Is jesus God or God's creation

[rukus]

Not to be all Athiestic or anything, but that analogy could be used to explain why science hasn't come up with the answer to our own origin yet (well, beyond what's already understood). Replace the word God with "The universe" and you'd basically have panthiesm.

Regardless, it's an interesting analogy, but the funny thing about analogies, is that they don't really mean much in all honesty. A hugely woven tapestry could be replaced with a used ball of wool, completely knotted up. The difference would then be the denotations of the object we're using to analogise. The tapestry gives a sense of age, beauty and essentially something that shouldn't be messed with too much. A messy ball of wool on the other hand is annoying, frustrating and essentially something eventually end up throwing away.


But back on topic. Personally, I think people always had and always will have their own takes on religion, whether it be a difference in interpretation or a straight out disbelief of one of the characters in the bible.

i understand your meaning, bt have another thought. Modern science doesnt speak of a 'greater plan', so the analogy of the tapestry doesnt work for science. However, the ball of yarn theory teaches chaos, which is contraindictive to Christianity, and therefore doesnt work. But science as a ball of yarn, and Christianity of a tapestry does, no?



most others:


since when has a bunch of non-believers/agnostics/atheists become experts on one of the most confusing (for our finite minds) topics of religion (Christianity)? was it the same time a ditch digger became an expert surgeon?


don't tell someone what you do not know, and explaining what you think it is is misleading, and makes you look ignorant, not smart. A better answer than to come up with some sort of crap is to acknowledge you don't know or understand.

 

[rukus]

Yeah i basically agree with you.

so if you already think the bible is flawed, then the questions you're asking are only answered from the bible, then you areither trolling, or you really don't care.
if you really want the answer, then go read for yourself what the bible has to say about the topics. if you want somewhere to start, pm me.
otherwise ignore what people think might be the answer

 

[Veronica]

so if you already think the bible is flawed, then the questions you're asking are only answered from the bible, then you areither trolling, or you really don't care.
if you really want the answer, then go read for yourself what the bible has to say about the topics. if you want somewhere to start, pm me.
otherwise ignore what people think might be the answer

Okay first of all i said i basically agree with him i never said i fully agreed with him. And the reason why i posted this is because i want other peoples option or view on the subject. You don't have to get so technical about everything.

 

[Napalmbrain]

I just remembered something. When I was younger, I once heard the trinity described to me as sort of like water - it's one substance, but comes in three forms (water comes in other states as well, but let's not get nitpicky), namely solid (ice), liquid, gas (steam). I suppose it could be a decent analogy, although I still don't entirely get it.

 

[Bio]

i understand your meaning, bt have another thought. Modern science doesnt speak of a 'greater plan', so the analogy of the tapestry doesnt work for science. However, the ball of yarn theory teaches chaos, which is contraindictive to Christianity, and therefore doesnt work. But science as a ball of yarn, and Christianity of a tapestry does, no?



most others:


since when has a bunch of non-believers/agnostics/atheists become experts on one of the most confusing (for our finite minds) topics of religion (Christianity)? was it the same time a ditch digger became an expert surgeon?


don't tell someone what you do not know, and explaining what you think it is is misleading, and makes you look ignorant, not smart. A better answer than to come up with some sort of crap is to acknowledge you don't know or understand.

Yeah, this was my reaction to his post as well, but did not know how to explain it.

 

[Gikoku Harakami]

Maybe Jesus wasn't god's son, or god at all. Maybe he was a prophet who claimed that god spoke to him. We really don't know. But to add to the argument, when I was a Christian I was always taught that god was Jesus, and Jesus was god. I'm not sure what the holy spirit is.

I'm more likely to believe the bold, but when I was a Christian I was taught that Jesus was the son of God. Then it started getting confusing when people began praying to Jesus and calling him the lord.

The bible on many occasions, says that Jesus is the son of God.

1 Timothy 2:5 - "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"

Hard for me to fathom how one can be both God & The Mediator at the same time, not to mention it is said that Jesus also prayed to God (Why would you pray to yourself?). In the Christian religion, Jesus is referred to as the son of God, the savior/messiah. Over 40 times the phrase for Jesus Son of God appears in the New Testament. It gets confusing though when one sees other Christians believing Jesus is God and acknowledging him as such rather than the former.

However, it's also possible that Son of God does not literally mean the offspring of God.

 

[Brawny]

However, it's also possible that Son of God does not literally mean the offspring of God.

Yay.

The Trinity is one of those things. The book I'm currently reading says it's students learning about subatomic particles: if you think you understand it, you don't.

It's such a strange concept, which, for me, at least, tells me it's true. If the religion was made up by humans, why would they invent a concept so complex for even themselves to understand?

 

[rukus]

It's such a strange concept, which, for me, at least, tells me it's true. If the religion was made up by humans, why would they invent a concept so complex for even themselves to understand?

ive never thought of that before.

asking a secular peoples opinion of something religious is counterproductive. why are people continuing to say what they think, instead of what the Bible teaches? We have a finite mind, God has an infinite mind, do not think he has the same limited knowledge that we do. Sometimes there are things we cannot fathom.

the 3 state (liquid, gas, solid) is more of the right idea IMO (remember, im human).

 

[Napalmbrain]

The Trinity is one of those things. The book I'm currently reading says it's students learning about subatomic particles: if you think you understand it, you don't.

It's such a strange concept, which, for me, at least, tells me it's true. If the religion was made up by humans, why would they invent a concept so complex for even themselves to understand?

You think it must be true because you can't understand it? I would consider that a very bad reason to believe in something...

 

[Brawny]

I just remembered something. When I was younger, I once heard the trinity described to me as sort of like water - it's one substance, but comes in three forms (water comes in other states as well, but let's not get nitpicky), namely solid (ice), liquid, gas (steam). I suppose it could be a decent analogy, although I still don't entirely get it.

The Trinity isn't understood by anyone on this earth. If someone says they do, you know not to follow them.

I've also heard it described as how a single clover has 3 leaves, but this description doesn't have enough "oneness" in it. Another I've heard is a person, you can be an uncle, a grandfather, a son, a husband, but you're still the same person acting in different roles, and even having different personalities. You may say a randy joke to your grandkids that you probably wouldn't tell your wife.

I'd think this is the closest analogy we can have, and thus that's the one that's used the most often, calling them Father and Son.

 

[rukus]

You think it must be true because you can't understand it? I would consider that a very bad reason to believe in something...

i would completely agree with you there.

Another I've heard is a person, you can be an uncle, a grandfather, a son, a husband, but you're still the same person acting in different roles, and even having different personalities. You may say a randy joke to your grandkids that you probably wouldn't tell your wife.

But that analogy CAN NOT apply to the trinity.
The Father, Son, & Holy Spirit are all perfect and all-knowing. They have the same agenda, goals, and reasons. The may have different roles, and different personalities, but they would not be different depending on who they are working with

I always hated this when I was religiously active. I would fear that someone would ask me the simplest of questions—who is Jesus?—and that I wouldn't be able to answer them. I

You aren't alone, and its not limited to religious persons.

Many times i have questioned people yelling "I hate Bush!!". When asked why they hate bush, they spew the same crap all the time. He kills children, war for oil, hes stupid. Completely ignorant answers. Many people have no idea why they believe what they believe, whether its religion, politics, science, evolution, or anything.

Go ask an average person, who claims to believe in evolution, what the core theories of evolution are. Ypou will most likely recieve a blank stare.
Point is, if you choose to believe in something (anything) know your reasons why, and know them well. If its a topic that can be hotly debated, know the counter arguments agsinst your belief as well. You will learn a lot.

To quote myself, "I have learned the most from people who know nothing."

 

[Squall7]

i understand your meaning, bt have another thought. Modern science doesnt speak of a 'greater plan', so the analogy of the tapestry doesnt work for science.

Well, it kinda does, just not in a narrative-like way. It brings together different aspects of the subject as a whole (biology, physics and chemistry, along with the many branching off areas of those). They're all linked, just not in an a to b to c way.

However, the ball of yarn theory teaches chaos, which is contraindictive to Christianity, and therefore doesnt work.

That's assuming that Christianity is not contradictive in itself. Take for example, the verses in Leviticus against the spirit of the Bible, which is meant to be at least about tolerance and peace. Likewise, would a ball of yarn necessarily mean chaos? Surely it could mean intricacy.

most others:

since when has a bunch of non-believers/agnostics/atheists become experts on one of the most confusing (for our finite minds) topics of religion (Christianity)? was it the same time a ditch digger became an expert surgeon?

Just because we don't believe it, doesn't mean we're unaware of it. The ditch digger and expert surgeon analogy is flawed. It's based on capability rather than belief. Besides, what about the people who argue against evolution, despite not understanding it properly? At least with religion, different interpretations are pretty much the standard. While there is debate in the scientific field, it's more debating theories than debating interpretations.

don't tell someone what you do not know, and explaining what you think it is is misleading, and makes you look ignorant, not smart. A better answer than to come up with some sort of crap is to acknowledge you don't know or understand.

Knowledge is a bad way to explain. Intelligence on the other hand (the ability to use knowledge to gain more knowledge) is a better way to explain.

Besides, when it's extremely interpretive (i.e. based on interpretation), "knowing" per se is simply having a favoured way of understanding something. I'm sure somebody with just as much experience in the religion as yourself may have a completely different interpretation to it, a completely different favoured way of understanding it.

Making me look "ignorant", well that's up to the person reading it. I'm sure I may look "ignorant" to somebody who thinks I'm understating something, or simply not interpreting something as they would, but essentially whether you or anyone else thinks I'm ignorant is ultimately moot. If this makes sense to someone, surely it is a good thing?! If it enhances understanding, whether it's within the original point or about the original point, it is valuable.

Perhaps it's my writing style, perhaps you just don't like what I'm saying. Regardless, if what I'm saying is false, it's not up to you to disprove or disapprove of it, it's down to the reader's themselves. If what I'm saying is true (which obviously, I consider to be the case), then your comments will seem, once again moot.

P.S. I realise your comments were about atheists/agnostics on this forum in general, but since I am one, I've decided to do a personal response.

EDIT: Looks like the religious debate is heating up with the bible as the source. I'm outta here.

 

[Brawny]

But that analogy CAN NOT apply to the trinity.
The Father, Son, & Holy Spirit are all perfect and all-knowing. They have the same agenda, goals, and reasons. The may have different roles, and different personalities, but they would not be different depending on who they are working with

Of course every analogy breaks down at some point. That one focuses on the separateness too much, I think.

What exactly are you denominationally?

 

[Skippy]

I'm more likely to believe the bold, but when I was a Christian I was taught that Jesus was the son of God. Then it started getting confusing when people began praying to Jesus and calling him the lord.

"Lord" is a just a title - it can be applied to anyone in a position of authority or a leader. It doesn't refer specifically to God or Jesus.

What confuses matters more, is the way the word "Lord" is used in most Bible translations. In the Old Testament, God's name is represented by 4 Hebrew letters (the tetragrammaton) that, in English, are usually translated as Jehovah or Yahweh. However most Bible translations have removed God's name from the Bible (found in hundreds of places in the original Hebrew) and replaced it with "Lord" - oftentime in an all caps form. These Bibles typically admit doing this on purpose in the notes at the beginning. The one place you're still most likely to find God's name is Psalm 83:18, although some translations removed it from there too.

Now in the New Testament, Jesus is often referred to as "Lord", since it's still a fitting title. But many of the apostles and disciples in the New Testament quoted verses from the Old Testament, ones that used God's actual name, but again the Bibles used "Lord" instead of God's name. Now that just causes confusion since it makes it sound like they are referring to Jesus instead of God.

Here's a specific example (from the NIV translation)
Romans 10:11-13
As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

That gives the impression that you need to call on Jesus to be saved. However, Paul there points out he is quoting from the scriptures, which in this case is Joel 2:32 which says:
Joel 2:32
And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved;

Now this is one of those cases where the "LORD" in Joel 2:32 is a stand-in for the the tetragrammaton representing God's name.
So what Paul is emphasizing there in Romans, is to call on the name of Jehovah/Yahweh, not Jesus.

There are many other cases like this where the distinction between God and Jesus has been blurred by improper translation.

As for praying, Jesus gave instructions regarding prayer and it was to God, not to anyone else. Also, God is the only one referred to as the hearer or prayers, not Jesus, holy spirit, saints, beads, statues, or anyone else. However, we are to pray in Jesus' name - indicating our acceptance of his sacrifice to save us from sin and his position as mediator between us and God.

The bible on many occasions, says that Jesus is the son of God.

Then accept what the Bible says - Jesus is the only begotten of God, the firstborn of creation (not always existing like God is).

The Trinity is one of those things.
...
It's such a strange concept, which, for me, at least, tells me it's true. If the religion was made up by humans, why would they invent a concept so complex for even themselves to understand?

The scriptures were written down for our benefit - so that we can know God, know his son, and learn salvation. Why would God, who wants us all to live, present a concept that we are not capable of understanding - and with something so vitally important - who he is and who his son is and their respective roles.

But that analogy CAN NOT apply to the trinity.
The Father, Son, & Holy Spirit are all perfect and all-knowing.

They are not all knowing - only God is all knowing.

Jesus's own words here at Mark 13:32
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

John 14:28
"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

They have the same agenda, goals, and reasons. The may have different roles, and different personalities, but they would not be different depending on who they are working with

This much I will agree on - they are united in purpose. Jesus said many times that he only does the will of his father, not his own.

 

[Brawny]

Then accept what the Bible says - Jesus is the only begotten of God, the firstborn of creation (not always existing like God is).

John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[e][f]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

The word is Jesus. It clearly says the word is God. And that he was with him in the beginning, which is before creation following the lead of Genesis. I don't know how else you could interpret that.

Also, Jesus is equally all-knowing and ever-present as a spirit. It's only when he was incarnated that he was restricted in both knowledge, and in omnipresence.