C
cyberpi
Guest
No. Must do per the will of God.
Jesus (pbuh) - failed Prophet
- Thread starter Muslimwoman
- Start date
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
There are, potentially and arguably, two "mysteries" that we could be talking about here. One is the mystery concerning our personal understanding of God. The other is a mystery regarding the nature of God.
If you can see the kingdom, the kingdom is in you and you can talk to God in prayer, then the first mystery disappears. You seek someone you can believe in, have faith in, serve and trust. If you have found that, there is no mystery there. The first mystery was something the early Christians resolved.
With the second mystery you want to define God. Having understanding on a personal level, love, faith and trust are not enough. You want to know His composition, what he's made from. The early Christians seeking to resolve the second mystery is something of which I am doubtful. After resolving the first mystery, why would anyone want to determine the nature of God? You'd have all you ever wanted. You have discovered your Creator. You now know your purpose. The only reason why you'd ever be interested in the mystery of the nature of God is if you never resolved the first mystery and don't have a relationship with God.
I hope this makes clearer what I was saying.
If one thinks of the Bible as a technical manual, one may well think that, it's just not the way I see things. If one sees the Bible as containing parts that are highly dependent on each other, as if one fault would stop it from being meaningful, that kind of thinking can be likened to thinking of the Bible as a machine.
The Bible being flawed doesn't make Jesus flawed. The Bible is there to remind us of what Jesus lived for, stood for and represented. It complements a bad memory. The early Christians went around without a New Testament but with Jesus and the apostles to guide them. The Israelites who wandered around in the wilderness for 40 years before settling in the Promised Land went around without a Tanakh but with Moses to guide them. It is possible to cope without Scripture. The early Jews did it. The early Christians did it. We can, in theory, do it too. Scripture is a reminder of the past, of past struggles. It's harder for us because of a generational and cultural gap, but it's do-able. Whether it's an oral (word-of-mouth) tradition, a creed-based (ie. Nicaean Creed) or a written tradition (ie. the New Testament), we have to somehow do it.
All Christians believe in Christ.
Christ is essential to Christianity. The Trinity is not essential. If you want to understand what is meant by Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Trinity concept may be helpful. If you're not interested and if Christ is enough for you, it should be sufficient to go without it.The Trinity was a result of people trying to contemplate the nature of God. People didn't know whether or not to think of Jesus as God taking forms or something else. If the Trinity was to serve a purpose, it was to end the confusion, or at least stop people contemplating the nature of God.
If the Council of Nicaea made it clear that it was still a mystery, then that could only have been better. The many varying views of the Trinity (or non-Trinity) have always been a result of people trying to contemplate the nature of God. If these people were going down the wrong path, it was not because of their non-conformity to the Nicaean doctrine and its Trinity. It was contemplation of the nature of God. Contemplation of the nature of God isn't blasphemy. It just doesn't lead anywhere. They'll never have an answer.
Denying the Trinity is not the same as "denying the Son" or blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. If I "deny the Son," by saying that Jesus was not the "Son of God" (and what that means is open to interpretation), and if the Son spoke on behalf of the Father (God), then I would indeed be "denying the Father" because the Father sent him. The reason why denying the Trinity doesn't mean the same thing is because most people see it as defining the nature of God. Denying that God has a particular nature has few implications because as many of us has said, the nature of God is a mystery. Why would God hold us responsible for getting something wrong that nobody understands? "Denying the Son because the Father sent him" is not about the nature of God, but the relationship between the Son and the Father. The Son was sent to spread the Gospel, the Son himself being a projection of the Father. Most of the time when we mention the Trinity, we are talking about the nature of God, which as many of us have said, is a mystery. We are not talking about the relationship between the Son and Father, a relationship that isn't a mystery.
If the Trinity served a purpose, it was just a device we used to put at peace those who couldn't help contemplating the nature of God. It was to shut these people up. I am personally not interested in the second mystery, the nature of God. If we don't want people to contemplate the nature of God, then we should not point them to a concept that was formulated in response to such a pursuit (ie. the Trinity). Doing so only encourages them to contemplate a mystery that we can never resolve. We should direct them elsewhere.
If we said the Trinity was essential, and some people thought it was wrong, they are going to want to get it right, because we claim to have got it right. If they don't like our concept and think we're wrong, they're going to want to prove it because we think we're so good. We should kill such an interest by saying that nobody can get it right, because even we cannot get it right. Nobody can ever get it right. The irony is, if we insist that our doctrine of Trinity is right, then we're also saying it's not a mystery. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Saying it's not essential is a way of saying we don't need to get it right.
Why don't we save them the trouble by pointing to the first mystery?
The Trinity doctrine wasn't made for us. It was made for those who wanted to contemplate the nature of God. It's like a device that tells us whether or not a person has a proper relationship with God. The fact that they take the bait shows that they don't. They are caught like fish and thereafter eaten alive.
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
What kind of "oneness" were you talking about?
Oneness of unity? Could this not be the same kind of oneness described in John 17:20-23?
Define please, the "Will of God" in this instance. And continue with how the will of God has anything to do with not taking the whole chapter into the situation into context, if you don't mind...
Can't know the will of God if one does not read the entirety of His word, on a particular matter...
madeinrussia89
Well-Known Member
Of course Jesus and God the Father are not interchangeable persons, BUT, they are united in one essence, along with the Holy Spirit, and all three of these in the trinity is one God, and one God alone.
Not only do those quotes not negate the divinity of Jesus, they just make a clear distinction between the Father and the Son, as we know there already is.
You and your wife are not interchangeable, but you are united in marriage.
And, to do the will of God, you must understand the instructions, which means you actually have to READ them and cannot just take them out of context.
madeinrussia89
Well-Known Member
That is like saying that people who although they believe the trinity and regard it as a mystery to a certain extent, don't have a relationship with God.
So far from the truth. So far. Just because a mystery isn't revealed to you during your life on earth doesn't mean that you don't have a relationship with God.
We know the Bible is the Logos, and Jesus is the Logos made flesh. If you say the Logos is incorrect, then you are saying the embodiment of Jesus is incorrect.
Of course the early Christians didn't walk around with a New Testament, they had it right in front of them in the flesh.
Again,
"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God...All things were made by him...He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not...And the Logos was made flesh, and dwelt among us" John 1:1, 3, 10, 14 "
All Christians believe in Christ.
The Trinity is essential because the Trinity is the nature of God. In fact, the Trinity is so essential that blaspheming against just ONE part is the unpardonable sin.
You can't just go without God, you have to seek spiritual truth. You can't say " Hey, I like Jesus, I'm going to follow some of his guidelines, but I don't want to bother to learn about the rest of the trinity and I will just disregard it altogether. "
If people don't want to believe in the MAIN test of christian orthodoxy, that is their deal, their soul. A choice anyone is free to make, but not without consequence.
Rejecting the trinity is rejecting the nature of God. People may not like it or understand it thoroughly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter or that it isn't correct.
In Western Christianity, people see God more in terms of one essence, and not three parts in one essence, although the trinity is accepted, it is just passed off as a truth and that's it, no one ever talks about it again, generally.
In Eastern Christianity, three hypostasis in one essence is the main fact of Christianity. There is much more importance put on understanding, or attempting to understand the mystery, with the help of God.
Now, God can reveal the mystery to you. It's just, you can't do it on your own with just your own created intellect. That's what we mean by "mystery". God has to reveal it to you for you to fully understand, man cannot figure it out on his own.
An example of God revealing mysteries:
Dan 2:30
"But as for me, this mystery has not been revealed to me for any wisdom residing in me more than {in} any {other} living man, but for the purpose of making the interpretation known to the king, and that you may understand the thoughts of your mind. "
Many spiritual truths ARE a mystery.
Denying the doctrine of the trinity means denying the fact that while God contains three persons, they are united in the same essence. Denying the nature of God, that's pretty bad, but simply not understanding, not bad, of course God isn't going to smite you for not being able to understand it.
If people want to sit and discuss the Trinity for the rest of their lives, hey, at least they are thinking about God for the rest of their lives, that's more than we can say for a lot of people.
That is the whole point. It is essential to believe, and we must attempt to understand what we can and call on God's infinite mercy and help us to understand. It's not a concept you can just throw out the window " I don't get it, oh well, not gonna try ".
Something can be a truth and a mystery to us (at the time, but not forever) at the same time.
The Trinity doctrine wasn't made for us. It was made for those who wanted to contemplate the nature of God. It's like a device that tells us whether or not a person has a proper relationship with God. The fact that they take the bait shows that they don't. They are caught like fish and thereafter eaten alive.
The Trinity is the main fact of Christianity, whether people understand it or not, completely different story.
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
Really great stuff Salty!
Chris
Chris
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
What I am saying is, if you see the Trinity as your relationship with God, then we could look no further. No need to comtemplate the nature of God.
That wasn't my thinking. I was just saying that it's the belief of those who pursue the second mystery. Such belief meant that they possibly didn't have a relationship with God because if they did, they wouldn't be so concerned about figuring out the nature of God. (Note: I haven't at this point taken into account the rest of your post. Will do that shortly.....)
The Logos most certainly referred to Jesus. The idea that the Logos referred to the Bible is less common. That's not to say it's wrong, that it's illegal to think of it that way. It's not wrong to not attribute the Logos to the Bible, or even to Jesus. It's just that when the Gospel of John used the term Logos, there was an intended meaning. The Gospel of John, like the other four Gospels, told the story of Jesus. It was most likely referring to Jesus alone, not the Bible, as the four Gospels, including the Gospel of John, were stories about Jesus, not the Bible. The literature was trying to depict Jesus as the Logos. It was not trying to depict the Bible as the Logos. When does the Gospel of John talk about the Bible? It's all about Jesus.
We could see it that way (ie. Bible = Logos), as many Christian groups do try and go further than Scripture and draw analogies, form metaphors and define relationships "not apparent" in the literature. I suppose it may be slightly different here because you're drawing from sacred tradition (ie. prima scriptura, not sola scriptura). It is obvious from the passage that the author was referring to Jesus, but not obvious that he was referring to the Bible. There is a slight possibility that the opening passage might be indirectly referring to the Bible as Logos. Sure, God sent us messages and these messages were recorded, but the Bible doesn't just contain messages from God, but thoughts and insights formed in response to such messages. We don't know that that was what the author of the Gospel of John was trying to say. I prefer here to be conservative and not try to draw conclusions that the literature does not apparently describe or depict.
Ok, well . . . going back to post #162 where I said there were two mysteries, one regarding how to establish a personal relationship with God and another concerning the nature of God, what I would like to ask is, why should the nature of God be important? Of all the things Israel had to do, offering animal sacrifices to God on a regular basis for wrongdoings, observing the Sabbath and expressing their devotion to God, was this not all about a personal relationship with God?
Then along comes Jesus who says that the Kingdom of God is at hand, that to be born in the Kingdom we must be born of the Spirit, we must die and be born again in the Kingdom. He says to Nicodemus that the Spirit of God is like the wind that blows things around. You can't see the wind but you can see what it does. When Jesus was crucified, there was an earthquake and the curtain veiling the Holy of Holies tore open. All barriers between us and God were removed. We then had direct access to God.
The mystery regarding how we were to establish a personal relationship with God had been resolved. When did the nature of God come into it?
Your screen name is "madeinrussia..." so I suppose you're Russian Orthodox. I haven't conversed with many here at CR that I know are Russian, Greek or Eastern Orthodox (I don't know the difference, please explain it to me). They haven't announced their Orthodox identity.
I was surprised when you told me that contemplating the nature of God was something we were meant to do. I thought what you wanted me to say was that all the problems of Christianity were caused by people contemplating the nature of God.
I thought you'd be satisfied when I suggested that if there was any purpose the Nicaean doctrine of the Trinity served, it was to please the people who couldn't help contemplating the nature of God. Instead you tell me that it was something we were meant to do. That was unexpected.So we were meant to contemplate it? This is new to me. I thought that suggesting that maybe the Nicaean Trinity doctrine was just to please people trying to contemplate the nature of God was good enough . . .
madeinrussia89
Well-Known Member
I think it's that one word that is throwing me off, nature. Nature is generally something we use for wordly terrestrial things....not godly things. I know I said " The Trinity is the nature of God" and it made sense at the time, but I'm thinking nature is the wrong word to use, because it can refer to too many things.
In that quote, yes, I would agree that I think it refers to Jesus explicitly rather than the Bible explicitly, but, the Bible is also the Logos (The Word) literally. What a mouthful that was.
It does put things in a different perspective with the sacred tradition, in most instances, it really helps clarify things for me. I see the Bible as the Word of God (Logos = " Word ") and uncorrupted. But yeah, I don't know how far that debate could go, and I don't have nearly enough theological knowledge for it to continue.
Shouldn't we want to know more about our all-merciful glorious God? People want to study and find out more about human nature, but suddenly we get to God and people lose interest or say that it isn't necessary. It is important though, even though it is a mystery and we're probably never going to get it all. Can we really comprehend things like the essence of God? Not a chance. But that's okay, because if we are willing to learn more and more about God and his attributes and " nature " for lack of a better word in the Trinity, that's always a good thing.
With the coming of Jesus Christ, now that God was actually in their face.
I'm actually attend a Serbian Orthodox Church, because it is close to home, but all in all it is the same as the Russian Orthodox Church, exactly the same.
Eastern Orthodox Church is the entire orthodox church containing Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, etc, it goes on and on, so basically all the churches wth apostolic succession in orthodoxy. The Oriental Orthodox Church is generally not included because they are not in communion with the rest of us (but not all the time, it gets really confusing, asking a priest would be the best way to get a rather articulate answer or reading some of the saints works, but it's going to be a LONG answer if you want to know why the Oriental Orthodox is not in communion with everyone else).
There isn't much difference between the Slavic Orthodox Churches (Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Ukrainian etc). In the Greek Orthodox Church, as far as I know, they don't wear headscarves during the service, small deviations like that (sometimes Greek churches have congregational singing, but most Slav churches don't at all), but I don't know of anything off the top of my head that would constitute as a MAJOR difference.
The melodies are different with each cultural background (music in an Ethiopian Orthodox Church is probably not going to sound like music in a Russian Orthodox Church).
In my church, all women wear headscarves, and they sing and say prayers in English and Russian, it's pretty conservative as far as worship in general goes though.
The doctrine and worship of every Orthodox church (excluding Oriental Orthodox and Old Believers - that's another long explanation, Old Believers) is the same, but in different languages, ultimately.
I was surprised when you told me that contemplating the nature of God was something we were meant to do. I thought what you wanted me to say was that all the problems of Christianity were caused by people contemplating the nature of God.
So we were meant to contemplate it? This is new to me. I thought that suggesting that maybe the Nicaean Trinity doctrine was just to please people trying to contemplate the nature of God was good enough . . .
Creepy, right? The whole Nicene creed wasn't to throw the trinity out there to shut everyone up so they'd stop inquiring about it. I mean, if anything, people inquired more, especially about the "essence" of God that unifies all the hypostases.
I have to disagree very strongly. Denying partners with G-d is NOT denying G-d, quite the opposite it is placing G-d in His rightful place, as Lord of the Universes, with no partners. He is One.
Jesus (pbuh) himself, according to the Bible, said to only worship G-d so I cannot see how G-d would consider me ignorant and blasphemous for following His instructions and those of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh).
Stop submitting, and start living. God isn't looking for groveling servants...that is one thing Islam never clarifies. That term "submit" is to break and bow unwillingly, as far as I'm concerned. that is not what Christianity is about. Jesus wants a partner, not a slave...
greymare
Well-Known Member
I think I like what you are saying ( a bit ) can you give me some quotes. this is stuff I like. Strong. think for yourself type of stuff.
Rather than considering Jacob and his struggle with the Lord's angel, or David and his choice of weapons against all odds, or Joshua and the impossible task set before him to hone a group of people into a legion of soldiers (for example), consider the Beatitudes...
Beatitudes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
C
cyberpi
Guest
Would you also ask me to define the "Will of Quahom1"? Or the "Will of Saltmeister"? Is there ANY context where I define the will of someone else?
Have you read the entirety of anyone's word? Have you read the entirety of your own words?
C
cyberpi
Guest
I was talking about the one-ness that Jesus was talking about in Matthew 19:5-6, or Mark 10:8. There is a portion of my days, actions, and knowledge, that I don't author... there is a portion of another's days, actions, and knowledge, that I do author. Yes, I find that the one-ness, and the one-ness, are the same.
C
cyberpi
Guest
False. There are many Sons. Do you claim to NOT be one of them? I wonder how a Trinitarian would explain the parable of the lost Son.
Not only do those quotes not negate the divinity of Jesus, but they define the divinity of anyone and possibly everyone. Well, what else do you call it when someone can do the will of God?
Neither is God and Jesus interchangeable.
No, I have to HEAR and SEE God. Perhaps you could place the words into context with the prayer given in the gospels, "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in heaven..." Who are you praying to? Do you pray, "Our Father..."? Which part of those words in the prayer do you flatly disbelieve or deny... all of them? Is his will done in your home on Earth, as it is heaven?
LOL what does that have to do at all with the Trinity?
Blaspheme towards the Holy Spirit of God.
That is not what Jesus specifically instructs us.
Jesus was teaching us how to pray.
You know what, fine. Jesus is a failed savior, and you are a failed human...so are we all. So now Cyberpi, where does that leave us? What is your solution, to the problem? Give us the ultimate answer, please.
Yeah man, I have read over and over again.
Muslimwoman
Coexistence insha'Allah
Submitting only means to surrender oneself to the authority of G-d. We are actually prohibited from being groveling servants. Islam does not have monks, we are told not to pray constantly and we are not to ignore our spouce with constant religious study or prayer. We are told to live, to have time for prayer and faith but also to have time for our families, work, relaxing at home. We have many moral obligations toward our fellow man and community, we could not uphold these obligations if we devote ourselves to being 'groveling servants'.
MW...today the meaning of submission in the Muslim world means to submit to those with the guns, or die. Allah, has nothing to do with it. Women, wear the burka, do not work, do not go to school, do not drive, do not stand up to a man. Man, do not speak your mind, or else lose your family and your life.
It does not matter if the Islamic faith is being abused by these creatins, the fact is the banner of ISLAM is over their faces and above their heads, while they remove some heads from hapless victims. It is on the internet, and on TV, and the idea is to make the rest of the world AFRAID, only it isn't working. The rest of the world is simply getting the wrong idea, and getting pissed off.
And the rest of the Muslim world is standing by while this happens...
Muslim Arabs should be patrolling the streets of Iraq, Muslim Persians should be telling the Iranian government to knock it off.
3000 children with club feet have been healed in the last 4 years in Iraq...why the hell did it take foreigners to get the job done? Where is the Muslim guided care? It isn't there.
Forgive me please lady, I'm beginning to rant.
I'll stop now, before I break China Cat's heart.
madeinrussia89
Well-Known Member
So exactly how many divine sons does God the Father have, cyberpi? Thousands? Where do you get that idea? Do you think there is more than one Christ?
God the Father and Jesus aren't interchangeable hypostases. But when we say God, we don't mean just God the Father, or Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, unless we specifically say it. When we say God, we mean the entirety of the trinity.
Okay. You need to experience the commandments, whether you hear them, see them in action, or read them. I thnk we can agree on that.
Who am I praying to? I'm praying to God!
Yes we say " Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.Thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. " as well as many MANY others.
I'm not getting where you think I'm denying anything in the prayer or not believing in its words.
Do you flat out deny the words of this prayer - " For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. " ?