The Great Deception

[betsy]

14 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

 

Those religious, whether it be Christianity or not, AFFECTS me and others in destructive ways politically because it is just such moronic thinking that is dooming this world.

 

 

You're not only the fish out of water.....you also seem like someone with a very huge religion chip on his shoulder.

 

This thread is not about you.  The section - though it's for Religion - does not revolve around you.

 

Create your own thread for it!  Hammer away!  Pour it all out! Vent!

Get into full-scale victim mode! Have a good melt-down.     But, do it in your own thread.

Edited February 17, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

20 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

You're not only the fish out of water.....you also seem like someone with a very huge religion chip on his shoulder.

 

This thread is not about you.  The section - though it's for Religion - does not revolve around you.

 

Create your own thread for it!  Hammer away!  Pour it all out! Vent!

Get into full-scale victim mode! Have a good melt-down.     But, do it in your own thread.

You are a fraud here. I ADDED WITH PURPOSE: " (me) and others..." Of course I added this because YOU think this argument ONLY applies to YOU. [How do you force the size to be larger than 14 point, btw? I don't have this option and HTML option has been removed.]

YOU did not start this thread. I already told you that I mistook him before for being religious when he responded elsewhere that he was an atheist. So your argument of me being irrelevant here does not hold up.

I am CHALLENGING you to be the "Christian" you CLAIM but I believe that you are a FRAUD!! You require PROVING something here. You are arguing for a NON-Catholic position and so can also be irrelevant for arguing OUTSIDE of that particular belief. 

The thread is about the "Trinity". You require first understanding the origins of this and why the Catholic has a rational justification for it. If you can't argue from within EVEN IF you disagree, you lack credibility. 

You are also against the 'victim' mode and are being HYPOCRITICAL given the arguments OF the 'victimhood' Identity politics asserts the same argument of you telling me I'm irrelevant here. If you are NOT the 'victim', they hold, you have NO capacity to understand nor be invited to the conversation from without. You are saying the same thing but replacing their own particular status with Christianity. 

[betsy]

3 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

You are a fraud here. I ADDED WITH PURPOSE: " (me) and others..." Of course I added this because YOU think this argument ONLY applies to YOU. [How do you force the size to be larger than 14 point, btw? I don't have this option and HTML option has been removed.]

 

You may've added "others".....but it still boils down to you (because you can't really speak for others).   Actually, check out the responses.....you're the only non-believer hammering away at me right now, arguing on this particular issue about Jesus being God.

I think the "others" understand where I'm coming from that, unless you're a Christian (and that you believe the Bible is the Word of God),  your views as an atheist (who thinks  the Bible is just a book written by men), are irrelevant on the particular subject about whether Jesus is God Himself, or simply the Son of God.  That's what I'm on about with John Prewett (or any Christian who doesn't believe Jesus and God are One and the Same).  

Heck, you don't believe in the existence of God....so what are you doing engaging in that particular subject?   That's hilarious - I had to give the analogy about a male arguing  in a female discussion about experiencing menstural period, hoping you'll see what I'm saying.

You cannot grasp that logic.

Edited February 17, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

3 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

 

YOU did not start this thread. I already told you that I mistook him before for being religious when he responded elsewhere that he was an atheist. So your argument of me being irrelevant here does not hold up.

 

I don't think he's an atheist. 

I'm engaged with him now in the other forum.  He said:

 

Quote

"Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him, and he in God." 1 John 4:15

I confess Jesus is the Son of God .... and thus I don't need Trinitarian approval or fellowship. Have a nice day, JP

 

 

Furthermore, he could be an atheist who's read the Bible, and he's trying to engage from a believer's point of view. 

UNLIKE YOU - you are arguing from an atheist's  perspective!  That's what makes your opinion irrelevant.  Golly....it's like pulling teeth!

Edited February 17, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

3 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I am CHALLENGING you to be the "Christian" you CLAIM but I believe that you are a FRAUD!! You require PROVING something here. You are arguing for a NON-Catholic position and so can also be irrelevant for arguing OUTSIDE of that particular belief. 

The thread is about the "Trinity". You require first understanding the origins of this and why the Catholic has a rational justification for it. If you can't argue from within EVEN IF you disagree, you lack credibility.placing their own particular status with Christianity. 

I don't think you know where the concept of the Trinity came from.   3-in-1 concept isn't the invention of the Catholic Church. 

We are first introduced to the concept in Genesis 1.  The  Old Testament (in case you also don't know)!

 

That belief isn't exclusive to Catholics.  See?  There seems to be some other major things you don't know......

Edited February 17, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

19 minutes ago, betsy said:

You may've added "others".....but it still boils down to you (because you can't really speak for others).   Actually, check out the responses.....you're the only non-believer hammering away at me right now, arguing on this particular issue about Jesus being God.

I think the "others" understand where I'm coming from that, unless you're a Christian (and that you believe the Bible is the Word of God),  your views as an atheist (who thinks  the Bible is just a book written by men), are irrelevant on the particular subject about whether Jesus is God Himself, or simply the Son of God.  That's what I'm on about with John Prewett (or any Christian who doesn't believe Jesus and God are One and the Same).  

Heck, you don't believe in the existence of God....so what are you doing engaging in that particular subject?   That's hilarious - I had to give the analogy about a male arguing  in a female discussion about experiencing menstural period, hoping you'll see what I'm saying.

You cannot grasp that logic.

No, I am VERY relevant to discuss this issue with you, even without 'believing' in some transcendent meaning to the bible.

YOUR 'belief' about whether God and Jesus are one versus a belief about them as distinct and separate is something I can help you OR the other 'side' rationalize in a way you can at least UNDERSTAND one another. If you simply think this is about 'belief' in being Christian, you are also falsely thinking that the title of "Christian" is itself ONE religion. While they all share the MINIMAL definition of "those who follow the teachings of the New Testament", there is a vast array of DIFFERENT religions that sprouted off from the original ideas....which also themselves came from other religions.

The origin of the Protestant religious interpretation YOU have is actually itself a perversion of even the first Protestants that have evolved most significantly in the United States and now here in Canada. The original protesters (of the non-catholic /non-Anglican) form is due to the fact that the Pope was selling 'Indulgences' which were like official 'get-out-of-jail-free' cards with the Pope's signature. They had lost a LOT of money due to many factors and the Vatican was already losing its power as a voluntary Empire. This is why they started to also become cruel with Inquisitions. The Enlightenment age of the time was due to the printing press and the REDISCOVERY of the Greek philosophical 'canons' (collection of books). 

The Pope thought of selling these Indulgences to enable people to literally "Buy a Stairway to Heaven". People were thus allowed to 'indulge' in doing evil (because the Church was no longer able to 'sell' itself) and opted to redraw the sinners into the church by an incentive. Remember, the Inquisition was the initial means to try to FORCEFULLY bring the population BACK to the fold rather than to become atheist or join some other belief. 

Also, given printing again, the ORDINARY person could now READ the bible for themselves. Prior to this it was written ONLY in Latin (to maintain top-down control of the Priesthood). Now people were translating the original into all their own languages and the cost of printing through the press made it easier for the average person to become a credible 'interpreter' of the Bible without needing the Priesthood's acting as the authorities.

The original combination within the Church of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, was an ACCIDENTAL latter interpretation by many by the beginning of the Enlightenment. This 'modern' era begun to be more logical and questioned what was originally meant about these things. Your form of Christianity DROPPED the "holy ghost" interpretation as valid but kept the Father/Son version. But the Evangelical/Fundamentalist denominations opted to take this STRICTLY as meaning they were literally one and the same. 

First off, this should NOT matter. Why does it matter whether Jesus and God were one and the same? This is just like the extreme Muslims interpreting Mohammad's image as illegal to be presented. The original meaning was only about being sure not to DEIFY Mohammad. Yet ironically half of the Muslims turned the ban of imaging to mean it was 'blasphemous'. 

Oddly, your fight here to demand one LITERALLY believe that God == Jesus ONLY makes sense if you NOT pray to Jesus given he is back to his status as God in Heaven. But because many begun to dismiss Jesus as a mere human, versus of some magical offspring of Mary, your ancestor believers feared that one would then resort to simple Judaism of the Old Testament because it holds more of God being God, not some human. So those people argued that Christianity even by the reformers was as irrational. If you protest against the Church, why not question the whole religion.

So your belief evolved out of a desperate attempt to make Jesus a LITERAL 'god' as those Muslims who did the same for Mohammad. [Muslim beliefs ALSO contributed to the concern and threat against Christianity.] Your belief is only an attempt to SAVE those like myself from existing. That is, you FEAR that your own children will become the Nihilistic Atheist and you have no other means to prevent this except for DESPERATE THREATENING others to literally believe IN Jesus as something you cannot speak against or should go to hell. In fact, if it weren't for the laws, you and your 'loved' ones would put me and all others to death, just as the terrorists of other religions. Because you can't now, the best you hope to do is to BEG one believe in Jesus as a magical being like the OT God who will penalize us in an afterlife.

Using the Bible to defend your view is futile for those other believers in Christianity because they too do NOT interpret the Bible as perfect nor literal. The 'inspiration' interpretation is meaningful. YOU believe that 'inspiration' means that God LITERALLY and magically put the words there, not the humans writing it. HMMM,.....sounds familiar? Mohammad told others that he was a vessel who could only UNIQUELY hear God. And many transferred this to Mohammad now, just as you have of Jesus. 

Jesus does NOT logically mean anything, as I said earlier, because IF he 'died' for our sins, he is ONLY sacrificing something IF he were a human. If he was God all along, then he never WAS a man and did NOT sacrifice anything, ....just pretended to. You also derived your view from the interpretation of Mary's virginity. Ironically, lost in translation is the fact that a "Mary" is also a title, not a name. It meant a "Mare",.....one who is ready to bear children and be bound legally in the process called, "Mary-ing", the CONTRACT to God (public promise witnessed by all) to be with one man in having children. 

I am guessing that you won't even read this or pretend that you haven't. But this IS all relevant to 'protest' your irrational interpretation of even the original Christians. The majority of the original followers of the Jesus-movement was NOT literalist. The were secular poor who took the story of a brave man accused of being an insane man who dared to challenge the Kings of the day by saying "I am the King" == "Je sus Christos". 

 

[Scott Mayers]

Christianity was a movement to borrow the exclusive religion of the Jews to all people. The original group of followers though were ONLY intending to find a means to remain Jews in a community hostile to them (Roman Empire). They appealed to the poor because of the message it conveyed and also helped those Jews remain amongst the Romans. They then adapted to drawing in Romans (Saul, a Jewish name, becomes Paul, a Roman one.) Paul is actually where your religion came about officially.

The original "Jesus Christ" was the title everyone then KNEW literally meant those who claim they are as equal to the king, Jews equal to the Romans, and all men equal in the 'favor' of the original Jewish-ONLY God. The stories of the the apostles were various versions of Bar Kokhba, the Jewish leader who tried and successfully overthrew the Roman control of Jerusalem for a short term before the Romans (and/or other secular jews?) reconquered them. The conflict about the Temple was whether it was a universal 'convention hall' for all people or a HOLY place only for the Jews. By 'coding' Simon Bar Kokhba with the title, "Jesus Christ", the Jews in Rome after the fall of the Temple were able to communicate this without mentioning his name, ...probably like one in the U.S. who might praise Bin Laden but use a code title reference, "the true leader" instead.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[betsy]

The concept of the triune God was first introduced on the very first statement of the first Chapter, of the first Book of the Bible. 

 

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

 

"Elohim" - which is the Hebrew PLURAL noun is used.

The plural noun for "us" is used in Genesis 1:26,  Gen 3:22,  Gen 11:7, and Isaiah 6:8.

 

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

20 hours ago, betsy said:

The concept of the triune God was first introduced on the very first statement of the first Chapter, of the first Book of the Bible. 

 

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

 

"Elohim" - which is the Hebrew PLURAL noun is used.

The plural noun for "us" is used in Genesis 1:26,  Gen 3:22,  Gen 11:7, and Isaiah 6:8.

 

 

Partly correct.... but that specific opening was not specifically asserting three any more than two (or even, possibly one). The 'gods' is like also accepting the community of various groups of original civilization. These were the theories of VARIES peoples. It includes the secular meaning 'Origin' or 'Origins' unspecified or yet known.

 

El- == THEE (significant one, or 'the' when unsignificant)

oham or ohim, or -h- signfifies the plural. 

Elohim does not speak of how many but to simply many. Compare below the origins and change to Abram to Abraham:

 

Abram == Abba (father)  +    -ra ['energy word' for "to see", "to do", OR "to speak". .. from "Ra" that was the sound of a lion (a roar) with its apparent power in kind to the SUN]  +  -am.     "Father who leads, (or speaks), or commands"

...to become once the Assyrian influence to the last major Kingdom of Egypt. [Egypt, ....not Palestine, was "the promised land"]:

Abraham  == "Father to all" or "Father sees (over) all" where  (Ham) become also a word for the people of Egypt in power. 

 

The 'trinity' COMES from MANY roots that did derive religious, secular and scientific reasoning. Logically, it one interpretation is as I spoke earlier. [A, not-A, and A & not-A]; Also, as math logic and questions of origins of secular OR religious interpretations: Zero, One, and Infinity. The question was/is do we come from nothing, a something unique (one),  or an infinity of something? 

"God" (not this particular word) in various origins was actually like an unknown variable that many in time just POSITED a literal character. This is like how UFO, meaning "UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object" was a military term to alert them of some unknown object to identify. We can see that this became reinterpreted as a POSITIVE reality, namely some type of alien spacecraft. 

 

Genesis can be read very secular too. You can reread most of the bible as a kind of lost or hidden reference to secular reality, natural science, evolution of tribes to cities, early government, and moral ideas.....all from various sources of significant HUMAN wisdom of those days. [This isn't just for the Torah, Talmud, or New Testaments, etc, but to ALL written works that became or evolved into one religion or another. Personification were means to help people remember as children stories, parables, songs, etc. They HAD to be memorable and so required a lot of cross referencing of ideas with a lot of clever literary styles. We lost much of this understanding now though. 

 

I believe that most tribes everywhere never had multiple gods as we interpret this from far in the future. It was the tribes of different languages, lifestyles, and cultures that brought the first cities into life as Temples that were centers of economy mainly at its origin. [See my Temples and Sacrifice theory]

As such, when after generations some people lost an understanding of the original function of these places (like Jesus) who attempted to overthrow these places to make it a 'sacred' place for only ONE tribe's history. Most were MONO-theists who collectively unified in settlements through the temples which had representatives from each original tribe (Priests). These were needed for LEGAL means to determine who owned what properties, centers for communal business, AND common celebrations (unbiased to any tribe).

The Pharoah was the elect leader or speaker of the party agreed to 'POLICE' and defend the common ground of all tribes. This is similar to our government parties representing tribes and the elect party to defend at the time required to defend for all to some term. (Note "Pha" may be a deriviative of "Ba" or "Abba", the "ra" and "oah" combined to become "Abraham" in the Judaeo-Christian evolved religions.)

 

Another trinity, is to solids, liquids and gases. Most originally separated this in two: Fluids ('waters' and 'gas') + Solids.

Aten and Adam are 'solids'. The sun's circle is the PERFECT solid; Adam is earthly solids.

The "waters above" (was actually 'fluids' in meaning for air or sky) and "waters below" was the fluids of the deep.

"Heaven" is "even" and relates also to "Eve". These all meant that which follows. When we died, they interpreted properly that there was power in the air that gave life, burning rose to the sky, and so the skies were the "heavens" beyond the clouds (space and the stars). This is where they interpreted the ultimate 'air' or "Spirit" to exist. And so when God rested, "The spirit of God hovered" was intended to mean the MAGIC in the invisible air that gave life.  Secular:  "The Unknown Source provided invisible powers of the unseen but felt 'fluid'"

Edited February 20, 2018 by Scott Mayers
Added extras. An edit of an accident I crossed out.

[?Impact]

The Bible has something for everyone with its great disunity.

 

Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him. - Deuteronomy 4:35

Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. - Deuteronomy 4:39

That all the people of the earth may know that the Lord is God, and that there is none else.- 1 Kings 8:60

Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.- Galatians 3:20

[betsy]

I'm not sure if John will be back....I hope he does.

 

Why did biblical John refer to Jesus as The Word?    What is The Word?

 

Quote

The answer is that the term "the Word" was highly significant to the Jewish culture of the time and in fact made John's point about who Jesus was all the more clear.



This Old Testament data alone presents us some intriguing parallels between Jesus and God's Word. However, by the time of the New Testament, this had been further developed in Jewish thought. As Messianic Jewish scholar Dr. Michael Brown explains:

"Since God was often perceived as somehow 'untouchable,' it was necessary to provide some kind of like between the Lord and his earthly creation.

One of the important links was "the Word," called memra in Aramaic (from the Hebrew and Aramaic root "to say," the root used throughout the creation account in Genesis 1, when God said and the material world came into existence).


We find this memra concept hundreds of times in the Aramaic Targums, the translations and paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures that were read in the synagogues before, during, and after the time of Jesus."

https://carm.org/why-is-Jesus-called-the-word

 

"the Word," called memra in Aramaic (from the Hebrew and Aramaic root "to say," the root used throughout the creation account in Genesis 1, when God said and the material world came into existence).





Genesis 1

3 And God said,

6 And God said,

9 And God said,

11 Then God said,

11 Then God said,

20 And God said,

24 And God said,

26 Then God said,




God didn't think His creation into existence.  He said them.

 

 

That explanation made sense of John 1:3.

 

John 1

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

How consistent.  The puzzle pieces falling neatly into places.

 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

For the concept of the "triune" -  the Spirit of God was also present during Creation.

Genesis 1
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep,
and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 

 

All three were present during Christ's baptism.

 

Matthew 3

¹⁶ When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He^[c] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. ¹⁷ And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by betsy

[?Impact]

7 hours ago, betsy said:

God didn't think His creation into existence.  He said them.

Of course, I could have told you that. They are called incantations, like Aguamenti to make water and Incendio to make fire.

[betsy]

On 2/20/2018 at 2:22 PM, ?Impact said:

Of course, I could have told you that. They are called incantations, like Aguamenti to make water and Incendio to make fire.

Gee...........I wonder where Rowling came up with that idea.  I never read a HP book.....but apparently, it's supposed to have a Christian message.   Of course, if true, all that will most likely be lost to those ignorant of the  Bible - which means, they won't even realise - won't have any clue - they're being preached to, from a very, very different angle. 

 

 

Quote

J K Rowling: 'Christianity inspired Harry Potter'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/fictionreviews/3668658/J-K-Rowling-Christianity-inspired-Harry-Potter.html

 

 

 

You know some HP Latin incantations.  Proves that showbiz marketing works - imagine that!    I know about those terms because I played the harry potter game.

Sorcerers are usually shown to be aided by a higher being (usually by their own god), thus they've been given their power.

 

 

 

Anyway - "aquamenti" in Latin translates to "water in the brain."  

 

Sorcerers and wizards, and witchcraft are also mentioned even in the Old Testament.  Think of the battle of powers - Moses and Pharoah's sorcerers!  

 

Countless writers have lifted something from the Bible.  Just shows the enduring relevance of this Living Book!

Edited April 22, 2018 by betsy

[French Patriot]

On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 9:53 AM, Boges said:

I think it's common knowledge that the Roman Catholic Church made up their own doctrine. Thus the reason for a reformation. 

It's the biggest irony that the Christian church became the exact thing that Jesus preached against. 

Many Christian sects use the NT  interpretation of Jesus, and only that, as their guiding principals.

I agree but would say they made up little and plagiarized a lot from the Jews and Chrestian, a good man ideology. They even accepted whole scriptures by just changing the Chrestian designation to Christian.

That may be why Gnostic Christians started using other designators for Gnostic mystery schools.

That is what I believe so it must be true. ; -)

Regards

DL