How many Lord of lords are there?

Dor said:
Funny their website and Wiki both list him as either a past or present member so you might recheck that.
I have to love the man....I do not have to respect a single thing he has said he is just a man and we will leave it at that.
Click to expand...


He's a retired Bishop of the Episcopal Church. He's still a member of the Epsicopal Church.

Do you show someone you love them by making fun of them and implying that they are not with God?

What does it take Dor? Is there some work he was supposed to do, or isn't his faith sufficient? Did he need to be baptised in a different church?

You can respect him as a human being, if nothing else. Do you show your love to other humans by mocking them and running them down?

I've read some of Spong's books. I do not agree with everything he says. But I've never read him mock people who believe differently than he does, even while they are condmening him to hell.
 
Dor said:
Funny their website and Wiki both list him as either a past or present member so you might recheck that.
I have to love the man....I do not have to respect a single thing he has said he is just a man and we will leave it at that.
Click to expand...


Oh, I misunderstood your post to mean that he was not an Anglican Bishop, but you meant that he is part of the Jesus Seminar. I just checked their website and I see that he is listed as a fellow there, so I stand corrected.

FWIW, while I think the Jesus Seminar is an interesting phenomenon and they make an important contribution to scholarship by bringing attention to the need to look at the historical and cultural context of the Bible, I certainly don't worry about checking their red letter words before I read my Bible. I don't need research to tell me that it is all true. :)
 
If I've understood the original question correctly-who is Lord of Lords- isn't the simple answer to that God? Getting into it a bit deeper with the Trinity Wouldn't it be acceptable to call all 3 parts of the Trinity (Father, Son, Spirit) Lord of Lords collectivly and 'individually', which would easily explain the seeming contradictions in the quoted scripture?
 
pfw said:
If I've understood the original question correctly-who is Lord of Lords- isn't the simple answer to that God? Getting into it a bit deeper with the Trinity Wouldn't it be acceptable to call all 3 parts of the Trinity (Father, Son, Spirit) Lord of Lords collectivly and 'individually', which would easily explain the seeming contradictions in the quoted scripture?
Click to expand...
yes, simply it is god. collectively because they make up god, yes, individually, is like an impossible thing, because you cannot refer to one without referring to the others, so there is no way, truth, and life without all three being involved. indeed both the father and the son share the same spirit and send out the holy spirit, therefore we worship and glorify the father through christ jesus by the power of the holy spirit.
 
BlaznFattyz said:
yes, simply it is god. collectively because they make up god, yes, individually, is like an impossible thing, because you cannot refer to one without referring to the others, so there is no way, truth, and life without all three being involved. indeed both the father and the son share the same spirit and send out the holy spirit, therefore we worship and glorify the father through christ jesus by the power of the holy spirit.
Click to expand...

How is 'individualy' an impossible thing? there are plenty of examples of just 'God The Father' etc. And in one of the passages originaly quoted it appears that the Father is naming the Son 'Lord of Lords'. If what your saying appears to be 'there's no difference between the three and they can never be seperated or individual'- why bother with a trinity at all, why not just say 'God' and be done with the whole confusing teaching? (which seems to be the cause of more and more people NOT understanding God and turning away from Christianity than a lot of other things-and more 'heated debates' on this forum than most other issues too). Surely understanding the 'nature of God' (like the human mind has a chance of that anyway) is less important that understanding God's wishes and rules for us?
 
BlaznFattyz said:
yes, simply it is god. collectively because they make up god, yes, individually, is like an impossible thing, because you cannot refer to one without referring to the others, so there is no way, truth, and life without all three being involved. indeed both the father and the son share the same spirit and send out the holy spirit, therefore we worship and glorify the father through christ jesus by the power of the holy spirit.
Click to expand...

Sorry, one last question- I thought all thre monotheistic religions (Judasin, Christianity & Islam) pretty much agree that 'all things are possible with God'- so saying something is 'impossible' and limits God- aren't we supposed to not do that? But then again all three also 'humanise God' by addressing God in male terms, which is limiting God... Just a thought.
 
pfw said:
How is 'individualy' an impossible thing? there are plenty of examples of just 'God The Father' etc. And in one of the passages originaly quoted it appears that the Father is naming the Son 'Lord of Lords'. If what your saying appears to be 'there's no difference between the three and they can never be seperated or individual'- why bother with a trinity at all, why not just say 'God' and be done with the whole confusing teaching? (which seems to be the cause of more and more people NOT understanding God and turning away from Christianity than a lot of other things-and more 'heated debates' on this forum than most other issues too). Surely understanding the 'nature of God' (like the human mind has a chance of that anyway) is less important that understanding God's wishes and rules for us?
Click to expand...
one cannot seperate the nature of god, although there are three persons, there does not exist one without the other, they are one god. why bother with the trinity? because that is how god has revealed himself. it's not a matter of bothering to understand, it is a matter of thirsting to know the true living god and his love and salvation for us. impossibility can be used wrong when referring to god. things can be impossible for god when it goes against his nature. that is not putting limits on god. it is impossible for god to be unholy, it is impossible for god to be unrighteous, it is impossible for god to be not almighty. that is not me putting a limitation on god, that is just me describing his nature which would not make him god if he went against it. that argument is more of a fallacy of human logic than it is putting limitations on god.
 
Maybe I didn't phrase my original point correctly- when I said 'individualy' I was refering to saying 'Jesus is Lord of Lords'; so linguisticly I'm refering to Jesus in the singular and not as part of the trinity. (The trinity, nature of God etc would be seperate issues and don't affect me refering to Jesus in the singular, what ever His true nature is). That also makes up part of my argument (I'll thank no-one who points out English is a clumbsy, juvanile language, the following goes for all human language) language is an indadequate and deeply flawed way of trying to comunicate any idea or concept about God, who is unknowable.
 
pfw said:
Sorry, one last question- I thought all thre monotheistic religions (Judasin, Christianity & Islam) pretty much agree that 'all things are possible with God'- so saying something is 'impossible' and limits God- aren't we supposed to not do that? But then again all three also 'humanise God' by addressing God in male terms, which is limiting God... Just a thought.
Click to expand...
this is like doing a full circle. in the infant stage of understand you would just say god. as an adult you understand the true nature of god and how the three persons make up god, their roles, and their natures, and then you have the father, son, and holy ghost. then as a wise old man, one can refer back to just saying god, because your understanding is infused with your intent.
 
pfw said:
Maybe I didn't phrase my original point correctly- when I said 'individualy' I was refering to saying 'Jesus is Lord of Lords'; so linguisticly I'm refering to Jesus in the singular and not as part of the trinity. (The trinity, nature of God etc would be seperate issues and don't affect me refering to Jesus in the singular, what ever His true nature is). That also makes up part of my argument (I'll thank no-one who points out English is a clumbsy, juvanile language, the following goes for all human language) language is an indadequate and deeply flawed way of trying to comunicate any idea or concept about God, who is unknowable.
Click to expand...
linguistically you are referring to just jesus christ; however, jesus is not lord of lords if there is not the father to glorify, and the holy spirit which causes one to acknowledge him lord of lords in the first place. and that is what i mean but impossible to seperate.
 
BlaznFattyz said:
this is like doing a full circle. in the infant stage of understand you would just say god. as an adult you understand the true nature of god and how the three persons make up god, their roles, and their natures, and then you have the father, son, and holy ghost. then as a wise old man, one can refer back to just saying god, because your understanding is infused with your intent.
Click to expand...

This I like, yeah I can accept that.
 
pfw said:
Now I'm begining to think He (God) is just bragging... (lol)But I get your point I think.
Click to expand...

Weeeeeeellll, when one gets to be as big as God is,,,are bragging rights not within His realm and prespice? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top