I do believe in God

Post Reply New Topic

That's your take on it, and you're entitled to it, just as I'm entitled to mine.

^^^ fair enough

Not so. Firstly you have the First letter to the Romans where he starts of with "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the Good News of God, 1:2 which he promised before through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 1:3 concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 1:4 who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 1:5 through whom we received grace and apostleship, for obedience of faith among all the nations, for his name?s sake; 1:6 among whom you are also called to belong to Jesus Christ; 1:7 to all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

Here he explicitly states that Jesus is of the flesh and that he was declared to be son of god via his resurrection, he also distinguishes between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, in other letters Paul shows clearly that Jesus was a divine being but not God.

It is only John who implicitly states Jesus was God incarnate and for several centuries debate raged amongst the Christians as to Jesus divine status, was he either exulted or Incarnate? Both views were widely held. Gradually the debate moved away from what is in the New Testament ie Jesus was exalted at his crucifixion, baptism or at his conception (at the resurrection was the earliest view) to whether he was created by god before or after creation of the universe. From there the debate was whether or not he had always co existed with god Ie he was Gods Wisdom or Gods Word (logos), but the Jewish and Christian faiths are mono theistic and this was seen a duotheistic. The argument was pretty much put to bed when the debate between Arian and his bishop Alexander of Alexandria got under the collar of Constantine who called for the debate to be settled, and had the bishops meet in Nicea to decide the matter.

Opening paragraphs like First Romans (which are not shared in the rest of Paul's views) are thought to be direct quotes of early Christian Creeds, and it was believed Paul used this quote to curry favour with the Roman church and allay their fears of his views.

Even Luke who in his gospel claims Jesus was Exulted at conception says that Jesus was exalted at the Resurrection when he writes Acts (Nearly all Biblical scholars believe Acts was written by the Author of luke)

The earliest christian writings show that the first christians believed God adopted Jesus at his resurrection. Later Christians elevated him still further by having him exulted at his baptism, then birth and eventually he becomes the Logos and then God himself. Grappling with the problem of having more than one god led eventually to the concept of the Trinity. If only Occams Razor had been available to them.

Like I said earlier it puzzles me how, many Christians, are able to cast a critical eye over the OT but are unable to do the same with the NT.

Personally, I think you're just nitpicking by taking the text too literally. I have no problem with the Christ of Paul being the same as the Christ of John.

^ How the heck is this Nitpicking. The Trinity along with the Resurrection is at the core of your belief. Yet the earliest Christians had no need for this contrivance, it only occurred because later believers saw need to elevate christ beyond the natural into the absolute divine. Do you really think it is nitpicking to point out that what contemporary Christians believe is so divergent from that of the earliest christian belief?

^^^ you have clearly entered the realm of chaos. ^^^

When I read Paul, I see no contradiction with John. Just because Paul doesn't always spell it out like John does doesn't mean he doubted Christ's divinity. Paul made it clear, Christ's death was redemptive for mankind - how is that going to be accomplished by a mere human being?

They didn't actually say any of those things, because you didn't hear them say it. It is just a bunch of stuff that is written in a book. You can believe it if you want. It is a choice. If you don't want to believe, or want to contradict the things that are in there, it is futile to make yourself and others disbelieve by reading and projecting what it is that is in there. It can only lead to chaos. If it is not working for you, and you choose to not believe, or contradict, just put it down. Stay away from the confusion. You are only leading yourself away from the truth. Many times I have heard how right, and wrong everyone is, and why one makes more sence than the other. The truth is, everyone is right, and everyone is wrong, because we are all different. Some people have, and know things that others do not. Some things are not for others to understand. Alot of people know things, or have a special skill set that others do not. It is give and take. Different for everyone. Ask youself. What is it that you do? How do you define yourself? How does that relate to the rest of the cosmos. Use it. Refine it.

When a psychopath has the incapacty to feel, or experience love, are you going to be the one to tell him he is wrong, and make him understand?

Well it determines which "Paul" you are reading, Nearly all scholars of the NT be they Religious, agnostic or atheist are clear that many of the letters either have suspect authorship or are outright forgeries. As I said apart from Romans 1 it is clear that Paul thought Jesus was some kind of divine entity, he actually alludes to Jesus being an angel.



And right here you have the start of 400 years of debate. By adding the Redemption narrative to the belief that Jesus was resurrected by God, the early christians caused one heck of a theological problem which led eventually to the Council of Nicea and the concept of the Trinity, I do not for one minute believe in the Resurrection, but lets say it did happen, lets say Jesus did walk again, the rest of the narrative remains purely man made. The ever increasing exultation of Jesus leads to further and further assumptions necessary to shoehorn these beliefs into the primary one of Mono Theism.

No. We have a situation where Religious belief is not a benign influence upon society, in fact it has never been a benign influence. Now I am quite happy to acknowledge that we can never know what actually happened in biblical times. I am not trying to suggest that I know, what I am doing is pointing out that if you read this book with a critical eye much of what people believe it to say, it actually does not. So if someone is going to base their world view and at the same time attempt to force it on society, (kraich you are not even remotely guilty of this) they should at least understand what it says, not just the worlds but the context of the time in which it was written.

You talk of confusion and chaos, in regard to unravelling this book. That says to me that the belifs of christians cannot be supported by the bible, if they could then there would be no confusion. THe chaos occurs when people refuse to read it with a critical eye.

The truth is not everyone is right, They may think they are right but evidence often points to the high probability that they are wrong, That nothing can be proven absolutely does not mean conflicting views have an equal probability of accuracy.



Fallacious, unless that is, you are suggesting the religious have a dysfunctional neural network that prevents them from understanding that if a belief differs from experiment then the belief is wrong.

A critical eye? Have you ever tried to write about something because you thought it was super important, and you didn't really understand what it is? We are talking about a people who thought the world was flat. You are basing things on what people wrote in a book, and they really don't understand exactly what it is. When someone from over 4000 years ago writes about some dude that parted the red sea, that person did not show you a picture and scientifically define what it was he is talking about. Maybe he went left.

And WTF fallacious? That's a fancy word. It was not fallacious, it was a question. I didn't ask for misdirection with a fancy word, I wanted you to answer a question.
Dysfunctional neural network that prevents them from.....WTF????
Belief differs from experiment WTF???? I was referring to love. WTF???? you gonna make me belive love, and people are an experiment????

Mr. DentArthurDent. You must understand. These stories were written by a simple, under educated, very ancient, very superstitious people. You cannot be too critical.

I see no reason why Paul's letters would be considered forgeries. And I'm not asking you to accept that the resurrection had occurred; just that Paul believed that it had.

Pauline Authorship

As to Paul believing in the Ressurection of course he did, all Christians do. What I am saying is most early Christians saw Jesus as being exulted at his Ressurection. Paul saw him as a Devine being who prior to the Ressurection was subordinate to God, this then allowed for the concept of the Redemption for which the angelic Jesus was exulted to the stature of God

John is the only one who describes Jesus as god almighty, most Christians ascribe to his view even though his is the latest of the gospels and non of the earlier writings support his claims.

The point of my posts on this issue stems from the inability of Christians to view their bible with a critical mind. When you do this it becomes apparent that from the death of Jesus everything is man made theology, even prior to his death there are glaring contradictions between the various accounts, but unlike his life, we do have a lot of historical records which show how the Trinity became formulated by the minds of Men.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 22 Jul 2014, 11:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Firstly I am not being critical of the early believers in Christ. I fully get the context in which the oral tradition was passed down. I am critical of people who accept the stories in the bible at face value and do not investigate their origins.

Secondly the stories were not written by simple under educated people. They were written by well educated people who could not only read and write but could do so in a nuanced form. These people wrote down the oral tradition of the simple, under educated........

And this brings in another point. Oral tradition is not a reliable source as it is well understood and documented that a story will change and become embellished with each subsequent telling.