Sane already had his conclusions determined on this debate before it began. You are all wasting your time. This is as fruitless as debating the existence of god in the first place. Be here now.
Rashmon, If there were more people like you, no one would ever find any truth. I learned lots from this, and it was clear that no one was going to change their faith through this conversation. However, I came here to get a closer look into Christianity and Christians' views about Jesus' role, Moses' role, and the Bible's accuracy. The peopel in this thread have been more than helpful, unlike you. I believe in a God, and I believe in Christianity. So I don't need to be convinced that there is a God, and I don't need to be convinced about that authenticity of Christianity. rfw2, So what you're saying is that it was a judgement call to switch between master and teacher? I don't know which came first, but I'm getting the impression from you that it was Master. This is a fact right? There's proof that the "master" was written before the "teacher"? As for the Koran, Muslims generally prefer to avoid translations unless absolutely necessary (someone doesn't speak the language). Still, when someone reads the translation, it should be made clear that it is not exact, but extremely close to the original. Some words just don't translate well in different languages, and these tiny differences can create huge cracks in Islam. There is only one version of the Qura'an in Arabic, the same one that all Muslism follow. Our secondary source of information is similar to the Bible.. It's what a group of people picked by the Prophet wrote about what the Prophet used to preach. However, nothing is set in stone. There are different versions and different interpretations. But when it comes to the Qura'an, it's all one. Word for word, absolutely no difference.
am I correct to assume that people LATER invented the Trinity theory, AFTER Jesus died and AFTER he could verify it? Raising the Holy Spirit to the same level in the Heavenly Hierarchy as God and Jesus was the work of the Catholic Church, in an attempt to clean up the NT theology. It is an exercise for the careful reader to determine if the church acted in an inspired fashion or not.
Doing a google search on "Christian Trinitarian Dcotorine" should set you free. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity The Trinity is a central doctrine of most branches of Christianity; it says that God is one God, existing in three distinct persons, usually referred to as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Historically, this has been described by the Nicene (325 A.D.), Apostles' (200 A.D.), and Athanasian Creeds (mid 300's A.D.) although it is not explicitly described in the Bible. These creeds were created and endorsed by the orthodox, catholic Church of the third and fourth centuries, and later retained in some form by most Protestants. ... The word, Trinity, literally means, "a unity of three". This word does not appear in the Bible, and indeed, it apparently did not exist until Tertullian coined the term in the early third century. Nevertheless, although trinitarian Christians grant that the modern words and formulas are later developments, they still believe that this doctrine is found systematically throughout the Bible, and in the creeds and doctrines, and in other traditions of the Christian Church. It is considered a biblical doctrine "only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed The Nicene Creed, or the Icon/Symbol of the Faith, is a Christian statement of faith accepted by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and major Protestant churches. It gets its name from the First Council of Nicaea (325), at which it was adopted and from the First Council of Constantinople (381), at which a revised version was accepted. ... A modern English version of the Nicene Creed: We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son). With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
You have no idea what kind of person I am nor what help I may be able to offer you in your quest for knowledge or truth. However, from your responses, I believe you are only seeking an opportunity to reinforce your original point that Jesus never claimed to be god, thereby implying that the Christian religion is grounded in fallacy. I may be wrong and if I have offended you I am truly sorry.
None taken, this board is created for debate. You're right that I don't know who you are or what you may have to offer, but your last post did absolutely nothign but try to put a dent in this discussion. Maybe you're reading my responses through your glasses, because what I'm trying to do is to find that ultimate proof that Jesus said that he is God. Show me solid proof, show me that I'm wrong, because that's what I want. I mean no offense in the next few lines, but even if it was somehow miraculously proven that Jesus did not claim to be God, that doesn't take anything away from Christianity. It's still a beautiful religion, that teaches you right from wrong, how to love those people around you, how to live your life, and how to get to heaven. Why would you lose faith in something that leads you the right way? It wouldn't change the fact that Jesus was preaching all the right things. My faith may be different from yours, but that doesn't mean it's a competition. Again, please feel free to point out anything that you consider offensive in my posts.
If there is a clear definitive statement in the NT with Jesus saying "I am the Son of God", that verse would be classified as a *belief* statement, versus a historical statement like "Jesus preached in Galilee". Belief statements can not be proved one way or another.
Time spent increasing understanding is never a waste. Clearly, there are people in this thread who have learned more.
I've got a question for you: Could you find where the phrase "separation of church and state" is used in the First Amendment? If you you can't find it, does that mean you refuse to believe that the concept is there? Somehow, I doubt it. It's no secret that the word "Trinity" is never used in the Bible. But does that mean the concept isn't there? Of course not. It's unmistakably there. And I'm not talking about 1 John 5:7. I don't recall ever using that passage to support the concept of the Trinity. In fact, I typically use a translation (New American Standard) that -- rightly, I believe -- leaves out the disputed words. In my opinion, Erasmus was foolish for making such a rash promise. They should have never been included.
Could you tell me what you make of the following verses? I'm really not trying to put you on the spot. I'm just curious what your thoughts are in light of your comments above. 1 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” (Acts 5:1-4) Do you take the "lie to the Holy Spirit" (vs. 3) and the fact that he "lied...to God" (vs. 4) to refer to two separate things? I take Peter to mean that the lie to the Holy Spirit was a lie to God because the Holy Spirit is God. I also think there are passages that put all three on "equal footing." For example: 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)
Sane, There are over 5,600 known Greek manuscript copies of the New Testament, with about 99.5% textual accuracy. The 99.5% textual accuracy is overwhelming evidence that we have a reliable representation of the original New Testament. Why would you reject the entirety based on the 0.5%, especially when that 0.5% doesn't affect essential Christian doctrines. And if you are not convinced of anything because of the 0.5%, then would it really matter to you if Jesus were quoted in the New Testament as saying, "I am God"? Regarding the Trinity, you would be incorrect to say that the doctrine of the Trinity was "invented" after Christ's death. The doctrine of the Trinity is clear from the Bible itself. Human beings produced a formal enunciation of the doctrine. I consider it a privilege to share my Christian faith with anyone. The purpose of my questions to you was to find out your exact beliefs and questions. If you asked me for evidence that Jesus is God, I would answer you differently than if you asked me for evidence that Jesus claimed to be God and intended for us to believe that he is. I posted the ego eimi paper to help people understand the significance of the phrase, I am. The use of ani hu—translated as ego eimi by the Septuagint—by Isaiah is a euphemism for the name of God. The people picked up stones to stone Jesus when he said, "I tell you the truth. Before Abraham was born, I am!" Why do you think they did that? You want "solid proof" that Jesus "said" that he was God. What do you believe about whether Jesus claimed to be God and intended for us to believe that he is? Do you believe that he never intended for his disciples to believe he was God? I hope you take this post in the spirit in which it is intended. Can you please explain what you believe to be the essential doctrines of Christianity? What do you think it teaches about "how to get to heaven"? You have "total faith in Islam" and yet you claim to "believe in Christianity." I cannot judge anyone, but it is simply a fact that Christianity is incompatible with any other religion. I am standing up for the Christian faith. If a Muslim says that Christianity is a false religion because it teaches that Jesus is God, at least he/she is demonstrating intellectual honesty. At least he/she is accurately representing what Christianity teaches. You don't believe that Christ was crucified. You don't believe that he rose from the dead. You don't believe that he is God. You don't believe that the Bible is the truth. Yet you claim to "believe in Christianity." If you think that Christianity teaches some nice things, but you deny its essential doctrines, you are left with a "beautiful religion," at least according to you. Please don't call that "beautiful religion" Christianity. Please don't misrepresent the Christian faith. According to Christianity, Christ is God, Christ was crucified, Christ rose from the dead, and Christ ascended into heaven. According to Christianity, God is one Being, and within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. According to Christianity, the Bible is the truth. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! - Galatians 2:21 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. - 1 Corinthians 15:14 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. - Colossians 2:9-10 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we have preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. - 2 Corinthians 11:4
Sane, Not a judgement call, but more of a cultural translation. To my knowledge, Master was the original word used in the translation, since this is from the King James Version, which was definitely translated before the NIV version was. My point is that language evolves over time. Just like there NIV doesn't use THEE's and THOU's, but rather replaces them with the more common YOU's that are more prevalent today. I'm saying that the use of Teacher instead of Master is the same thing. Calling a teacher, Master during that time is in a way, equivalent to using THEE and THOU instead of YOU. So, are there any translations of the Qura'an into English? As you said, "Some words just don't translate well in different languages, and these tiny differences can create huge cracks in Islam.". This is the same for Christianity and the Bible. If you read the preface/introduction of most Bibles, there are notes on the translation that is being read and provide disclaimers regarding the things that you are referring to. Also, I don't refer to the different translations of the Bible as "versions", but rather translations. Versions would seem to me differing accounts, while translation refers to the same account using different words/languages/etc.... How can this be true if there are translations of the Qura'an into differing languages. It sounds like, to me, that it is the same as the Bible in that, in certain cases, there are differing languages used to recount the same stories and there is a disclaimer that says that this may not be exact due to the fact that some words do not exactly translate from the language it was written in, to the language in which it was translated.
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." - John 20:26-29
From what I've seen (Sane, I feel, knows more than I do about Islam as a whole -- I can only speak from experience within my denomination), even the Qu'ran has some sections that are considered open to interpretation in Arabic. One side sees some passages as indicative of the need for an Imam (the Shia viewpoint) while others don't. While the Muslim belief is that the Qu'ran is a word-for-word dictation from God, humans still have interpretations that have occurred. And oh yeah, it gets worse when things are translated into other languages. I know there are English translations that my sect considers good and others which are terrible because of the bias apparent in translation (again, going back to the Imam question). Not hijacking this thread - stick with the Christianity discussion. So - with this background, I think this may be why Sane is asking about a 100% verifiable quote from Jesus stating that he is equivalent to God. The Qu'ran is 100% the word of God (Muslim belief, naturally); the Bible, meanwhile, does not claim to be anything like that. Instead, it's a set of writings by various prophets and disciples put together, meaning that it's possible to lose something due to the human element involved. And KateBeckinsale is right - to not believe in the divinity of Jesus is to not believe in Christianity. However, one can still consider a religion beautiful without believing in it, I would hope. Back to lurking...
Rocket104, The Bible does claim to be the word of God. All Scripture is theopneustos. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17
That's interesting - I didn't know that and I'll keep that in mind from now on. ... (By the way, the dark blue makes it hard to read if you use the midnight color scheme on the BBS).
Based on your train of thought, other things likely to be creations directly of God include radios, the internet (sorry Al Gore), outer space travel, the theory of relativity, microchips....well, the list really goes on and on. There could easily be a list of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of "creations" on this planet that both you (without even knowing you but assuming you took basic science classes in high school) and I would have a more difficult time explaining than DNA. Not to mention the fact that at the end of the day, there have millions upon millions of more people not believe, practice, follow or even know about Christianity and Christ than there have been people who do follow those beliefs and tenants. Which all leads me to a few conclusions: 1) As usual, the posts that make the most sense in this thread (any debate thread) have come from Jeff. 2) Christianity is no more likely a "fact" than Native American spiritual based religions. 3) Religious fanatics are generally, in my opinion, some of the most dangerous people in the world. Being a fanatic, or addict, of anything ALWAYS has the POTENTIAL to be dangerous. When it is of something so divisive (and fact-less) as religion, than that potential is so much greater. It is my belief that 90% of all evil in the world is in some way or another religious based.
JayZ750, Your argument makes no sense. I don't need to point to God as the direct maker of things that could have been made by human beings. Molecules such as DNA molecules and protein molecules make life possible. The amino acids in protein molecules are linked together to form a chain. The specific sequencing of the individual amino acids determines the function of a protein. The DNA molecule contains the encoded information that directs the sequencing of amino acids in the cell. The specified complexity of the DNA molecule points to an intelligent source.
Some see the Holy Spirit as an agent of God, making the HS minimally a near deity. (About the same could be said for Jesus, or so say the Unitarians). The Bible was not clear on the Holy Spirit's status or there would not have been a need for the Trinitarian Dcotorine as stated in the Nicene Creed. I can see how it is confusing for laymen to say that the God is three "personalities". I do not know the Church's motivation for making this distinction. Maybe, the Church needed to give Jesus equal footing with God so that his proclamation against the Jewish Law had teeth? Maybe the church needed to raise the HS since many of NT writings were HS inspired writings?
