Your belief is not fact. It can be proven it was written by humans and said to be inspired by humans…no God.
That can be proven to be faith not fact.
I would add Jesus never called the OT the word or inspiration of God, He was quoted as saying the Scriptures were good for teaching.
That is open to interpretation:
[QUOTE=John 5]
39 You study[c] the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps my remarks could be considered over the top. But the context was Friar Ted insisting that his unwarranted love for the Bible was only rational, and implying that monavis was just too stubborn to have the truth proved to him.
I don’t doubt, though, that under different circumstances (no life-long emotional baggage) I could have discovered the Bible an excellent read.
It’s vaguely odd, but I share those life-long emotional associations – I had some bad experiences in grade school with Christian intolerance of the violent kind – got the snot beat out of me for wondering about God’s existence – and yet, oddly, I’ve always enjoyed reading the Bible. It’s just so full of “big ideas.” It doesn’t chicken out when it comes to scale!
But, yeah, the book’s True Believers have done a grave hurt to it, making excessive demands of it, and shoving it sideways down the throats of people. A work of literature should not become a weapon, but the Bible was weaponized long, long ago. Putting people to death for gathering firewood? Not my idea of how a moral system should be organized.
re the Trinity, specifically, I don’t get it, and probably never will. If I had to choose, I’d be an Arianist of some stripe. (Also a Universalist, or at least an Annihilationist.) (Heck, as an atheist, I am a universalist-annihilationist!) The “pre-existence” of Jesus makes not one ounce of sense to me, and I think the principle is one of the most foolish in all of Christianity.
See John 14:28.
Why? Would it not be simpler just to quote the verse, then tell us how it pertains to the conversation?
This has (IIRC) already been quoted in this thread. It would seem to have an anti-Trinitarian interpretation. If the Father and the Son were “the same” then one could not be “greater” than the other.
Another verse, already cited in this thread, is:
This also has anti-Trinitarian implications, as it suggests there is something the Father knows which the Son does not know; in a fully-Trinitarian system, that could not happen.
But… So what? Trinitarians have answers for both of these verses.
For example, here is a cite that explores the second verse:. It says, in part:
The same argument could be used against the reference from John.
So, really, this is just wheel-spinning. The term “Trinity” is defined in such a way as to be non-falsifiable. No Biblical verse can challenge it, because it is elegantly crafted as to have no actual functional logical meaning. The formula are not well-formed, but logically empty. “Person” and “equally” and other terms just don’t have any definition that an anti-Trinitarian can point to.
Ya just gotta have faith. And…okay. Have all you want. You can have my share.
Of course all the Bible is open to interpretation. That is why there is so many different Christian religion divisions. And it still boils down to whose or what interpretations one chooses.
In the sense of the psalmist you would be right, since the psalmist call all he was speaking to, gods and sons of god.
Back to free will, as I do feel the way I view it is not conventional, I have come to take that as what emotion you will chose to act under, It’s not a decision of the mind but of the heart, so yes we have it and we can chose.
It’s not one deciding to go to the movies or the park as it is commonly taken (as God guides our steps), but how one treat others along the way. That is the free will decisions, and that is what brings karmic consequences one way or the other.
Interpretation is a function of the Holy Spirit, and why Jesus stated the Father is greater then Him. It applies to us also. We, as you rightly pointed out, have various ways of interpreting scriptures. We have free will to interpreted it in any emotion, each one will lead to a different interpretation.
The emotion of Love is the one that is the Spirit of God (as God is Love), it is the Holy Spirit and it will guide the child towards the truth of the scriptures.
In this I believe the mystery of the trinity is revealed, The same spirit in Jesus is the same spirit of the Father, and the same spirit that we all will chose eventually. In this guidance the child will make mistakes and will not know everything, so the Father will be greater always, however it is the Father and Child in the Spirit of Love that is the more complete picture of God 3 in 1.
But trinity is not the complete story, as we too are part of that, scripturally Jesus ‘marries’ the church (so the two become one) and gives us the Holy Spirit as well. We are as much as that trinity as Jesus as the Father because we have the same spirit - Love.
From that we must learn how to live in that spirit, which is trusting God and taking chances walking in Love to the best we know how, and learning God’s ways as we grow in Love.
But at the end of the day, that is just your interpretation of how to interpret the Bible, no less(and no more) valid than anyone else’s.
And you are entitled to your interpretation but to me no other interpretation other in ‘Love’ reveals a God worthy of our consideration, therefor it is only a loving God that matters, all others can be disregarded.
So this does answer the question as to what God to worship. But yes that is my interpretation, at the end of the day you are free to do your own - your welcome.
I mentioned John 14:28 to keep the matter simple; I was not asking for what I considered a convoluted discussion. (Matthew 5:37)
You may also wish to compare John 10:30 and 17:22.
On top of that, Habakkuk 1:12 and 1 Peter 3:18.
I read the Athanasian Creed, which asserts the Trinitarian concept (disputed also by Mark 15:34 and John 17:3).
And I hope none of you supporting a Trinitarian creed ever get chosen to serve on a jury–you might find something different from the judge’s instructions to base your verdict on.
It’s much more than your post that was obviously not very well thought out. Your entire premise is flawed at every single turn. You Want to believe in the fairy tale SO much that you’re willing to throw out all common sense, logic and your very ability to think rationally.
Of course “god” can’t be “disproven”. But what you take as some kind of victory is an absolute failure. “Not disproven” means exactly NOTHING. It literally means exactly as much a saying that one cannot disprove the leprechauns exist. So what? What really matters is whether there’s legitimate reason - barring tradition and wishful thinking - to even suspect that a god might exist.
And really, you get your morals from the bible? I can pretty much guarantee you don’t, regardless of what you think. If you’d actually learn where the bible’s morals are orientated you’d change your tune real quick. That is, if you were even remotely honest about it.
You, like so many others, start with the assumption that the bible is at all rooted in fact. Before trying to decipher some non-existant meaning, try considering of there’s even any reality to it. Hint: every critical and honest examination of the bible and every other so-called holy book reveals it to fe nothing more than myth. And not even particularly good mythology. At least the ancient greeks had some creativity.
No, so so wrong on so many levels, just no. In referring to me I don’t think you got a single thing right.
Actually if you read John 10 and think about what was written, you will note he didn’t consider himself more God than any other human. The Psalmist is quoted as saying I said you are gods and sons of god, 2,000 years a go the word god didn’t mean as it does today. It seemed to be one (or something) with power.