words he equal him self with the pervious prophets whom they were not not received well in their home town etc etc that shows us jesus compare him self to prophets which they weren't in any way equal to god " who sent them " and since jesus compare him self to them he cannot compare him self to god not that he did .. not in the bible anyway but the trinity suggest he is god the bible states .. otherwise there's interesting line in bible also jesus states .. let's bring anyone to compare so let's compare " with jesus " so god is in no way compareable to humans .. yet jesus is ok with it therefore he cannot be god for god cannot be compared with humans he's too great for it ----------------- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. again .. bible says also that flesh cannot contain god or inhert his kingdom so makes us think .. is the word means the faith ? or the word means the way ? that sentence also state for my favor that jesus came from the father but not that he's the father therfore the father is the not same as the son you cannot state third person in such way .. jesus was smarter than that and neither can you say I sent my self .. and give your " self " a name too that's really confusing if he did but he clearly distance him self from god always also another line from the bible says everything came from god " that include jesus " another line says jesus was " blessed or glorified by god " i believe i intercept your lines .. but hey you still haven't intercepted any of my lines earlier beside it's always nice to see some one who discuss me as person without my background or religion i do hope everyone do the same at least you offer an opposite to my proves which is good and at least you do not try to prove me wrong just because i am on different path outside of this debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Shadows Posted May 5, 2012 Author #142 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Part I: That is what I was pointing out. You do view it colored with your background. And this is not meant as an attack on you. It doesn’t matter if you are an agnostic or not. You had some kind of exposure to some kind of religion in your rearing and it doesn’t appear to be Christian. You’re using your own understanding of the Bible on perhaps the most complex and complicated concept there is. It’s not like reading the Ten Commandments and clearly understanding what it means. You really can’t take the TC out of context. Indeed, the Bible is always the same, but you are not understanding what you read. This is not an attack on you, but several here have tried to correct you. You’re mistaken on what you are trying to prove. No, I have not. I’m just telling you how you come across to many here. I asked it as a question. I do apologize if you thought I was attacking you. I was not. As far as arguing with you, it is quite easy to because you are not learning. Yes, I know they are not made by you. But you are cherry picking them. Taking them out of context. You have shown verses where, in your mind, Jesus is subordinate. And you’ve been shown by others where verses from the very same Bible show Jesus is GOD, but you seem to ignore these. Why? At the very least you should understand that both exist. There is no abrogation here. But for the sake of argument, let’s say you are right, then what is your Biblical proof that your verses that show that Jesus is subordinate to GOD abrogates those verses that show that Jesus and GOD are one? No, I didn’t accuse you of being offensive. I only assumed that you used deodorant this morning… Yes, you are showing quotes from the Bible. And I do not consider that offensive. But some verses you do not understand the context and when corrected, you turn around and say that you are winning the argument. You are cherry picking and losing. Yes, I am familiar with the debate concept as is everyone else here. That is why I question your motive here. It is just not clear and I think others see that too. I’m beginning to think that you are not aware of it, but you have been losing. But the thing is that I don’t think anyone here cares about winning or losing. We’re more concerned that you just aren’t getting it. Actually, that is incorrect. I probably have about three paragraphs in two posts where I question your motives (none of them attacks). But understanding your mindset is an important part of this. But it is you that drags out spending too much time on yourself. Half of this reply has been in reply to that. No, this does not mean that an angel is stronger than Jesus. But it’s a great example. Looking at context will help understanding. Jesus is about to be arrested. He knows what is coming. The human part is experiencing anxiety. Have you ever experienced being far from home and under hardship but you see a familiar face from home? It gives you strength. Same thing going on here. The angel is comforting him and giving him strength (or that Jesus is taking strength from this encounter) so that the flesh can complete his mission. Jesus is in a very vulnerable position and as GOD has never felt this way before. He is about to experience the ultimate truth in human existence – death. It is at this time that GOD is perhaps the closest to his creation (us). He now understands what it is to be human. It is more than some cosmic mathematical formula. Matthew 26:36-46, Mark 14:32-42, Luke 22:39-46, and John 17 are all the companion verses. Here you see Jesus talking to GOD as a subordinate (hierarchy) But in John 17, you see verses like 17:10 “All I have is yours, and all you have is mine” and 17:21-23 “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me.” When you take all of this together, it combines the two concepts together. There is no abrogation. But the Bible does say there is equality. Superior only in the sense of Hierarchy (roles). That which is attributed to GOD is higher than that which is attributed to Jesus. Not in the sense that Jesus is subordinate to GOD. Jesus is glorified by GOD because Jesus is GOD. This is a reference to the good servant. It does not mean slave. A servant in this sense is much more than a slave. I.e. Simonides (Sam Jaffe) in the movie “Ben-Hur”. The good servant is of the same thought, mind, and action as the master as if they are one. And indeed they are. This is probably a good example of how they relate as far as roles go and also how they are one. It’s not farfetched at all if you are trying to understand it. Are you trying to understand it? You are adding “mere”. See what I mean with the parlor story?? You don’t get it and you turned servant into a slave because you are cherry picking. I haven’t read all of them and the ones I have, I thought that the op had adequately responded to you. Again, your quote is taken out of context and this is why. This verse is part of the event when Jesus washes the disciple’s feet. If you look at the pertinent passage, John 13:12-17 “When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.” Jesus was teaching them humility but also showing that if you are a leader, you are a servant of those that you lead. That also explains why you may see the term servant used to describe Jesus. And what I bolded confirms his oneness with GOD. so is being christian makes me see those lines differently ? say when jesus he said he was sent by god and that's god will he's doing not his own will would that sound different if i was christian ? the bible is the utmost core of the faith and no matter who reads it it gets the same idea how can jesus saying to people why calling him good .. and only god is good how can that be viewed from other point of view i posted some lines why not post them to me in christian pointview therefore we can see how does that view differ from mine if that's was true you can back up there's quite good numbers of lines if you interested in that only using logic sense and also there's no contradiction in the bible so in other sense if i were to connect between lines say as how the bible view god and how it view jesus .. that should be ok but the result comes up they're not the same and not even jesus agree they are the same in the bible using his own words and am glad you don't think am offenseive coz i don't believe i said anything cross the lines it's only simple debate which happens to be sensetive i agree but still there's no point on trying to tell me i view it in different view and i know people debated with me .. but i don't view it as correcting me they offered their pointview which the bible having a passages that contradict their views therefore as person debating the nature of god .. i will normally take the bible words higher then their own words .. am i wrong in that ? and how am i suppose to learn something about christianity that wasn't approved by the bible or to put it more exact .. that many passages of the bible seem to reject such concept then i am no longer learning about christianty i'd be learning from the person of that concept i pick lines to prove my point and of course i do i just don't agree with cherry picking because i pick lines that back up my case as proves which normally any debater will there's nothing wrong with that .. it's not like you describe it as taking them out of their contexts the lines i post are pretty clear i never ignored that the bible says jesus is god .. but you ignore the parts that bible also states jesus is not god .. and therefore jesus own words refusing he was a god and denying it .. also admiting he was sent by god which he describe greater than him so what makes your point " from the bible " more valid than my point " which from the bible too " i can't see how is that losing since you are unable to give me better view on these lines again it's debate .. maybe i get it and i got different point which am proving yes i have motive which it's within the bible which jesus is not god .. that's my motive it's no different than the bible's own words and as far as am concerned you weren't able to explain or counter these proves you only say .. different background .. different view maybe you outta look at them and explain them then explain how does god almighty described as the most powerfull ever in the bible would need an angel to strengthen him an angel which he created or who sent that angel to him and how does that angel knew god needed him and if god has the power to call down angels to him how come he need them in first place ? so jesus as human is powerless as he's about to be arrested but still he had the power to call for angels ? and suppose he did pray who have answered his pray ? and sent him that angel ? there must be 3rd player here you see claiming i have been losing .. with same time inability to counter my prove doesn't sit well or make you more right .. as for your question about my mindset consider me as person with no religion and that's all so jesus glorified by god because he is god then why is he described as servant and how come he says servant is never great as the master isn't that conflict your view ? servant does not mean slave .. servant could mean alot of things but none of them can equal GOD so being a servant .. and god is not possiable according to the bible because jesus was described as servant and jesus says servant cannot be greater than master it doesn't mean slave just something lesser than something else which is exactly the case jesus was lesser than god and admit openly on many times so lesser does not equal so jesus may be a leader .. but among servant meanings .. leader ain't one of them he humbled him self .. humility got a meaning in the bible which i'll type below hmmm would be interesting to ask you to bring me line from the bible that describe god as humble and with humility remember .. GOD not jesus in case you didn't notice humility means being submissive and THAT my friend does not stand well with god attributes coz the bible says .. all things will submit to him and the son will be subjected to him too therefore god does not submit to anyone .. every one submit to him before you argue with humility and submit (Philippians 2:3). Humility involves being submissive to others rather than just doing whatever you want to do hmmm is god which described as the utmost ever powerful god almighty ever .. be submissive to others ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Shadows Posted May 5, 2012 Author #143 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Thank you for your response. I have a number of things to comment on and I will be using a number of examples from the bible in my answers. This will make this a large post, You can edit it in your response. I have to agree to the 1st part, but a question comes to mind, why are you so convinced that God WOULD NOT take any form for our benefit? I'm sure you don't mean that he CAN'T take a form, nothing is impossible for God, is that not so? But I have to ask why he would n't want to do so? He didn't give us the capacity to see him, he didn't give the angels the capacity to see him, so how would he communicate and make himself known to us and to them? Even when we die we won't be able to see God, not in Heaven or anywhere else. Yet the bible is absolutely clear that men do see him. Genesis 3:8-10 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden toward the cool of the day; and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the LORD God called unto the man, and said unto him: 'Where art thou?' 10 And he said: 'I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. Notice how the red parts are very strange. The voice of God is walking in the Garden? Since when does a voice walk? To walk he has to have legs!!! Notice that it is not the voice of God who actually speaks to Adam. The voice is a totally seperate from God! But he is still called God! ____________________________________________________________________________________________ A very detailed account of God appearing as man to Abraham is recounted in Genesis 18. Genesis 18:1-2 1The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. In the very same account we find the following passage: 16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him." 20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." Notice Gods question and then God answering the question asked by HIMSELF? Unless we want to accuse God of not being altogether there, we must accept that the textual context refers to two entities called God. Immediately following this conversation we have in Genesis 19:24 a very interesting phrase... Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. How many Lords are there? According to the text the are TWO of them. One in the form of a man who was with Abraham and one in Heaven. It is clear in the text word for word and I'm not inventing it. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ The Call of Jeremiah, Jeremiah 1:4-10 4 The word of the LORD came to me, saying, 5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knewa you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” 6 “Ah, Sovereign Lord,” [Adonai-Yahweh] I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am only a child.” 7 But the LORD [Yahweh] said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am only a child.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the Lord. 9 Then the LORD [Yahweh] reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “Now, I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.” It is quite clear from the 1st 8 verses in this chapter that the prophet is conversing with Yahweh, who in verse 4 is referred to as "The Word". We could easily take this as Jeremiah speaking to the air or responding to something only in his ear. But Then comes verse 9, where the word reaches out and touches Jeremiah. Sounds don’t physically touch people. Physical persons touch people. In Jeremiah 1 the word (pardon my borrowing from John 1:14) is made flesh and does something only a physical entity can do. "The Word" appears physically to men, interacts with them, touches them, eats with them. It is quite a distinct entity from Yahweh, the invisible Spirit, yet... both are God. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Jacob Wrestles With God, Genesis 32:22-27 22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two maidservants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.” But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” 27 the man asked him, “What is your name?” “Jacob,” he answered. 28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.” 29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.” But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him There. 30 So Jacob called the place Peniel,f saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” 31 the sun rose above him as he passed Peniel,g and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon. Unless you want to accuse Jacob of lying to us all, or justifying it as a dream of some kind, neither of which can be supported in any way, Then we have again, God in physical form, wrestling with Jacob. It is so clear that Jacob categorically states... I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared. This no metaphor, it is not poetic language. It either is, or you call them liars. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Finally we have a spectacular passage that confirms everything I've been saying... Ecclesiastes 12:1 Remember also thy Creators in days of thy youth, While that the evil days come not, Nor the years have arrived, that thou sayest, 'I have no pleasure in them.' So is there one creator or more? The original Hebrew renders this verse in the 2nd person PLURAL. I agree, God created the universe, he is not part of the universe. The universe is a construct, a creation and is apart from its creator. So How would God communicate with his creation, if everything including the angels themselves are part of this construct. It is the reason why nobody can see God, we are too tiny to unimportant within the universe. But God loves us, he desires to communicate with us, to live in our hearts, so how would God a supreme being show himself to us. Naturally he will not show his entire being, his glory, as we say, what he would show is a part of himself. Here is a video that captures what I am trying to say. This is how God would appear to us, we would only see a part of him and that part is clothed in a flesh and blood body for our convenience.In my opinion not even the angels can see him. It is why he has what we call his material representation, His visible manifestation, who he calls "The Word of the Lord". And it is this very representation who we also call Jesus Christ. He, this visible representation is in fact God himself but in a form that we humans and the angels can interact with and detect. Most times, when God speaks, it is through the "Word of the Lord" We find this very term and example in the call of Jeremiah, which I quoted above.I have not turned this into an opinion contest, the above passages demonstrate quite clearly who we consider Jesus Christ to be and if you have any doubts, I will quote the New Testament on this...Since God, as uncreated spirit (Gen 1:1; John 4:24) is not of the created material world, He by nature cannot be detected with the five human senses. We have no way to process who and what He is. As a result, God has always choosen some "intermediary strategy" to make himself known to humankind. This is God’s normal modus operandi with only one or two spectacular exceptions. We are inhabitants of the physical world, and so we can only process as reality that which our senses (particularly the visual) can detect, either directly or with respect to things that tangibly affect the physical world around us. Christians know that the ultimate solution to this dilemma was the incarnation, where God became human in the person of Jesus Christ. This is why Jesus was called the “exact representation” of God (Heb. 1:3). Hebrews 1:3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.Everything you quote must be considered in light of these words. i'll get back to this later it seems interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH2012 Posted May 5, 2012 #144 Share Posted May 5, 2012 (edited) The acients understood though, that this separation from knowledge into ignorance would create an opportunity for redemption through a compromise. This we have the trinity. The idea of trinities comes from the sun cycles throughout the day (rising/dawn, noon/evening twilight, and setting/dusk). Out of this observation came the Father (rising/blue), Son (noon/yellow) and Holy Ghost (setting/red). The Father represents thought, the Son represents desire, and the Holy Ghost represents action. The three-leafed shamrock in catholicism represents this same symbology. Also, we have this same idea represented by the masonic ladder with its 3 rungs (mentality, emotionality, physicality). We also have the triad of heaven, earth and hell. Again, heaven is the spiritual higher world (divine traits of self), earth is the neutral mediating world (loving traits of self), and hell is the lower material world (instinctual traits of self). Anatomically, another triad is seen: the mental facitiies are in the brain, the loving qualities are in the heart and the lower functioning material organs in the generative systems down below. Alchemically, we have a triad consisting of Gold (king/sun/spirit), Mercury/Quicksilver (son/Caduceus/love) and Silver (queen/moon/material). The life of all things according to philosophers is another triad: growth, maturity and decay. The name SOL-OM-ON is a trilingual representation of the sun. The triad is always symbolized by a triangle, the most perfect of all odd numbers. As you can see, It's all just a metaphor for the self. Sources: http://knowledgefile...anatomy-of-man/ http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/ Watch all 8 Parts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bChgu3p_p8&feature=BFa&list=PL4D321FEE72AFEA25 Edited May 5, 2012 by MPH2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coffin It Up Posted May 5, 2012 #145 Share Posted May 5, 2012 The Holy Trinity is the idea that God exists in three forms: God the father, God the son, and the holy spirit, (the spirit of god). Jesus was a man, but he was a man divine, because he was conceived of the virgin Mary. So Gods spirit resides in him. So in a sense he is God and Gods son. The holy spirit is the wisdom of God, the essence of God. I think.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Shadows Posted May 5, 2012 Author #146 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Thank you for your response. I have a number of things to comment on and I will be using a number of examples from the bible in my answers. This will make this a large post, You can edit it in your response. I have to agree to the 1st part, but a question comes to mind, why are you so convinced that God WOULD NOT take any form for our benefit? I'm sure you don't mean that he CAN'T take a form, nothing is impossible for God, is that not so? But I have to ask why he would n't want to do so? He didn't give us the capacity to see him, he didn't give the angels the capacity to see him, so how would he communicate and make himself known to us and to them? Even when we die we won't be able to see God, not in Heaven or anywhere else. Yet the bible is absolutely clear that men do see him. Genesis 3:8-10 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden toward the cool of the day; and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the LORD God called unto the man, and said unto him: 'Where art thou?' 10 And he said: 'I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. Notice how the red parts are very strange. The voice of God is walking in the Garden? Since when does a voice walk? To walk he has to have legs!!! Notice that it is not the voice of God who actually speaks to Adam. The voice is a totally seperate from God! But he is still called God! ____________________________________________________________________________________________ A very detailed account of God appearing as man to Abraham is recounted in Genesis 18. Genesis 18:1-2 1The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. In the very same account we find the following passage: 16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him." 20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." Notice Gods question and then God answering the question asked by HIMSELF? Unless we want to accuse God of not being altogether there, we must accept that the textual context refers to two entities called God. Immediately following this conversation we have in Genesis 19:24 a very interesting phrase... Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. How many Lords are there? According to the text the are TWO of them. One in the form of a man who was with Abraham and one in Heaven. It is clear in the text word for word and I'm not inventing it. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ The Call of Jeremiah, Jeremiah 1:4-10 4 The word of the LORD came to me, saying, 5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knewa you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” 6 “Ah, Sovereign Lord,” [Adonai-Yahweh] I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am only a child.” 7 But the LORD [Yahweh] said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am only a child.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the Lord. 9 Then the LORD [Yahweh] reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “Now, I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.” It is quite clear from the 1st 8 verses in this chapter that the prophet is conversing with Yahweh, who in verse 4 is referred to as "The Word". We could easily take this as Jeremiah speaking to the air or responding to something only in his ear. But Then comes verse 9, where the word reaches out and touches Jeremiah. Sounds don’t physically touch people. Physical persons touch people. In Jeremiah 1 the word (pardon my borrowing from John 1:14) is made flesh and does something only a physical entity can do. "The Word" appears physically to men, interacts with them, touches them, eats with them. It is quite a distinct entity from Yahweh, the invisible Spirit, yet... both are God. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Jacob Wrestles With God, Genesis 32:22-27 22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two maidservants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.” But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” 27 the man asked him, “What is your name?” “Jacob,” he answered. 28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.” 29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.” But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him There. 30 So Jacob called the place Peniel,f saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” 31 the sun rose above him as he passed Peniel,g and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon. Unless you want to accuse Jacob of lying to us all, or justifying it as a dream of some kind, neither of which can be supported in any way, Then we have again, God in physical form, wrestling with Jacob. It is so clear that Jacob categorically states... I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared. This no metaphor, it is not poetic language. It either is, or you call them liars. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Finally we have a spectacular passage that confirms everything I've been saying... Ecclesiastes 12:1 Remember also thy Creators in days of thy youth, While that the evil days come not, Nor the years have arrived, that thou sayest, 'I have no pleasure in them.' So is there one creator or more? The original Hebrew renders this verse in the 2nd person PLURAL. I agree, God created the universe, he is not part of the universe. The universe is a construct, a creation and is apart from its creator. So How would God communicate with his creation, if everything including the angels themselves are part of this construct. It is the reason why nobody can see God, we are too tiny to unimportant within the universe. But God loves us, he desires to communicate with us, to live in our hearts, so how would God a supreme being show himself to us. Naturally he will not show his entire being, his glory, as we say, what he would show is a part of himself. Here is a video that captures what I am trying to say. This is how God would appear to us, we would only see a part of him and that part is clothed in a flesh and blood body for our convenience.In my opinion not even the angels can see him. It is why he has what we call his material representation, His visible manifestation, who he calls "The Word of the Lord". And it is this very representation who we also call Jesus Christ. He, this visible representation is in fact God himself but in a form that we humans and the angels can interact with and detect. Most times, when God speaks, it is through the "Word of the Lord" We find this very term and example in the call of Jeremiah, which I quoted above.I have not turned this into an opinion contest, the above passages demonstrate quite clearly who we consider Jesus Christ to be and if you have any doubts, I will quote the New Testament on this...Since God, as uncreated spirit (Gen 1:1; John 4:24) is not of the created material world, He by nature cannot be detected with the five human senses. We have no way to process who and what He is. As a result, God has always choosen some "intermediary strategy" to make himself known to humankind. This is God’s normal modus operandi with only one or two spectacular exceptions. We are inhabitants of the physical world, and so we can only process as reality that which our senses (particularly the visual) can detect, either directly or with respect to things that tangibly affect the physical world around us. Christians know that the ultimate solution to this dilemma was the incarnation, where God became human in the person of Jesus Christ. This is why Jesus was called the “exact representation” of God (Heb. 1:3). Hebrews 1:3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.Everything you quote must be considered in light of these words. for your first question why would god not take any form for our benfit my answer is simply put coz the bible said so the bible said that god would not take human form << 1 Kings 8:27 >> "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! << 1 Corinthians 15:50 >> Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. and of course i don't mean he CAN'T take form he can do anything but he " won't " take form coz he's too great to be shown in any earthly form just a typo problem due fast typing and as the bible states it .. our bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of god if you ask me it's brilliantly put in the bible god communicated with us through his " son , prophet , messanger " however you want to call jesus and other previous prophets mentioned in the bible .. prophets which jesus equaled him self with in the bible .. in my previous post to you the line from the bible and those prophets got their holy books .. such as the bible is now when we die .. we are no longer flesh and blood that means we can see him you say : Genesis 3:8-10 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden toward the cool of the day; and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the LORD God called unto the man, and said unto him: 'Where art thou?' 10 And he said: 'I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. and i say : << John 5:37 >> And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, so again we reach a dead end with absoultly opposite directions .. what you suggest ? how can they hear the voice of god .. when jesus " clearly " states not only once but many times no one heard , or saw , god for the voice of god this is simply understood it's not complex say like our opposition above voices can't walk they float in air maybe he said he heard the " sound " of god walking ? but this is really simple to understand by logic unlike the complexity of such thing as two opposite line that shows two opposite things from the bible ____________________________________________________________________________________________ you say : Genesis 18:1-2 1The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. In the very same account we find the following passage: 16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him." 20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." Notice Gods question and then God answering the question asked by HIMSELF? i say : 1 John 3:20 - For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. 1 Corinthians 2:10 - But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. Psalm 44:21 - Would not God search this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart. --------- so again we'll reach the dead block for one part god is wondering about something and other passages saying that god knows all .. even what's inside the heart so what need there be out there for him to go down him self to find out had he already know ? again what you suggest ? for knowing something is not really tough for god with all these attributes ____________________________________________________________________________________________ and for jacob and etc etc .. we are of course talking about prophets so they might have seen god one or another coz they're human but choosen by god so they must have some kind of special ablities .. like mircales and such However ! that still bring us to more trouble case which is like i stated before passage contradict a passage .. and which passage to take ? had i brought you passages from genesis that contradict this passage would make mine right ? or would you bring a passage from john , king , etc to counter my point .. would that make you right ? i got slight bad feeling that's a no no to go area had this topic will go into contradictions my only intend is to discuss the trinity but i notice it could bring contradicted lines which might turn in a way or another to an offense to certain people of the faith and i don't wanna go there so i'll just withdraw hey not that i give up my points or drop them completely it's just persuing this any further could lead in unwanted results two opposite lines .. which one should we take .. taking a one can only mean the other is wrong can result of one not being true you understand i hope ? right ? i don't want to reach that point not with much hassle already as you can see and by the way you're fierce debater ! i like that style i honestly had to stare for a while and think for a moment what can i use or do to encounter that some people aren't familiar that in debate you hold no bars so it's my job to prove you wrong as the other side of debate it's your job to prove me wrong too bad not every one understand this concept anyway it's been nice talking to you and i certinally hope i didn't waste your time i really enjoyed this debate with you .. you seem to give my proves more thought than that you give to my person or background which is good and thanks to everyone for your time and thoughts 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jor-el Posted May 5, 2012 #147 Share Posted May 5, 2012 (edited) for your first question why would god not take any form for our benfit my answer is simply put coz the bible said so the bible said that god would not take human form << 1 Kings 8:27 >> "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! << 1 Corinthians 15:50 >> Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. and of course i don't mean he CAN'T take form he can do anything but he " won't " take form coz he's too great to be shown in any earthly form just a typo problem due fast typing and as the bible states it .. our bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of god if you ask me it's brilliantly put in the bible god communicated with us through his " son , prophet , messanger " however you want to call jesus and other previous prophets mentioned in the bible .. prophets which jesus equaled him self with in the bible .. in my previous post to you the line from the bible and those prophets got their holy books .. such as the bible is now when we die .. we are no longer flesh and blood that means we can see him you say : Genesis 3:8-10 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden toward the cool of the day; and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the LORD God called unto the man, and said unto him: 'Where art thou?' 10 And he said: 'I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. and i say : << John 5:37 >> And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, so again we reach a dead end with absoultly opposite directions .. what you suggest ? how can they hear the voice of god .. when jesus " clearly " states not only once but many times no one heard , or saw , god for the voice of god this is simply understood it's not complex say like our opposition above voices can't walk they float in air maybe he said he heard the " sound " of god walking ? but this is really simple to understand by logic unlike the complexity of such thing as two opposite line that shows two opposite things from the bible ____________________________________________________________________________________________ The problem is that you are indiscriminate in your use of the word "God" I take into account that God has both an uncreated form and is an invisible spiritual being, but that he also has another form a physical form that he used to appear to men. I do not accept that Adam was somehow mistaken, he knew exactly what he was saying because he knew that it was the physcial form of God walking in the garden. It was the spiritual form of God who actually spoke to him. When the bible states that no-one has seen God, we are talking of God the uncreated spirit, not his physcial form, which men can see. Jesus says that whoever has seen him, has seen God. John 14:7-10 [7] If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." [8] Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." [9] Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'? [10] Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. A normal prophet would never say such a thing!! A normal prophet would NEVER accept adoration from his followers. A normal prophet would never equate himself with God in any way. i say :1 John 3:20 - For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. 1 Corinthians 2:10 - But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. Psalm 44:21 - Would not God search this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart. --------- so again we'll reach the dead block for one part god is wondering about something and other passages saying that god knows all .. even what's inside the heart so what need there be out there for him to go down him self to find out had he already know ? again what you suggest ? for knowing something is not really tough for god with all these attributes ____________________________________________________________________________________________ You misunderstand. The purpose for him coming down to us is not for him to understand us, it is for us to understand him. God wants us to understand him to know him, for that he gave us part of himself in his physical representation, we call Jesus Christ. I have given you the verse that demonstrates this in Hebrews 1:3 and for jacob and etc etc .. we are of course talking about prophets so they might have seen god one or another coz they're human but choosen by god so they must have some kind of special ablities .. like mircales and suchHowever ! that still bring us to more trouble case which is like i stated before passage contradict a passage .. and which passage to take ? had i brought you passages from genesis that contradict this passage would make mine right ? or would you bring a passage from john , king , etc to counter my point .. would that make you right ? There is no contradiction, the contradiction exists because you cannot accept that God can and would do such a thing as appear to us in a human body whenver he wants. Please don't try to limit what god would or wouldn't do. The bible is clear that he would and DID do such a thing. i got slight bad feeling that's a no no to go area had this topic will go into contradictions my only intend is to discuss the trinity but i notice it could bring contradicted lineswhich might turn in a way or another to an offense to certain people of the faith and i don't wanna go there so i'll just withdraw hey not that i give up my points or drop them completely it's just persuing this any further could lead in unwanted results two opposite lines .. which one should we take .. taking a one can only mean the other is wrong can result of one not being true you understand i hope ? right ? i don't want to reach that point not with much hassle already as you can see and by the way you're fierce debater ! i like that style i honestly had to stare for a while and think for a moment what can i use or do to encounter that some people aren't familiar that in debate you hold no bars so it's my job to prove you wrong as the other side of debate it's your job to prove me wrong too bad not every one understand this concept anyway it's been nice talking to you and i certinally hope i didn't waste your time i really enjoyed this debate with you .. you seem to give my proves more thought than that you give to my person or background which is good and thanks to everyone for your time and thoughts It has been nice debating you as well. I am of the opinion that topics of this nature must include the way people saw and thought at the time that the New Testament was written, if we don't do that, if we don't go back and put ourselves in their shoes, with their opinions then we will never get it right. The christians at the time of Jesus and Paul didn't have a "Holy Book", they used what they already had, which is the Old Testament. They also had the theology of the Old Testament that was given to them by their ancestors. So if we want to show something as being proven or demonstrated in the New testament one has to go back to the Old Testament. That is what I did. Nothing stands alone and this is why we christians have always said that "the Old Testament is the New concealed, but the New Testament is the Old revealed. Without one, we cannot have the other. They are in fact one book, not two. If you ever have questions that I can clear up all you have to do is send me a PM (personal message) God bless you. Edited May 5, 2012 by Jor-el Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkMatterDisturbance Posted May 5, 2012 #148 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Faith can not be found in a book. It must come from within. The debate over christianity has been going on longer than this thread and this thread will not put an end to this debate. Mans view of what God is or who he might be is what has lead to all of these different ideas, denominations, and sects. One begins to wonder if any of them are even right anymore. A lot of what is translated from ancient texts is lost to us through that translation. Change one word in a sentence and you risk changing the overall meaning OF that sentence. But enough about that. Maybe you should have a son of your own. And realize that he is you, yet, his own individual being. All this while he worships you simply because your his father. His dad. And that he only looks up to you and does what you ask of him. All the while coming to understand the very ESSENCE of SPIRIT that connects the both of you together as one. Just my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted May 5, 2012 #149 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Since the OP has announced his withdrawal, it might be helpful to recap the scriptural points, for the benefit of anybody who would wish to review the thread, or to continue the discussion. First, however, here is what I believe to be the most widely accepted statement of the Trinitarian position, the Nicene Creed (Western and We form, ecclesiological coda omitted). I appreciate that non-creedal and other-creedal Christians have participated in the thread, as well as non-Christians with an interest in correctly describing Christian views. We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I leave each reader to judge for themself which provisions of the above, if any, are contradictied by which of the verses, if any, which the OP has put forward. If anybody catches a verse I missed, please post corrections. Format: The post numbers are given in parentheses, then the citation. The text is presented as the OP gave it. Comments, if needed, are presented at the end of the entry. Old Testament (86) Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through? - (64, 86, 92, 112, 121. 146) 1 Kings 8:27 But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! - (146) Psalm 44:21 Would not God search this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart. - (131) Jeremiah 10:10 But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he is angry, the earth trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath. New Testament (27, 34) Matthew 27:46 (also Mark 15:34) And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Inapplicability subsequently concdeded, at post 81 - (34) Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone." - (141) Luke 4: 23-24 Jesus said to them, "Surely you will quote this proverb to me: 'Physician, heal yourself! Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.'" "I tell you the truth," he continued, "no prophet is accepted in his hometown. - (141) Luke 22:42 "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." - (121, 131) Luke 22:43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him (Note that this line is not widely accepted as authentic, since it is not in the earliest and best manuscripts of Luke.) - (27, 34) Luke 23:34 Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." - (27, 34) Luke 23:46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. - (141) Luke 24: 13-20. 39-40 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened.As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him. He asked them, "What are you discussing together as you walk along?" They stood still, their faces downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, "Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?" "What things?" he asked. "About Jesus of Nazareth," they replied. "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him ... Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. - (32, 59, 86, 92, 97, 99) John 5:30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. - (62, 68, 141, 146) John 5:37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, - (74, 97, 99) John 8:40 As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. - (73, 97, 99) John 12:49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. - (108, 121) John 13: 16 I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. - (90, 97, 99) John 14: 28 "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. - (5, 13, 59) John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" - (108. 121) Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. - (146) 1 Corinthians 2:10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. - (112, 141) 1 Corinthians 8:6 But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life. - (103) 1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all - (86, 112, 121, 122, 146) 1 Corinthians 15:50 What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever. - (62) 1 Timothy 6:16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen. - (146) 1 John 3:20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted May 6, 2012 #150 Share Posted May 6, 2012 This course is beginning to wander, so I will try to refocus it in this reply so is being christian makes me see those lines differently ? It depends on what you are looking at. If you are looking at GOD’s command to be fruitful and multiply (for example), then that is straight forward. You don’t need to be a Christian to understand that. It’s very much like reading commands from the Quran on how Muslims are suppose to act around non Muslims. It’s straight forward and clear. Now, you’ve happened to choose the most complex concept there is in Christianity. A casual reading of the Bible alone is not going to enlighten one to that concept. And you have proven why with your cherry picking. You pull verses out of context and say that that proves your view. That doesn’t work that way. Many of the verses you present have nothing to do with the point that you are trying to make. There are verses in the Bible that show that Jesus and GOD are one. And there are verses that show that Jesus is subordinate to GOD. And somehow, you claim that the subordinate verses disprove the equality verses. If you were really trying to understand just by reading the Bible, then you would have considered how are both true? There is no abrogation like what you are use to in the Quran. And that has been what most here has been trying to tell you (in “christian pointview”) and yet you’ve shown no indication of understanding. For arguments sake, using your logic. How do you know that the verses that show equality don’t supersede the subordinate verses? How did you determine which set of verses abrogate the other? The verses you point out say that Jesus is subordinate to GOD, they never say Jesus is not GOD and there are many places that Jesus says he is GOD. You don’t seem to catch the concept of what it is to be a servant and what it means in Christianity, so let me recap. The following passage tells of when Jesus washes the disciple’s feet. John 13:12-17 “When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.” One thing you see is that Jesus is saying that he is GOD *AND* that he is subordinate to GOD all in the same passage. Do you have an issue with that? Jesus was teaching the disciples humility but also showing that if you are a leader, you are a servant of those that you lead. To be submissive to each other. And hence, we begin to see what the different roles are. GOD can never be submissive to his creation but in human form, Jesus he can be. If he can be, then can we do no less? That is his purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now