God Feeds the Ravens
- Reaction score
We should not trivialize?
I don't know what you are talking about.. If "the son" was an incarnation of G-d, we would have a walking and talking G-d, that would be omniscient and have no need of praying to the Father. It is gibberish, to me, to say that the son and the Father are one person, but the son worships the Father
It has become tradition, and evolved during the first couple of centuries after the ascension.
The Bible is a collection of scrolls which was not chosen by Jesus. It is a collection of accounts, from various authors about Divine matters, and the NT did not even exist until after the ascension. There are numerous creeds. Some make logical sense and do not deviate from common sense, whilst others revolve around concepts which diverge from the shema which Jesus proclaimed.
It is too easy to claim that G-d has a number of parts / persons .. and the shema is designed to protect us from such pitfalls.
"Nobody is good except for our Father" does not translate to Jesus claiming to be part of a trinity. It is a "mystery" invented by men.
Bingo.It's not "parts." Incarnation, in trinitarian, isn't an extra "part."
That's the thing. Why keep asking the same question when you already know the answers are not going to align with the beliefs of your faith? That's not going to change no matter how many times you ask.I actually don't see it that way. It's the need to prove the Quran Jesus. The Quran has to be right -- regardless. So (seemingly) contrary responses must be wrong. Even if they are as bright as the sun. In that sense it's driven by the need to convince not only others but perhaps myself as well?
So no, I personally don't see the question as posted in bad faith ...
It's a bit more nuanced I think, but in a sense yes.If the father is Jesus (as how most trinitarians I've speak with refer) than it would be teaching them to worship him/Jesus. If it were God/father he'd still be talking about himself, no?
I find that sad.Why keep asking the same question when you already know the answers are not going to align with the beliefs of your faith? That's not going to change no matter how many times you ask.
It's a bit more nuanced I think, but in a sense yes.
To borrow my own analogy, I think of Jesus like God extending his hand to earth. We can achieve much through that hand, (as Jesus taught- in my name), but the source is still the father.
Prayer to me is like the accolades a concert pianist receives after a performance. Even though it was his hands on the keyboard that made the music, we applaud the artist not his hands for it is he who controls them.
Interesting questions. I think that the profits and Jesus made God more approachable for all, but in my mind the divine will always hold higher regard.Separate question. You mentioned christians put Jesus at a higher standard being god. Muhammad is place as a higher standard as prophet.
Shouldn't both be at our standards with no medium between god and man?
Treat Muhammad just as every other person without authority?
True enough, at this point in my life, my religious beliefs are pretty well etched in stone as I'm sure is the case for most here. Difference is, I still respect the beliefs of others and would never attempt to discredit them nor harbor the notion that anything that doesn't align with my faith must be wrong.Unless I’m misreading you folks - always a possibility- you are each are positing that the other is being rigid because after all the posts on this thread, as well as the posts on other threads, neither of you has moved from your originally stated positions.
..I think that this is all in the eyes of the beholder..Too often, it seems to me, what starts out as a sharing of our differing perspectives deteriorates into acrimony. Of course it doesn’t if one side or the other commences inquiry in a deliberately contentious manner..
This assumes that 'your' book alone is 'the truth'..I think that this is all in the eyes of the beholder..
The closer one gets to the truth, the more it will be opposed .. or the person who speaks it will be opposed.
But you completely roll over any replies you get, call them gibberish, etc.If any member would rather not talk about the concept of "a begotten son" of G-d, then they don't have to.
If somebody doesn't want to discuss whether a man is G-d or not, then they don't have to.
No it doesn't.This assumes that 'your' book alone is 'the truth'
That is what conversations are all about.But it's only what you believe to be the truth..
No, I quite accept your explanation of that conundrum, and I actually find the deliberate misunderstanding of others in that 'debate' to be mischievous and annoying. I don't know why you keep banging your head there, lolMany people claim that it is not possible for G-d to be omniscient, and for us to have free-will.
They claim that as we must choose what G-d knows, we have no choice.
Do you agree with that? Probably not..
But other religions believe you do not have the truth.sometimes people aren't particularly interested in "the truth".
From previous discussions about Arianism, it has been proposed, I think in Arius's own letters, that the Son was begotten of the Father before time began
Why does God have to be logical according to human reason? Quantum theory isn't logical. Schrodinger's cat isn't logical. Is Spirit required to conform to human degrees of reason and logic? How should man try to limit the Divine to performing for human reason? Why should God have to be understandable to limited natural minds? That supposition is what doesn't make logical sense, imo
Scriptures use human terms and symbolism and parables to try to explain spiritual processes and laws that are 'beyond the veil' of human ability to conceive.Language is limited. Father and Son are human terms. It's Plato's cave. We only see the shadow dance of true reality.
Some do not accept the mysteries of Christianity
It doesn't make them go away, imo