Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

OK, I know I'll get beat over the head for this by the mainstream Christians, but here it goes.

From my understanding mainstream Christianity believes this:

God existed prior to the advent of Jesus Christ
God never claimed the name Jesus Christ prior to the Mortal existence of Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ is the physical form of God taken during that mortal period

So, if at some point in time God is not in physical form, is there an existing Jesus Christ at that point in time, or is there only God the Father? Or is it just like me using Regret and not my real name?

Also, is God the Father the Son of God the Father, and how does this work?

The Trinity never did make any damn sense, but a Christian would probably refer you to John: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... and the Word became flesh ..."

So, God existed before Jesus was born, but Christ ("the Word" existed before he took physical form.

Originally posted by Regret
OK, I know I'll get beat over the head for this by the mainstream Christians, but here it goes.

From my understanding mainstream Christianity believes this:

God existed prior to the advent of Jesus Christ
God never claimed the name Jesus Christ prior to the Mortal existence of Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ is the physical form of God taken during that mortal period

So, if at some point in time God is not in physical form, is there an existing Jesus Christ at that point in time, or is there only God the Father? Or is it just like me using Regret and not my real name?

Also, is God the Father the Son of God the Father, and how does this work?

It is mytholigy... It all depends on how you look at it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on how you look at it.

Yes, it does. I am looking for the answer based on a mainstream Christian's manner of "looking at it."

Originally posted by Gregory
The Trinity never did make any damn sense, but a Christian would probably refer you to John: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... and the Word became flesh ..."

So, God existed before Jesus was born, but Christ ("the Word" existed before he took physical form.

So Jesus Christ to them is the Word? So is he the Word when not in the flesh, or is the Word now Jesus Christ, and the Word is just another name for Jesus Christ? This reference doesn't clarify the stance for me. I thought that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were a single entity from the mainstream Christian stance. This would say that God and the Word existed separately while both were in a nonphysical state.

I never completely understood the trinity, but i dont raelly have a problem with it either. If God was smaller than the mind of a human being then I guess he wouldn't be God at all. Especially since there are so many things in our own bodies that we dont understand.
There are plenty of references to the plurality of God all through the Bible starting in Genesis 1:1. " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The word for God in that sentence is Eloheim, which means God manifest in 3 or more persons. It also says "Let us make man in our image". In Genesis 18 The Lord appeared to Abram, since Judaism teaches noone has seen the father to whom was Abram talking? Just a thought.

Originally posted by closeracing
I never completely understood the trinity, but i dont raelly have a problem with it either. If God was smaller than the mind of a human being then I guess he wouldn't be God at all. Especially since there are so many things in our own bodies that we dont understand.
There are plenty of references to the plurality of God all through the Bible starting in Genesis 1:1. " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The word for God in that sentence is Eloheim, which means God manifest in 3 or more persons. It also says "Let us make man in our image". In Genesis 18 The Lord appeared to Abram, since Judaism teaches noone has seen the father to whom was Abram talking? Just a thought.

Once again, while useful information, it doesn't answer the question. Elohim only means plurality. Not three or more. Also, does this mean God was separate? It seems that the references given thus far do not support a single entity, but multiple entities.

I am not looking to offend. I will clarify exactly what I am looking for. I want a serious explanation of the support for a singular entity of the mainstream Christian Trinity. It seems that the majority of Christians that believe this do not know, and/or understand, the reasoning behind this belief. I cannot have an intelligent debate on the subject if I do not understand the reasoning and support for this view. Is there a mainstream Christian out there who could explain this for me.

Originally posted by Regret
OK, I know I'll get beat over the head for this by the mainstream Christians, but here it goes.

From my understanding mainstream Christianity believes this:

God existed prior to the advent of Jesus Christ
God never claimed the name Jesus Christ prior to the Mortal existence of Jesus Christ

* eventhough Christ was not introduced by the Father in the Old Testament, God provided prophesies about Christ through the prophets because Christ exists with God in the beginning...

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
For in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;
And he is before all things, and in him all things consist."
Colossians 1:15-17

Originally posted by Regret
Jesus Christ is the physical form of God taken during that mortal period

* the Father and Christ are different beings... but in the beginning, They are both spirits...

"And the Word became flesh , and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father) , full of grace and truth."
John 1:14

* it was Christ who was manifested in the flesh, not the Father...

Originally posted by Regret
So, if at some point in time God is not in physical form, is there an existing Jesus Christ at that point in time, or is there only God the Father? Or is it just like me using Regret and not my real name?

Also, is God the Father the Son of God the Father, and how does this work?

* first off...

"To the intent that now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God ,"
Ephesians 3:10

"But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God ."
I Corinthians 1:24

* Christ is the manifold wisdom of God... and Christ as the Wisdom existed long before the Father created everything...

"The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was .
When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth :
While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
When he prepared the heavens, I was there : when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Then I was by him , as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
Proverbs 8:22-30

The best way to answer any question you have about God is to read the Bible. That is the best advice I can give.

Originally posted by Regret
Jesus Christ is the physical form of God taken during that mortal period


I always thought they believe that he was the actual son of "God".

Originally posted by moviefreak_173
The best way to answer any question you have about God is to read the Bible. That is the best advice I can give.
and pray, prayer towards God is the most powerful advice other than the bible. you pray so that Ge will open your eyes to the truth.

Originally posted by Boris
I always thought they believe that he was the actual son of "God".
he is the son of God, and he is God at the same time, he had to die to be a Perfect sacrifice, and rid the world of sin, so all we have to do is Ask Jesus into our hearts, otherwise Christians would be the Exact same as Jews.

Originally posted by peejayd
* eventhough Christ was not introduced by the Father in the Old Testament, God provided prophesies about Christ through the prophets because Christ exists with God in the beginning...

* the Father and Christ are different beings... but in the beginning, They are both spirits...

* it was Christ who was manifested in the flesh, not the Father...

* first off...

* Christ is the manifold wisdom of God... and Christ as the Wisdom existed long before the Father created everything...

Ok, thank you for the proper type of response.

Given your response, do you believe in the trinity as interpreted by the Nicene Creed? Single entity in three manifestations? I was unsure as to this through your response, at times it seems you do not.

For those of you that said read or pray, I do that, and have done that. My belief is that the Trinity is three separate and distinct individuals, this conclusion is my religions belief, but it is also the conclusion I have come to through study of the Bible and through prayer. Please do not insult me my assuming I would not research somewhat the subject on my own. I am merely asking what you believe as Christians. I have researched it out, and have some knowledge as to where the idea comes from, but I want to know what the lay Christian believes on the matter, and why they believe it based in Biblical text.

Originally posted by Legion_of_Maul
he is the son of God, and he is God at the same time

apparently god reproduces asexually, by budding.

Originally posted by Regret
Ok, thank you for the proper type of response.

Given your response, do you believe in the trinity as interpreted by the Nicene Creed? Single entity in three manifestations? I was unsure as to this through your response, at times it seems you do not.

* nope, the doctrine of the "Trinity" is not Biblical...

"Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit :"
Matthew 28:19

* there is really a Godhead written in the Bible but it does NOT say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal in every way as in the doctrine of "Trinity"...

"Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I ."
John 14:28

* this verse perfectly destroys the doctrine of "Trinity" because of Christ's admittance that the Father is greater than Him...

* the Father, Son and Holy Spirits are three different yet united beings according to the Bible...

"The God that made the world and all things therein , he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;"
The Acts 17:24

* the Father is the Creator...

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
For in him were all things created , in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him , and unto him;
And he is before all things, and in him all things consist."
Colossians 1:15-17

"Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ :"
II Peter 1:1

* the Son is a Savior and in Him or through Him, all things are created...

"Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created; And thou renewest the face of the ground ."
Psalms 104:30

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost , whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
John 14:26

* the Holy Spirit renews the face of the ground, teaches the people of God and brings the teachings of God to remembrance...

* the Father is God from everlasting to everlasting...

"Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God ."
Psalms 90:2

* the Son was given birth by the Father...

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee ? and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son?"
Hebrews 1:5

* and the Holy Spirit came from the Father who is the Father of spirits...

"Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits , and live?"
Hebrews 12:9

Originally posted by Legion_of_Maul
he is the son of God, and he is God at the same time, he had to die to be a Perfect sacrifice, and rid the world of sin, so all we have to do is Ask Jesus into our hearts, otherwise Christians would be the Exact same as Jews.

Tell me, how exactly did a man being executed rid the world of sin?

How can you ask something of someone who as been dead for over 2000 years?

Is there something wrong with being Jewish? The tone of that seems to me that you look down on Jews.

Didn't you konw? There has been no sin since Jesus died.

Originally posted by Alliance
Didn't you konw? There has been no sin since Jesus died.

Thats becuase Jesus didn't die. He still lives.

Originally posted by Legion_of_Maul
he is the son of God, and he is God at the same time, he had to die to be a Perfect sacrifice, and rid the world of sin, so all we have to do is Ask Jesus into our hearts, otherwise Christians would be the Exact same as Jews.

They are the same. Both are people searching for truth and love, just in different ways.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is mytholigy... It all depends on how you look at it.

. Misspelled (), but . Jesus certainly wasn't the first son of god (mythologically speaking), and seemed to inherit quite a few other aspects of his story from his predecessors. It doesn't mean you should or shouldn't believe in him (far be it from me to make such distinctions), but it all depends on how you view it.

Being a Christian and a Catholic... I completely agree with you Regret. I have no idea about my religion. I wouldn't refer you to John because that's just as confusing as your question. Basically, I just have to believe... and it is hard when I don't understand a whole lot of it... But essentially, it's really not meant to be understood. I have about half a million questions that I want answered that simlpy... can't be. And I'm probably not experienced enough in my religion to make sense out of much.

But if you have questions, and they can't be answerd, and you're not satisfied with it...

what are you really getting out of relgion? could it be possible that there is something better out there for you?

Yep, like non restrictive truth.........

Oh, I liked to budding thingie.............

I'd like to see it on tape.

Originally posted by Blanca
Being a Christian and a Catholic... I completely agree with you Regret. I have no idea about my religion. I wouldn't refer you to John because that's just as confusing as your question. Basically, I just have to believe... and it is hard when I don't understand a whole lot of it... But essentially, it's really not meant to be understood. I have about half a million questions that I want answered that simlpy... can't be. And I'm probably not experienced enough in my religion to make sense out of much.

Thank you for the response. If someone can expound on the question that would be appreciated.

Originally posted by Alliance
I'd like to see it on tape. You you???

http://www.occultopedia.com/b/beelzebub.htm


Meet my daddy.lllllll

That wasn't god reproducing asexually

Originally posted by Alliance
But if you have questions, and they can't be answerd, and you're not satisfied with it...

what are you really getting out of relgion? could it be possible that there is something better out there for you?
I'm getting something to believe in... I know that sounds completely ridiculous, but I think it's depressing to believe that you just go 6 feet underground when you die, or that there's really no purpose that you're living for. Heaven is something to look forward to and God is someone that gives a purpose.

There very well could be something better. But I don't know that. And it's not that I'm not satisfied, I just have a lot of questions.

Originally posted by Blanca
I just have a lot of questions.
I suggest you try to find answers to those questions. Not knowing what you believe in is never good.

But most of all don't let others guide your beliefs for you. If your family is very religious, just don't join in because it sounds right or because they are. I'm a Christian because I believe and want to be. Not because my parents raised me as one.

Originally posted by Blanca
I'm getting something to believe in... I know that sounds completely ridiculous, but I think it's depressing to believe that you just go 6 feet underground when you die, or that there's really no purpose that you're living for. Heaven is something to look forward to and God is someone that gives a purpose.
Why do you need God to give you purpose? Imo human biengs are intelligent enough to know what to do on their own. I have don and plan on continuing to do many good things with my life for the benefit of my family, friends, and the community in general. I don't need a God to tell me to do such things. And i DONT need some fop of a priest to tell me how to run my life.

And how is it depressing to die? All good things come to an end. Death is a natural part of life. Our precious little time here makes our doing good deeds even more important. Earth is a beautiful place, I cherish everymoment I have here. Being alive is a wonderful feeling, but if it went on forever, it wouldn't have any meaning to it. I dont need to look forward to an afterlife, I look forward to each day I live.

Relgion has ben corrupted by indocrinated institutions. They are corporations, seeking to make a profit, to increase theri political power by increasing membership and the loyalty of their members. I belive they entice people into supporting them by offering them false visions of a better life, many of which were expounded upon greatyl in the dark and middle ages to distract peasants from the fact that they were starving, abused, poor, and underrepresented. "Oh, don't worry that your king just took all your food for the winter to feed hsi fat arse, GO'd watching, and if you obey you're king, thinks will get better when you die."

And how is there a purpose to the afterlife? Can't you have a purpose in this life without keeping in mind some reward. And imo theres very little to look forard to in haevan. You just sit around eating bon bons all day, watching everyone alive. I'd rather be here, on Earth, experienceing what is real and making a difference in peoples lives.

There is no exclusion to leading, excuse me, a "purpose drivin life" if you are athiest or agnostic.

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
But most of all don't let others guide your beliefs for you. If your family is very religious, just don't join in because it sounds right or because they are. I'm a Christian because I believe and want to be. Not because my parents raised me as one.

This is very true. I never try to convert people, if it sounds like I'm trying to, I sincerely apologize.

I present my opinon. Its certainly debatable. You have the power to make who you are. Follow what you think is right and learn about other faiths/non-faiths. At worst you might waste your time, at best, you might find some of your questions answered. There's 15,000 years of relgious/nonreligous history out there. Utilize it to your own benefit .

Originally posted by Alliance
Why do you need God to give you purpose? Imo human biengs are intelligent enough to know what to do on their own. I have don and plan on continuing to do many good things with my life for the benefit of my family, friends, and the community in general. I don't need a God to tell me to do such things. And i DONT need some fop of a priest to tell me how to run my life.

And how is it depressing to die? All good things come to an end. Death is a natural part of life. Our precious little time here makes our doing good deeds even more important. Earth is a beautiful place, I cherish everymoment I have here. Being alive is a wonderful feeling, but if it went on forever, it wouldn't have any meaning to it. I dont need to look forward to an afterlife, I look forward to each day I live.

Relgion has ben corrupted by indocrinated institutions. They are corporations, seeking to make a profit, to increase theri political power by increasing membership and the loyalty of their members. I belive they entice people into supporting them by offering them false visions of a better life, many of which were expounded upon greatyl in the dark and middle ages to distract peasants from the fact that they were starving, abused, poor, and underrepresented. "Oh, don't worry that your king just took all your food for the winter to feed hsi fat arse, GO'd watching, and if you obey you're king, thinks will get better when you die."

And how is there a purpose to the afterlife? Can't you have a purpose in this life without keeping in mind some reward. And imo theres very little to look forard to in haevan. You just sit around eating bon bons all day, watching everyone alive. I'd rather be here, on Earth, experienceing what is real and making a difference in peoples lives.

There is no exclusion to leading, excuse me, a "purpose drivin life" if you are athiest or agnostic.

I feel that there is a greater purpose in life than just living from day to day. I also intend to enjoy my life, regardless of a "reward" that I think I'm going to recieve when I die. Life and Death ARE beautiful things, and I'm not saying that they aren't. It may be your view that humans know what they're doing and just die. But accept that I have a different one.

In my beliefs, God accepts EVERYONE who tries to lead a good life. Not just Christians. If you don't believe that, that's your choice completely, and I have no say whatsoever.

Also, I agree somewhat that the Church is "scamming" people persay, but I CAN have faith and dislike the Church at the same time.

Originally posted by Blanca
Also, I agree somewhat that the Church is "scamming" people persay, but I CAN have faith and dislike the Church at the same time.
Oh I certainly agree. I prefer this myself.

I believe our purpose is for here, but as for an after life........I don't really see the purpose for it, though I think it's just for a rest........then possibly when we're really really bored, we come here again, for some more entertainment.........

That's one way to look at it.

Originally posted by Alliance
That wasn't god reproducing asexually I know, but it was the best I could do on such short notice.........

OK, how about this "eye of god" Nebula???......

Though maybe god needs to be pollinated.....

Actually I feel things are more cyclical......our seasons, life spans, histories, seeds, cells, growths, stars, tides, moon cycles, sun cycles, solar system, universes.....Every things like a big donut! ........sooooo possibly there really is no beginning nor end as we can understand it....

There is a cosmological theory wher time bends back upon itself so its impossible to find the beginning.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I believe our purpose is for here, but as for an after life........I don't really see the purpose for it, though I think it's just for a rest........then possibly when we're really really bored, we come here again, for some more entertainment.........

* IMO, the after life is eternal, so we won't get bored, we're not in the scope of time anymore... am i right? err... yo, ms.debbiejo! may i ask, do you believe in life after death? just asking...

eternal means forever....thats a heack of a lot of time.

Originally posted by peejayd
* IMO, the after life is eternal, so we won't get bored, we're not in the scope of time anymore... am i right? err... yo, ms.debbiejo! may i ask, do you believe in life after death? just asking... Yes. I believe we are all eternal already, just changing forms. If everything IS energy and energy cannot be destroyed, then we are eternal, can never be destroyed.

Oh, and we are no longer in the scope of time, ONCE we leave our present form. If there is reincarnation and we are between lives, it would be a small vacation by our view there, but could be hundreds of years by our measurement of time here...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes. I believe we are all eternal already, just changing forms. If everything IS energy and energy cannot be destroyed, then we are eternal, can never be destroyed.

Dag nasty well said, debbie.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes. I believe we are all eternal already, just changing forms. If everything IS energy and energy cannot be destroyed, then we are eternal, can never be destroyed.

Oh, and we are no longer in the scope of time, ONCE we leave our present form. If there is reincarnation and we are between lives, it would be a small vacation by our view there, but could be hundreds of years by our measurement of time here...

That's a really good theory... Very philosophical.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes. I believe we are all eternal already, just changing forms. If everything IS energy and energy cannot be destroyed, then we are eternal, can never be destroyed.

Oh, and we are no longer in the scope of time, ONCE we leave our present form. If there is reincarnation and we are between lives, it would be a small vacation by our view there, but could be hundreds of years by our measurement of time here...
I have some issues with this. First. Matter is condensed energy. And matter is a physical thing. Physical things stay in the physical world. You, ther person, are a physical conglomeration of matter that can easily be proken up into its individual components (most likely molecules and atoms, without a lot of added energy). Your matter is eternal, your person is not, hence decomposition. There come a point where you are no longer physically you, the entity. These theories cannot be readily appied to non-physical entities, they don't apply by defenition.

Second. By what means are you judging that spiritual time is exceedingly fast. It appears to me that this is an arbitrary judgement. It could just as easily be painfully eternal.

Do you know this for an absolute fact? Physical meaning only dense, and decaying and dead??

And what are Atoms made of???

Originally posted by debbiejo
Do you know this for an absolute fact? Physical meaning only dense, and decaying and dead??
E=mc^2 my friend. Thats the theory. I dont understand the second sentance.

Originally posted by debbiejo
And what are Atoms made of???

Atoms are made up of three subatomic particles.

Electrons "orbit" (not really its just an archaic term) the nucleus according to wave functions. They more accurately form an "election cloud."

The nucleus of atoms are composed of neutrons and protons. These guys are big, and themselves composed of up and down quarks, held together by gluons.

Atoms also "contain" or are able to produce other particles such as varios types of bosons etc. If you smash atoms, then you get to see some really cool stuff.

The standard model sugessts that "point particles" are the basis of all subatomic particles (electons, quarks etc). This is rather ludicrious, which is where sting theory comes in, replacing these "point particles" with strings. If the minimal supersymetric model is proved (it is currently being tested) then string theory will have gained this foothold.

Im nto a nexpert by any means, hope that helps.

Yeah, you smash them, you get cool stuff!!...........neutrons and protons...Sub particles, photons...........and what do photons do??

photons are just...well..they are like light. They do other stuff,subatomically, but they are very goot at energizing electrons.

I was referring more to positrons, kaons, pions, etc. as far as teh smashing though.

Originally posted by Alliance
photons are just...well..they are like light. They do other stuff,subatomically, but they are very goot at energizing electrons.

I was referring more to positrons, kaons, pions, etc. as far as teh smashing though. Photons seems to have some other unexplainable qualities.............

not really, except thet are allegedly massless

Not really, they can change form......waves..........blink in and out, (where do they go?) mmm another dimension possibly and then come back..........and they come in pairs.........when one is altered the other alters it's self also,..........from even long distances in experiments and theory in long distances..hmmmm.......communications???.

all particles express both wavelike and particle like properties.

A lot of those statements describe many types of particles.

but they are very usefull in say...light? Probably the second most used direct particle. The electron being first.

Light is only the basic............electron is only the bigger of the photon....and again what do photons do that make quantum physics so spectacular to science today?

what?

Photons????...........the study of photons.........that's all.....

BTW looking back on the topic, this has nothing to do with Jesus.............hahahahahhaaha

Jesus is often depicted wearing a halo that emits photons.

hahahaha...............nah, that's Sun hats...........pagan sun god to Roman Catholic god church..............

yup, you cant say phtons arent pretty now.

I want one!!

get one of those glow stick necklaces...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is mytholigy... It all depends on how you look at it.


Actually it is truth,...and it doesn't matter how we look at it at all.
It won't change a thing.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Actually it is truth,...and it doesn't matter how we look at it at all.
It won't change a thing.

Then why is there so many different ways of interpreting the bible? If the bible was the fact it would only have one interpretation.

God as the Father, God as the Son, and God as the Holy Spirit are about as real as Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades.

As a devout worshipper of the goddess Lindsay Lohan, i consider all Christians as pagans and thus are doomed to spend eternity quilting in a trailer with no shower or bathroom breaks.

Originally posted by Regret
God existed prior to the advent of Jesus Christ
God never claimed the name Jesus Christ prior to the Mortal existence of Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ is the physical form of God taken during that mortal period

So, if at some point in time God is not in physical form, is there an existing Jesus Christ at that point in time, or is there only God the Father? Or is it just like me using Regret and not my real name?

Also, is God the Father the Son of God the Father, and how does this work?

Are you asking how this is explained in formal Christian theology? Or are you trying to understand how God is both One and Trinity at the same time? If the latter, may I share what works for me: the Dream Metaphor.

You're dreaming. Everything in your dream is some manifestation of your psyche: objects, scenery, people and of course, your "dreamself" (for lack of a better term). You--as Dreamer--are both the immanent and transcendent Creator of everything in this dream, though the people in it, and your dreamself, don't realize this. No one knows that it's all a dream.

Enter: dream enlightenment, an "awakening" to the fact that you are, at that very moment, dreaming. This is called lucid dreaming.

Your dreamself now knows its true self: a facet of the immanent and transcendent Dreamer. In fact, your lucid dreamself is now conscious of the fact that, as stated above, everything in your Dream is some facet of the Dreamer.

One (Dreamer) and Many (manifestations, including the lucid dreamself), simultaneously.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then why is there so many different ways of interpreting the bible? If the bible was the fact it would only have one interpretation.

You stated the bible was a mythology Shakyamunison. Let me offer you a challenge.

How many days, months or years do you need to prove this?

Just ask and it will be granted to you. With all the information available to you today at your fingertips, you have as long as you need to prove it is a mythology. How much time would you like for your research?

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
You stated the bible was a mythology Shakyamunison. Let me offer you a challenge.

How many days, months or years do you need to prove this?

Just ask and it will be granted to you. With all the information available to you today at your fingertips, you have as long as you need to prove it is a mythology. How much time would you like for your research?

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-mythology.htm

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then why is there so many different ways of interpreting the bible? If the bible was the fact it would only have one interpretation.

My response to this would be incorrect translations from the original statement. Either initial writings were improperly translated, or perhaps just improperly interpreted in an attempt to allow someone to understand more easily. As Mormons we typically contend that this is the case. Christianity typically gets upset by this, stating that it couldn't be translated incorrectly due to the intervention of the holy spirit that directed translation. The problem with this is that these same people do not all agree on points in the Bible. The common statement at this point is that those that disagree with them do not have the holy spirit.

Originally posted by Mindship
Are you asking how this is explained in formal Christian theology? Yes
Or are you trying to understand how God is both One and Trinity at the same time?
Yes, from the perspective of formal Christian theology
If the latter, may I share what works for me: the Dream Metaphor.

I do not agree with the Dream Metaphor in this sense. If the metaphor basically make myself a portion of a unreal experience I do not agree with the metaphor. Is this a Christian perspective on the Trinity? Or just your opinion as to a possibility?

Originally posted by Templares
God as the Father, God as the Son, and God as the Holy Spirit are about as real as Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades.

As a devout worshipper of the goddess Lindsay Lohan, i consider all Christians as pagans and thus are doomed to spend eternity quilting in a trailer with no shower or bathroom breaks.

You're a weird dude. Even if I agreed with your ridiculous idea of Christians, I would still think you were weird.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-mythology.htm

I looked at the web site. My challenge still stands.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I looked at the web site. My challenge still stands.

Mythology-
Def. The body of sacred stories of a particular culture; the study and interpretation of such sacred stories.

It seems Shaky is correct by this definition. Even if the Bible is spiritual fact it still meets the criteria.

Originally posted by Regret
Mythology-
Def. The body of sacred stories of a particular culture; the study and interpretation of such sacred stories.

It seems Shaky is correct by this definition. Even if the Bible is spiritual fact it still meets the criteria.

Thank you.

myth
NOUN:

1) A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
2) Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
3) A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
4) A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
5) A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).

It only has to fit one definition to fit the term.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Thank you.

You're Welcome

Originally posted by Regret
I do not agree with the Dream Metaphor in this sense. If the metaphor basically make myself a portion of a unreal experience I do not agree with the metaphor. Is this a Christian perspective on the Trinity? Or just your opinion as to a possibility?

I'm not sure what you mean by "unreal." If you are saying the dream is unreal, as compared to the physical world, I would disagree. A dream is real in that it exists, though obviously it's not real in the same fashion as the material world.

If you mean unreal in that you don't believe in "God," an Infinite Consciousness, you don't believe that Consciousness as Such is the Ultimate Ground of being--in other words, you're a reductionist or epiphenomenalist--hey, what can I say? We are simply disagreeing then in our basic philosophies, though I do understand what you are saying from your POV.

(BTW, as much as I would like to take credit for the Dream Metaphor, it is in fact an ancient metaphor, common among mystical/esoteric schools of thought, especially Eastern.)

Originally posted by Blanca
You're a weird dude. Even if I agreed with your ridiculous idea of Christians, I would still think you were weird.
He was being sarcastic...

Originally posted by Regret
Mythology-
Def. The body of sacred stories of a particular culture; the study and interpretation of such sacred stories.

It seems Shaky is correct by this definition. Even if the Bible is spiritual fact it still meets the criteria.

Fair enough, but not worthy of in depth discussion would you say?

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Fair enough, but not worthy of in depth discussion would you say?

Agreed

Originally posted by Mindship
I'm not sure what you mean by "unreal." If you are saying the dream is unreal, as compared to the physical world, I would disagree. A dream is real in that it exists, though obviously it's not real in the same fashion as the material world.

If you mean unreal in that you don't believe in "God," an Infinite Consciousness, you don't believe that Consciousness as Such is the Ultimate Ground of being--in other words, you're a reductionist or epiphenomenalist--hey, what can I say? We are simply disagreeing then in our basic philosophies, though I do understand what you are saying from your POV.

(BTW, as much as I would like to take credit for the Dream Metaphor, it is in fact an ancient metaphor, common among mystical/esoteric schools of thought, especially Eastern.)

By unreal, only existing due to the dream. A dream world, while in a sense real, does not allow for entirely autonomous activity. I believe man behaves in a autonomous manner, dreams while seemingly autonomous are not truly autonomous.

It probably is just a basic philosophical difference.

Originally posted by Regret
By unreal, only existing due to the dream. A dream world, while in a sense real, does not allow for entirely autonomous activity. I believe man behaves in a autonomous manner, dreams while seemingly autonomous are not truly autonomous.
Both my professional and lucid-dreaming experiences lead me to suspect quite a few parallels between dreaming consciousness and waking consciousness. Thus I don't agree that we are completely autonomous while awake.

It probably is just a basic philosophical difference.
This I would agree with.

Originally posted by Mindship
Both my professional and lucid-dreaming experiences lead me to suspect quite a few parallels between dreaming consciousness and waking consciousness. Thus I don't agree that we are completely autonomous while awake.

Now this is interesting, I agree to a point, but not in respect to the topic we are discussing at present Would maybe make a decent topic of discussion in the philosophy forum

Originally posted by Mindship
This I would agree with.
Yeah, I think that would be our issue.

Originally posted by Regret
Now this is interesting, I agree to a point, but not in respect to the topic we are discussing at present Would maybe make a decent topic of discussion in the philosophy forum
Quite.

Originally posted by Alliance
yup, you cant say phtons arent pretty now. Study them...............

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
You stated the bible was a mythology Shakyamunison. Let me offer you a challenge.

How many days, months or years do you need to prove this?

Just ask and it will be granted to you. With all the information available to you today at your fingertips, you have as long as you need to prove it is a mythology. How much time would you like for your research?

Thanks shakya for doing that. A+ on your project.

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
He was being sarcastic...
That's a strange subject to be sarcastic on.

Not really. Many religous people deny the existance of other gods which such conviction, even though there is no more evidence supporting theirs than any other.

Originally posted by Alliance
Not really. Many religous people deny the existance of other gods which such conviction, even though there is no more evidence supporting theirs than any other.

Have you read Romans Chapter 1 lately?

Just now. Why?

Have you read the Vedas recently?

Romans only confirms that paganism was real as today, but with the names changed..........and oh yes, written by that heretic Paul who was a believer in Mithra.

the Mithratic cult was CRAZY! They were everywhere. Including the Imperial palace.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Romans only confirms that paganism was real as today, but with the names changed..........and oh yes, written by that heretic Paul who was a believer in Mithra.

Wow, boy I'm glad God took that stuff away from me when I gave my life over to Jesus. Now I am more able to think along the lines of reality.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Romans only confirms that paganism was real as today, but with the names changed..........and oh yes, written by that heretic Paul who was a believer in Mithra.

* i gotta give some credit with ms.debbiejo... she constantly calls Saint Paul a heretic and a Mithra-believer... in which she can never ever prove why...

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Wow, boy I'm glad God took that stuff away from me when I gave my life over to Jesus. Now I am more able to think along the lines of reality.

Simplicity hardly ever equals reality. Simply thinking along lines makes red sirens go off in my brain.

Originally posted by peejayd
* i gotta give some credit with ms.debbiejo... she constantly calls Saint Paul a heretic and a Mithra-believer... in which she can never ever prove why...

You will discover many on this forum peejayd which make undocumented statements. You will note please that my statements are biblical based so that they can't blame me but must go to Him.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
You will discover many on this forum peejayd which make undocumented statements. You will note please that my statements are biblical based so that they can't blame me but must go to Him.

No one is blaming you. We are not out to get you. We just don't believe like you do. Don't take it personally.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No one is blaming you. We are not out to get you. We just don't believe like you do. Don't take it personally.

I won't Shaky. I will stay the long haul.

Oh sin is sweet.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Oh sin is sweet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

John 1:4-5


Sin always feels good,...for just a moment.

I was Christian for 10 years, don't throw quotes at me that I'm fully aware of. Any word from God that was in the Bible is long lost now, its been raped so many times over.


Sin tastes like candy.

Originally posted by peejayd
* i gotta give some credit with ms.debbiejo... she constantly calls Saint Paul a heretic and a Mithra-believer... in which she can never ever prove why... Saul was convinced from his Mithraistic roots that the Christ would return within his lifetime. After working for such a high ranking High Priest he probably had religious aspirations for himself. Saul decided that Yeshua, (or Jesus for the Greek), was a living Christ.

Saul is likely to have admired Yeshua immensely and to feel much guilt for persecuting the cult of Yeshua despite it being part of his job. Now not only did it make theological sense to Paul to convert, but it presented a personal chance of guilt abstination and controversial fame, appealing to Paul's aspirations.

He became the holy man he desired to be and was vindicated of all the wrong he had done in persecuting Yeshua. He naturally still felt guilt, and changed his name to Paul and declared himself born again. He began actively preaching about Jesus Christ.

Paul, the 13th Apostle
In Damascus Saul began to preach his new belief but the locals forced him away. He arrived at Jerusalem but the original followers of Yeshua did not trust Saul, their old enemy. Paul left Jerusalem and went to his home town, Tarsus, in Cilicia/Cesarea, in an area now called Turkey.

Paul was the original preacher of "Jesus Christ". Yeshua was not called "Jesus" nor "Christ" until Paul concluded that Yeshua had been the Messiah predicted in Scripture. Paul also added much of his own beliefs to the story of the Messiah, including many rituals and parts of the Mithraism religion. He confused the Hellenic Christ theme with the Messiah theme of Judaism, and the result was the sacrificial nature of Christ that Christianity has.

Paul opposed Jewish tradition and preached a new covenant from God that included women and Gentiles (non-Jews). This was an important move, allowing many new converts and followers. He gained a new life of which he could be proud. However many of his attempts to preach his new way in the synagogues were rebuked and he spent more than one stretch in prison. He travelled throughout the Mediterranean bringing the Good News to the Gentiles. Paul died in about 64CE after a two year stretch in a prison in Rome.

When the New Testament was compiled, over two hundred years later, it included many of the writings, letters and teachings of Paul, who became the first evangelist and founder of Christianity. The four gospels are written using Paul as their main source, although none of the originals of Paul's writings have survived.
Paul mistook the Jewish "Messiah" to mean the Hellenistic "Christ". This happened before anything was written down; it happened during Paul's conversations with people as he was working through what had happened. A messiah is a person who is a great leader who leads your people to freedom. The title was taken by Jews from Persian culture. A christ is a god-king who dies as an offering to some divine being as a sacrifice in return for prosperity, especially agricultural prosperity. Both are anointed with oil as a mystical, sexual rite." The christ theme was inserted into the story of Yeshua by Paul and his subsequent followers. This was the christ theme taken from the Hellenistic Greek traditions and Mithraism had a large influence, through Paul, on the myths that Christianity assimilated.

"Christianity is a "Paulist Doctrine;" far removed from the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua (Jesus). This is where "Judaic Christianity" became "Hellenistic Christianity," and where the two religions finally, completely split." Spirit of Spirit, if it be your will, give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again - and the sacred spirit may breathe in me."
Prayer to Mithras
Mithraism and Judaism merged and became Christianity. Jesus, son of the Hebrew sky God, and Mithras, son of Ormuzd are both the same myth. The rituals of Christianity coincide with the earlier rituals of Mithraism, including the Eucharist and the Communion in great detail. The language used by Mithraism was the language used by Christians. St Paul as the first "Christian" bears much of the responsibility for merging the two in his preaching and teaching, and also comes from Tarsus, a major Mithraist center.
The idea of a sacrificed saviour is Mithraist, so is the symbolism of bulls, rams, sheep, the blood of a transformed saviour washing away sins and granting eternal life, the 7 sacraments, the banishing of an evil host from heaven, apocalyptic end of time when God/Ormuzd sends the wicked to hell and establishes peace. Roman Emperors, Mithraist then Christian, mixed the rituals and laws of both religions into one. Emperor Constantine established 25th of Dec, the birthdate of Mithras, to be the birthdate of Jesus too. The principal day of worship of the Jews, The Sabbath, was replaced by the Mithraistic Sun Day as the Christian holy day. The Catholic Church, based in Rome and founded on top of the most venerated Mithraist temple, wiped out all competing son-of-god religions within the Roman Empire, giving us modern literalist Christianity."It was in Tarsus that the Mysteries of Mithras had originated, so it would have been unthinkable that Paul would have been unaware of the remarkable similarities we have already explored between Christian doctrines and the teachings of Mithraism. Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia, where, according to Plutarch , the Mithraic Mysteries were being practiced as early as 67BCE"

Pauls funky Law:
Don't marry unless you 'cannot control yourselves' (1 Cor. 7:1, 1 Cor. 7:38 - From genuine teachings of Paul)

Don't get divorced (1 Cor. 7:11 - Genuine)

Don't get circumcised (1 Cor. 7:19, Gal. 5:2 - Genuine)

Don't seek freedom from slavery (1 Cor. 7:21, ***. 2:9 - Former genuine, latter a fake)

Don't worry about eating food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8:4 - Genuine)

Don't have long hair (1 Cor. 11:14 - Genuine)

Don't wear gold, braids, expensive clothes (1 Tim. 2:9 - Fake)

Don't let women teach/have authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12 - Fake)

Don't give welfare to women under sixty (1 Tim. 5:9 - Fake)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by debbiejo
Saul was convinced from his Mithraistic roots that the Christ would return within his lifetime. After working for such a high ranking High Priest he probably had religious aspirations for himself. Saul decided that Yeshua, (or Jesus for the Greek), was a living Christ.

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ , the Son of the living God."
Matthew 16:16

* as did Saint Peter, but is he also a Mithra-believer? nope... i wonder why you always single out Saint Paul...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Saul is likely to have admired Yeshua immensely and to feel much guilt for persecuting the cult of Yeshua despite it being part of his job. Now not only did it make theological sense to Paul to convert, but it presented a personal chance of guilt abstination and controversial fame, appealing to Paul's aspirations.

He became the holy man he desired to be and was vindicated of all the wrong he had done in persecuting Yeshua. He naturally still felt guilt, and changed his name to Paul and declared himself born again. He began actively preaching about Jesus Christ.

* that was not like that at all...

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,"
Galatians 1:15

* it was God who chose Saint Paul... and not Saint Paul trying to seek fame...

"And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."
Acts 9:3-5

* that's what happened... take note that the writer of The Acts was not Saint Paul but Saint Luke...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Paul, the 13th Apostle

* Saint Paul was not the 13th Apostle... Saint Matthias and Saint Barnabas was there first long before Saint Paul did...

Originally posted by debbiejo
In Damascus Saul began to preach his new belief but the locals forced him away. He arrived at Jerusalem but the original followers of Yeshua did not trust Saul, their old enemy. Paul left Jerusalem and went to his home town, Tarsus, in Cilicia/Cesarea, in an area now called Turkey.

* false...

"And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.
And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem ."
Acts 9:26-28

* Saint Paul was with the original followers of Christ...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Paul was the original preacher of "Jesus Christ". Yeshua was not called "Jesus" nor "Christ" until Paul concluded that Yeshua had been the Messiah predicted in Scripture. Paul also added much of his own beliefs to the story of the Messiah, including many rituals and parts of the Mithraism religion. He confused the Hellenic Christ theme with the Messiah theme of Judaism, and the result was the sacrificial nature of Christ that Christianity has.

* what beliefs were added by Saint Paul?

* "... Yeshua was not called "Jesus" nor "Christ" until Paul concluded that Yeshua had been the Messiah predicted in Scripture..."???

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ , the son of David, the son of Abraham.
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ ."
Matthew 1:1, 16

* here's Saint Matthew preaching "Jesus Christ"... and Jesus is the Christ...

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ , the Son of God;"
Mark 1:1

* Saint Mark...

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ , the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."
John 20:31

* Saint John...

"But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ ."
Acts 2:14, 36

* Saint Peter... and the writer, Saint Luke...

"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ , to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ , the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."
James 1:1, 2:1

* Saint James...

"Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ , and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:"
Jude 1:1

* Saint Jude... now, what more can you ask for?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Paul opposed Jewish tradition and preached a new covenant from God that included women and Gentiles (non-Jews). This was an important move, allowing many new converts and followers. He gained a new life of which he could be proud. However many of his attempts to preach his new way in the synagogues were rebuked and he spent more than one stretch in prison. He travelled throughout the Mediterranean bringing the Good News to the Gentiles. Paul died in about 64CE after a two year stretch in a prison in Rome.

When the New Testament was compiled, over two hundred years later, it included many of the writings, letters and teachings of Paul, who became the first evangelist and founder of Christianity. The four gospels are written using Paul as their main source, although none of the originals of Paul's writings have survived.

* Saint Mark had written his gospel long before Saint Paul started preaching...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Paul mistook the Jewish "Messiah" to mean the Hellenistic "Christ". This happened before anything was written down; it happened during Paul's conversations with people as he was working through what had happened.

* false... the other apostles still exist when Saint Paul was preaching, they could have rebuked or even ex-communicate Saint Paul if he was preaching wrongly...

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you ;"
II Peter 3:15

* nope, no rebuke... rather, Saint Paul received an approval and a recommendation from one of the "Pillars", Saint Peter...

Originally posted by debbiejo
"Christianity is a "Paulist Doctrine;" far removed from the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua (Jesus). This is where "Judaic Christianity" became "Hellenistic Christianity," and where the two religions finally, completely split." Spirit of Spirit, if it be your will, give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again - and the sacred spirit may breathe in me."

* where? where was the split? what doctrine Saint Paul preached wrongly? what doctrine Saint Paul preached that was not of Christ? what? where?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Prayer to Mithras
Mithraism and Judaism merged and became Christianity. Jesus, son of the Hebrew sky God, and Mithras, son of Ormuzd are both the same myth. The rituals of Christianity coincide with the earlier rituals of Mithraism, including the Eucharist and the Communion in great detail. The language used by Mithraism was the language used by Christians. St Paul as the first "Christian" bears much of the responsibility for merging the two in his preaching and teaching, and also comes from Tarsus, a major Mithraist center.
The idea of a sacrificed saviour is Mithraist, so is the symbolism of bulls, rams, sheep, the blood of a transformed saviour washing away sins and granting eternal life, the 7 sacraments, the banishing of an evil host from heaven, apocalyptic end of time when God/Ormuzd sends the wicked to hell and establishes peace. Roman Emperors, Mithraist then Christian, mixed the rituals and laws of both religions into one. Emperor Constantine established 25th of Dec, the birthdate of Mithras, to be the birthdate of Jesus too.

* err... ehem... not Saint Paul...

Originally posted by debbiejo
The principal day of worship of the Jews, The Sabbath, was replaced by the Mithraistic Sun Day as the Christian holy day.

* again... not Saint Paul...

Originally posted by debbiejo
The Catholic Church, based in Rome and founded on top of the most venerated Mithraist temple, wiped out all competing son-of-god religions within the Roman Empire, giving us modern literalist Christianity."It was in Tarsus that the Mysteries of Mithras had originated, so it would have been unthinkable that Paul would have been unaware of the remarkable similarities we have already explored between Christian doctrines and the teachings of Mithraism . Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia, where, according to Plutarch , the Mithraic Mysteries were being practiced as early as 67BCE"

* wow... the basis was an assumption... an allegation... nice...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Pauls funky Law:
Don't marry unless you 'cannot control yourselves' (1 Cor. 7:1, 1 Cor. 7:38 - From genuine teachings of Paul)

Don't get divorced (1 Cor. 7:11 - Genuine)

Don't get circumcised (1 Cor. 7:19, Gal. 5:2 - Genuine)

Don't seek freedom from slavery (1 Cor. 7:21, ***. 2:9 - Former genuine, latter a fake)

Don't worry about eating food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8:4 - Genuine)

Don't have long hair (1 Cor. 11:14 - Genuine)

Don't wear gold, braids, expensive clothes (1 Tim. 2:9 - Fake)

Don't let women teach/have authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12 - Fake)

Don't give welfare to women under sixty (1 Tim. 5:9 - Fake)

* care to expound about this matter? what was the "genuine-fake"-thing? is this your basis of Saint Paul's wrong doctrine? or do you just consider it as "funky" or weird?

I think she's saying it was overzealous and VERY different from the type of religion CHrist was proposing.

True, Mithraism was big in Tarsus. Paul was from Tarsus.....Paul didn't teach what Jesus taught....Paul also taught against what the Jews in the OT taught. Jesus did not!.........The Jews of today concider Jesus a prophet or teacher, but Paul a HERETIC.....HERETIC....HERETIC...

Mithraism ( 6th century b.c., Persia and India ). Mithras was born of a virgin, with only a number of shepards present. Mithras was known as "the Way", "the Truth", "the Light", "the Life", "the Word", "the Son of God" and "the Good Shepard". He was pictured carrying a lamb on his shoulders. Sunday was known as "the Lord's Day". On December 25th magnificent celebrations were held and "communion" was observed by the followers. From December 25th until the spring equinox were the "40 days" which later became Christian Lent. Mirthras was finally placed in a rock tomb and after three days was removed with giant celebrations, festival, and great joy. It was suppressed by Christians in 376-77 a.d.

Authors of the time:
The Following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:



Josephus, Arrian, Philo-Judaeus, Petronius, Seneca, Dion Pruseus,
Pliny the Elder, Paterculus, Suetonius, Appian, Juvenal, Theon of Smyran,
Martial, Phlegon, Persius, Pompon Mela, Plutarch, Quintius Curtius,
Justus of Tiberius, Lucian, Apollonius, Pausanias, Pliny the Younger,
Valerius Flaccus, Tacitus, Florus Lucius, Quintilian, Favorinus,
Jucanus, Phaedrus, Epictetus, Damis, Silius Italicus, Aulus Gellius, Statius,
Columella, Ptolemy, Dio Chrysostom, Hermogones, Lysias, and Valerius.

Yet no one mentions the slaughter of all the first borns by Herod, the triumphant entry in Jerusalem of Jesus, the great earthquake with the supernatural darkness, or bodies of dead Saints rising up from the dead and walking around the city. Now every christian will site Josephus as proof, but Josephus only wrote about a dozen lines about Jesus, yet whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders and forty Chapters devoted to a single king. Josephus wrote twenty books. But the greatest person who ever lived gets little more than a paragraph. This seems an all out forgery.

The Gospels - It is not known who actually wrote the gospels.
~ Matthew - Written between 80-100ad - Was written to persuade Jewish people
that Jesus, in spite of the fact he did not set up an earthly kingdom, was nonetheless
the true Jewish Messiah.

~ Mark - Written 70ad - Mark was not one of the Twelve Disciples. This gospel was
written for Roman readers, with a Roman audience in mind.

~ Luke - Written between 70-90ad - Luke was a Disciple of Paul. Luke was written
to convince readers of the things they had heard about Jesus. This account was adjusted for persons without a Jewish background. Luke is the only gospel to conclude with the ascension of Jesus into heaven.

~ John - Written between 90-100ad - John was designed to convince readers that
Jesus is the Messiah, the son of god.

And what of the other Gospels such as Thomas and Mary, why weren't they included in the bible. The Gospel of Thomas was found in 1945 in Nag Hammadi and has 20% of the same scriptures of all the other Gospels and has not been cannonized. Could possibly be the missing "Q" Gospel that historians believe to exist. Maybe because these Gospels tell us of his childhood where he killed other children. Maybe because Constantine set a deadline for the book to be completed and whatever was in was in and what ever was out was out. Or that Constantine edited it to fit the people and the times.Paul - The Heretic: Wrote 14 books of the New Testament ( more than half of the NT.)
Tarsus, the chief city of the Cilicians, and the home of Paul, was one of the chief centers of Mithra worship. Paul was a Pharacie employed by the San Heidron. He converted to Judaism where he persecuted Christians and later converted to Christianity where then he persecuted Jews. Clearly a religious Fanatic. He claimed to be an apostle
( I Cor. 15:9 ), to have been instructed by the risen Christ, to have seen Christ and to have received his authority from him. Yet, for all Paul's claims, they were doubted and disputed by the original apostles and Jewish believers. They did not accept him as a true believer, but considered his preaching falsehood. The Acts disclaims Paul and tries to stone him. Paul is constantly defending himself in the New Testament ( II Cor. 11:31 and II Tim. 2:7 ). Also it is a fact that Paul did not do all the writting, but definitly used a scribe named Tertius ( Rom. 16:22 ).

ALSO:

Horus ( Egyptain God 3,000 b.c.). What do Horus and Jesus have in common?
~ Horus was baptized with water by Anup = Jesus baptized with water by John
~ Anup the Baptizer = John the Baptist
~ Aan the divine scribe = John the divine scribe
~ Horus born in Annu, the place of the bread = Jesus born in Bethlehem,
the house of bread
~ Horus the Good Shepherd = Jesus the Good Shepherd
~ The Seven on board the boat with Horus = The seven fishers on board the boat
with Jesus
~ Horus the Lamb = Jesus the Lamb
~ Horus the Krst = Jesus the Christ
~ the trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, and Ra the Holy Spirit = the trinity
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
~ Horus the sower and Set the destroyer in the harvestfield = Jesus the sower of
the good seed and Satan the sower of tares
~ The Star, as the announcer of the child Horus = The Star indicating the birth of Jesus
~They are both are identified with the cross; both men of thirty years when baptized;
both manifesting the Son of God; both children of Virgins and returned as the Son of the Father; both bringers of peace and eternal life; and both having twelve disciples or followers. All this took place three thousand years before Christ.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yet no one mentions the slaughter of all the first borns by Herod, the triumphant entry in Jerusalem of Jesus, the great earthquake with the supernatural darkness, or bodies of dead Saints rising up from the dead and walking around the city. Now every christian will site Josephus as proof, but Josephus only wrote about a dozen lines about Jesus, yet whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders and forty Chapters devoted to a single king. Josephus wrote twenty books. But the greatest person who ever lived gets little more than a paragraph. This seems an all out forgery.

Excellent work Debbie. I would just like to add that Flavius Josephus is a Roman apologetic who considered Vespasian, the Roman Emperor, as the long awaited Messiah. For him to write flowery words about JC, as recounted by Eusebius but NOT Origen in 200AD, is totally out of character.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Saul was convinced from his Mithraistic roots that the Christ would return within his lifetime. After working for such a high ranking High Priest he probably had religious aspirations for himself. Saul decided that Yeshua, (or Jesus for the Greek), was a living Christ.

Saul is likely to have admired Yeshua immensely and to feel much guilt for persecuting the cult of Yeshua despite it being part of his job. Now not only did it make theological sense to Paul to convert, but it presented a personal chance of guilt abstination and controversial fame, appealing to Paul's aspirations.

He became the holy man he desired to be and was vindicated of all the wrong he had done in persecuting Yeshua. He naturally still felt guilt, and changed his name to Paul and declared himself born again. He began actively preaching about Jesus Christ.

Paul, the 13th Apostle
In Damascus Saul began to preach his new belief but the locals forced him away. He arrived at Jerusalem but the original followers of Yeshua did not trust Saul, their old enemy. Paul left Jerusalem and went to his home town, Tarsus, in Cilicia/Cesarea, in an area now called Turkey.

Paul was the original preacher of "Jesus Christ". Yeshua was not called "Jesus" nor "Christ" until Paul concluded that Yeshua had been the Messiah predicted in Scripture. Paul also added much of his own beliefs to the story of the Messiah, including many rituals and parts of the Mithraism religion. He confused the Hellenic Christ theme with the Messiah theme of Judaism, and the result was the sacrificial nature of Christ that Christianity has.

Paul opposed Jewish tradition and preached a new covenant from God that included women and Gentiles (non-Jews). This was an important move, allowing many new converts and followers. He gained a new life of which he could be proud. However many of his attempts to preach his new way in the synagogues were rebuked and he spent more than one stretch in prison. He travelled throughout the Mediterranean bringing the Good News to the Gentiles. Paul died in about 64CE after a two year stretch in a prison in Rome.

When the New Testament was compiled, over two hundred years later, it included many of the writings, letters and teachings of Paul, who became the first evangelist and founder of Christianity. The four gospels are written using Paul as their main source, although none of the originals of Paul's writings have survived.
Paul mistook the Jewish "Messiah" to mean the Hellenistic "Christ". This happened before anything was written down; it happened during Paul's conversations with people as he was working through what had happened. A messiah is a person who is a great leader who leads your people to freedom. The title was taken by Jews from Persian culture. A christ is a god-king who dies as an offering to some divine being as a sacrifice in return for prosperity, especially agricultural prosperity. Both are anointed with oil as a mystical, sexual rite." The christ theme was inserted into the story of Yeshua by Paul and his subsequent followers. This was the christ theme taken from the Hellenistic Greek traditions and Mithraism had a large influence, through Paul, on the myths that Christianity assimilated.

"Christianity is a "Paulist Doctrine;" far removed from the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua (Jesus). This is where "Judaic Christianity" became "Hellenistic Christianity," and where the two religions finally, completely split." Spirit of Spirit, if it be your will, give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again - and the sacred spirit may breathe in me."
Prayer to Mithras
Mithraism and Judaism merged and became Christianity. Jesus, son of the Hebrew sky God, and Mithras, son of Ormuzd are both the same myth. The rituals of Christianity coincide with the earlier rituals of Mithraism, including the Eucharist and the Communion in great detail. The language used by Mithraism was the language used by Christians. St Paul as the first "Christian" bears much of the responsibility for merging the two in his preaching and teaching, and also comes from Tarsus, a major Mithraist center.
The idea of a sacrificed saviour is Mithraist, so is the symbolism of bulls, rams, sheep, the blood of a transformed saviour washing away sins and granting eternal life, the 7 sacraments, the banishing of an evil host from heaven, apocalyptic end of time when God/Ormuzd sends the wicked to hell and establishes peace. Roman Emperors, Mithraist then Christian, mixed the rituals and laws of both religions into one. Emperor Constantine established 25th of Dec, the birthdate of Mithras, to be the birthdate of Jesus too. The principal day of worship of the Jews, The Sabbath, was replaced by the Mithraistic Sun Day as the Christian holy day. The Catholic Church, based in Rome and founded on top of the most venerated Mithraist temple, wiped out all competing son-of-god religions within the Roman Empire, giving us modern literalist Christianity."It was in Tarsus that the Mysteries of Mithras had originated, so it would have been unthinkable that Paul would have been unaware of the remarkable similarities we have already explored between Christian doctrines and the teachings of Mithraism. Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia, where, according to Plutarch , the Mithraic Mysteries were being practiced as early as 67BCE"

Pauls funky Law:
Don't marry unless you 'cannot control yourselves' (1 Cor. 7:1, 1 Cor. 7:38 - From genuine teachings of Paul)

Don't get divorced (1 Cor. 7:11 - Genuine)

Don't get circumcised (1 Cor. 7:19, Gal. 5:2 - Genuine)

Don't seek freedom from slavery (1 Cor. 7:21, ***. 2:9 - Former genuine, latter a fake)

Don't worry about eating food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8:4 - Genuine)

Don't have long hair (1 Cor. 11:14 - Genuine)

Don't wear gold, braids, expensive clothes (1 Tim. 2:9 - Fake)

Don't let women teach/have authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12 - Fake)

Don't give welfare to women under sixty (1 Tim. 5:9 - Fake)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And Paul was eyewitness to Jesus. He was changed on the road to Damascus. A completely different man after this. He no longer persecuted and killed the Christians but became one and preached Jesus and Him crucified. Paul died a painful death serving the Lord Jesus.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
And Paul was eyewitness to Jesus. He was changed on the road to Damascus. A completely different man after this. He no longer persecuted and killed the Christians but became one and preached Jesus and Him crucified. Paul died a painful death serving the Lord Jesus.

Yeah he probably was an eyewitness but it doesnt mean nor it does guarantee that his "Christian" teachings is the same as what Jesus taught.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
And Paul was eyewitness to Jesus. He was changed on the road to Damascus. A completely different man after this. He no longer persecuted and killed the Christians but became one and preached Jesus and Him crucified. Paul died a painful death serving the Lord Jesus. He was hearing VOICES.....there is a name for that ya know........

He never SAW him..........

so many of those people saw and heard things...kind of ironic huh

Originally posted by Alliance
so many of those people saw and heard things...kind of ironic huh They smoked pot back then too....

http://skeptically.org/bible/id9.html

Incense could of been Cannabis's...

BECAUSE OF THEIR WICKEDNESS WHICH THEY HAVE COMMITTED TO PROVOKE ME TO ANGER, IN THAT THEY WANTED TO BURN INCENSE, AND TO SERVE OTHER GODS. . .

THEREFORE NOW. . . WHEREFORE COMMIT YE THIS GREAT EVIL AGAINST YOUR SOULS. . . IN THAT YE PROVOKE ME TO WRATH WITH THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS, BURNING INCENSE UNTO OTHER GODS IN THE LAND OF EGYPT?

THEN ALL THE MEN WHICH KNEW THAT THEIR WIVES HAD BURNED INCENSE UNTO OTHER GODS, AND ALL THE WOMEN THAT STOOD BY, A GREAT MULTITUDE, EVEN ALL THE PEOPLE THAT DWELT IN THE LAND OF EGYPT, ANSWERED JEREMIAH, SAYING,

AS FOR THE WORD THAT THOU HAST SPOKEN UNTO US IN THE NAME OF THE LORD, WE WILL NOT HEARKEN UNTO THEE.

He was an angry god........he wanted it all.........he was a bogart of the stuff........lol

opiates were also very common.

Things making quite a bit of sense now...

yup

Originally posted by debbiejo
The principal day of worship of the Jews, The Sabbath, was replaced by the Mithraistic Sun Day as the Christian holy day.
I always wondered why Christians did not worship on the Sabbath, but on Sunday.

Remaining questions (perhaps for other threads):
1. Why did Islam pick Friday?
2. If a new monotheistic faith ever arises, will they claim Monday? and...
3. What happens when we run out days?

I apologize beforehand if my questions (asked, admittedly, somewhat sarcastically) offend anyone.

1. I have no idea. I'm just guesssing something holy happened on that day.

2. Given the current pattern (saturday, Sunday, Friday) i'd say the remaining days are Monday, Thursday, Tuesday, then Wednesday.

3. The calendar changes to make weeks longer. We'll have to name days after Uranus, Neptune, and Ceres.

Urday, Nepday, Cerday? Cool.

Actually, I wouldn't mind 8 days. Nice even number for packaging things. I mean, whoever came up with the 7 day week was a capitalist genius. Consider: I buy a six-pack of whatever cuz I want a drink each day. But wait: I have one day left over. So now I have to buy 2 six-packs, which covers me for the week, but now for a fortnight I'm short 2 days. So to have a drink every night for 2 weeks, I have to buy 3 six-packs. But wait...

Pure genius.

(sorry for going off-topic)

Originally posted by Templares
Yeah he probably was an eyewitness but it doesnt mean nor it does guarantee that his "Christian" teachings is the same as what Jesus taught.

No problem, than I recommend following Jesus teachings.

Originally posted by Mindship
I always wondered why Christians did not worship on the Sabbath, but on Sunday.



Primarily because it was on the first day of the week (Sunday) that Jesus was seen after His resurrection. Plus, oftentimes in the scriptures we see the disciples gathering together on the first day of the week for Communion and Fellowship.

Great Question Mindship!

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Primarily because it was on the first day of the week (Sunday) that Jesus was seen after His resurrection. Plus, oftentimes in the scriptures we see the disciples gathering together on the first day of the week for Communion and Fellowship.

Great Question Mindship!

Doesn't work, Christ was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Sabbath, he rose and was witnessed 3 days later. Jewish Sabbath is Saturday. That would make it Monday or Tuesday that he rose and was witnessed.

Originally posted by Regret
Doesn't work, Christ was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Sabbath, he rose and was witnessed 3 days later. Jewish Sabbath is Saturday. That would make it Monday or Tuesday that he rose and was witnessed.

It was on the eve on a Wedsnday. The scriptures say He was seen on the first day of the week (Sunday).He needed to be dead for 3 complete days before He could prove he was the Christ. The first day of the week was Sunday. The Jewish Sabbath is the 7th Day of the week or Saturday. You again are not correct in your History.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
It was on the eve on a Wedsnday. The scriptures say He was seen on the first day of the week (Sunday).He needed to be dead for 3 complete days before He could prove he was the Christ. The first day of the week was Sunday. The Jewish Sabbath is the 7th Day of the week or Saturday. You again are not correct in your History.

You are right, did some research, there was a special sabbath on Thursday that week, so Wednesday would fit. Sorry for mistating.

Originally posted by Regret
You are right, did some research, there was a special sabbath on Thursday that week, so Wednesday would fit. Sorry for mistating.

Regret I must say you stand out above the rest. I have posted many. many, things in the past 3 days, and you are the first to admit an error.

...Should I also make a mistake, I will stand corrected.

THANK YOU

Originally posted by Mindship
Urday, Nepday, Cerday? Cool.

Actually, I wouldn't mind 8 days. Nice even number for packaging things. I mean, whoever came up with the 7 day week was a capitalist genius. Consider: I buy a six-pack of whatever cuz I want a drink each day. But wait: I have one day left over. So now I have to buy 2 six-packs, which covers me for the week, but now for a fortnight I'm short 2 days. So to have a drink every night for 2 weeks, I have to buy 3 six-packs. But wait...

Pure genius.

(sorry for going off-topic)



I have some issues with this sabbath discussion though.

Does "eve of the sabbath" mean Saturday night or Friday night?

Was the Georgian clendar in effect at that time? Was Sunday even a day at that point?, let alone this first day of the week?

Can we even trust this because I believe a majority of biblical scholars suggest that christ was born several years before 1CE and as supposedly born sometime in May?

Originally posted by Mindship
I always wondered why Christians did not worship on the Sabbath, but on Sunday.

Remaining questions (perhaps for other threads):
1. Why did Islam pick Friday?
2. If a new monotheistic faith ever arises, will they claim Monday? and...
3. What happens when we run out days?

I apologize beforehand if my questions (asked, admittedly, somewhat sarcastically) offend anyone. Well I know that Constantine changed the Sabbath to Sunday at the council of Nicea to bring in the pagans that already worshipped on Sunday in honor of the SUN GOD...As for Friday......I don't know. Only that it is named after Freya the Norse goddess....

http://www.crowl.org/Lawrence/time/days.html

Originally posted by Alliance


Does "eve of the sabbath" mean Saturday night or Friday night?



I think Saturday. I may be wrong. I suppose it depends on the context and placement of the statement "eve of the sabbath".

Originally posted by Alliance

Does "eve of the sabbath" mean Saturday night or Friday night?


I'd say Friday afternoon, the Jews day begins at 6 PM, so If the Sabbath was a Saturday then Sabbath started at 6 Pm on Friday.

ex. All Hallows Eve is the evening before All Siants Day., not the evening of Nov 1st.

Basically, Jewish Sabbath and holidays start and end at sundown.


1. The mystery thins...vehhry eeenteresting.
2. I always figured someone in charge said, "Well, Saturday and Sunday are taken; what do you guys wanna do?" So they took Friday.

Puts "TGIF" in a whole new light.

Originally posted by Mindship
Puts "TGIF" in a whole new light.

Originally posted by debbiejo
The Gospels - It is not known who actually wrote the gospels.
~ Matthew - Written between 80-100ad - Was written to persuade Jewish people
that Jesus, in spite of the fact he did not set up an earthly kingdom, was nonetheless
the true Jewish Messiah.

~ Mark - Written 70ad - Mark was not one of the Twelve Disciples. This gospel was
written for Roman readers, with a Roman audience in mind.

~ Luke - Written between 70-90ad - Luke was a Disciple of Paul. Luke was written
to convince readers of the things they had heard about Jesus. This account was adjusted for persons without a Jewish background. Luke is the only gospel to conclude with the ascension of Jesus into heaven.

~ John - Written between 90-100ad - John was designed to convince readers that
Jesus is the Messiah, the son of god.

* still projecting allegations and alibis, eh?

~ book of Matthew - written 41 AD, at Palentine - Matthew/Levi was one of the twelve apostles... knowing this, he may have rebuked Saint Paul if his doctrine was wrongly preached...

~ book of Mark - written 60-65 AD, at Rome - yes, Mark was not one of the twelve... knowing this, we may get an insight from other people not in the core of Christ's group, it serves as an unbiased point of view, yet it still conforms with the book of Matthew which was one of the twelve...

~ book of Luke - written 56 AD, at Caesarea - true, Saint Luke is a co-worker of Saint Paul... however, the book of Luke was written to his friend, Theophilus... being a man of faith, Saint Luke provided a book to have it written chronologically...

"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,"
Luke 1:3

* the ascension of Christ was mentioned earlier, even in other books...

"Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power , and coming in the clouds of heaven."
Matthew 26:64

"And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power , and coming in the clouds of heaven."
Mark 14:62

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven , even the Son of man which is in heaven."
John 3:13

"Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God ; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."
I Peter 3:22

~ book of John - 98 AD, near Ephesus - one of the twelve, not the only one to preach that Christ is the Son of God...

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God ."
Matthew 16:16

* Saint Matthew and Saint Peter...

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God ;"
Mark 1:1

* Saint Mark...

"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest : and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God ."
Luke 1:32, 35

* Angel Gabriel and Saint Luke...

* still, no rebuke... instead, Saint Paul received an approval and recommendation from Saint Peter...

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you ;"
II Peter 3:15

* what did Saint Peter wrote about Saint Paul's detractors?

"As also in all his epistles , speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
II Peter 3:16

* <sigh...>

I am also the Son/Daughter of man.........and the word "Christian" used in those times only meant "Doers of good"

The original documents.....
This photo shows a papyrus fragment from the Gospel of John, discovered in Egypt, the oldest known fragment from any part of the New Testament, dated from the first half of the 2nd century C.E.

Script appears on both sides, the front contains verses 31-33 and the back, verses 37-38.

The fragment resides in the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible2.htm

The Bible was edited together by the later followers of the faith.

The Gospel of Matthew IS NOT OLDER than Mark.

Originally posted by Templares
The Gospel of Matthew IS NOT OLDER than Mark.

How do you know?

Also as mentioned earlier there was a special Sabbath that week, not just the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) which started at sundown Friday....The Jews had many special seasonal Sabbaths.

Spring: Passover (Pesach), Unleavened Bread (Hag Hamatzah), Firstfruits (Yom HaBikkurim), Feast of Weeks (Shavuot)

Fall: Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah), Atonement (Yom Kippur), Tabernacles (Sukkoth)

Post Mosaic Sabbaths were: Hanukkah, and Purim, which are winter.

The Sabbath that was going on during the crucifixion was I believe Passover (Pesach) and Unleavened Bread, which I do believed overlapped.

These feasts are now attributed to the life of Jesus in a metaphorical way

as are most large pagan ones.

It's interesting how you can really trace the beliefs and how they moved forward even from as far back as some Sumerian teachings....Only names have changed and some stories with some modifications........quite interesting really.

Abraxas hasn't popped up.

Haven't heard of Abraxas????........Who's that???............

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do you know?

I am waiting too Shaky...The book of Mark may be older...I will look it up.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I am waiting too Shaky...The book of Mark may be older...I will look it up.

Yep. Look it up. Markan priority ownz.

Originally posted by Regret
OK, I know I'll get beat over the head for this by the mainstream Christians, but here it goes.

From my understanding mainstream Christianity believes this:

God existed prior to the advent of Jesus Christ
God never claimed the name Jesus Christ prior to the Mortal existence of Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ is the physical form of God taken during that mortal period

So, if at some point in time God is not in physical form, is there an existing Jesus Christ at that point in time, or is there only God the Father? Or is it just like me using Regret and not my real name?

Also, is God the Father the Son of God the Father, and how does this work?

According to the Catholic Chruch, which I don't know if their opinion is what you're looking for, but there was always a Father (typically referred to as God, which is quite confusing), a Son, and a Holy Spirit. Jesus the person, who was both God (one part of the three, the Trinity) and Human, came into being once he was conceived by Mary. But he always "existed" if that's a good word for it.

I don't understand your last question.

Originally posted by Nazgulinthedark
According to the Catholic Chruch, which I don't know if their opinion is what you're looking for, but there was always a Father (typically referred to as God, which is quite confusing), a Son, and a Holy Spirit. Jesus the person, who was both God (one part of the three, the Trinity) and Human, came into being once he was conceived by Mary. But he always "existed" if that's a good word for it.

I don't understand your last question.

The first portion I think you answered. Basically I was asking for was a rundown of a Christian's (and Catholic fits into that category given that it is the mother of the majority of Christianity today) beliefs on the trinity, and the reasons for what they believe on the subject.

Second I am not sure if you did. If God is a non-corporeal entity (which I have come to think that the majority of Christians believe) then, when he is not being the physical body, does Christ, that member of the trinity, exist as an entity, or does God just use various names dependant on the state he is currently existing as?

It is difficult to phrase questions when I do not understand the subject in the manner that the people I am asking believe it to be.

The last part, I think it has been too long, and too many debates over other things. I cannot remember what I was asking there.

Originally posted by Regret
The first portion I think you answered. Basically I was asking for was a rundown of a Christian's (and Catholic fits into that category given that it is the mother of the majority of Christianity today) beliefs on the trinity, and the reasons for what they believe on the subject.

Second I am not sure if you did. If God is a non-corporeal entity (which I have come to think that the majority of Christians believe) then, when he is not being the physical body, does Christ, that member of the trinity, exist as an entity, or does God just use various names dependant on the state he is currently existing as?

It is difficult to phrase questions when I do not understand the subject in the manner that the people I am asking believe it to be.

The last part, I think it has been too long, and too many debates over other things. I cannot remember what I was asking there.

The second question, I'm trying my best to answer what I think your queation is we beileve that Jesus was both God and man, at the same time. Which is extremely confusing to me as a Catholic, and I know we get a lot of ridicule and argument about that. I'm of course not 100% on that, so if you really really wanted to know you could always go ask a preist, or they probably have it explained somewhere on a Catholic website that knows a lot mare than I do.

Originally posted by Nazgulinthedark
The second question, I'm trying my best to answer what I think your queation is we beileve that Jesus was both God and man, at the same time. Which is extremely confusing to me as a Catholic, and I know we get a lot of ridicule and argument about that. I'm of course not 100% on that, so if you really really wanted to know you could always go ask a preist, or they probably have it explained somewhere on a Catholic website that knows a lot mare than I do.

Thanks for trying. I may approach one of my friends about the subject. I am close friends with the local Catholic priest, we try to stay away from discussing points that we conflict on, and instead we focus on the points that we agree on.

Originally posted by Regret
Thanks for trying. I may approach one of my friends about the subject. I am close friends with the local Catholic priest, we try to stay away from discussing points that we conflict on, and instead we focus on the points that we agree on.
I find I lean the most about people when I'm in combat

Originally posted by Alliance
I find I lean the most about people when I'm in combat

But do I really want to learn about him?

Originally posted by debbiejo
I am also the Son/Daughter of man.........

* nope, you aren't... you are a child of man... not "the" child of man...

Originally posted by debbiejo
and the word "Christian" used in those times only meant "Doers of good"

* nope...

"And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ ."
Acts 5:42

* the apostles were preaching Christ...

"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."
Acts 11:26

* that's why the disciples of Christ are called Christians...

I know someone who is the child of man and woman.

I'm not because I have siblings.