John 14:28
I go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I.
Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father.
How can he claim to be God and say these things? Uh oh, theological contradiction!
As for the John 8 reference, that can be intepreted in a variety of ways. And as I recall, the wordage used is not implying that he is the name of God used in the OT. I believe the J.W. or Mormons (I get them confused) use this to mean Jesus was a pre-created being, but not God. Just like what laws you chose to follow and what you don’t, choose what inpretation you like and go with it.
I love how when things get taken out of context to disprove a Christian claim, it’s wrong, but when Christians do it it’s ok. In Luke 14:12, Christ was referencing God, not himself, in response to Satan’s temptation.
SuaSponte, I was comparing Islam to Christianity. Back in my fundie days, I would have categorically denied them being one and the same, as they are different as stated earlier. But I don’t know enough about Islam to make a comment about Judaic-Islamic concepts.
I do know that there is no Judeo-Christian God. There is the Christian God and the God of Judaism. But I think we covered that.
jmullaney: Don’t worry about the reference. If that’s what you got from what you read,m then so be it. As far as wealth is concerned (something I have a purely theoretical knowledge of at this time ;)) what you do with it is up to you. The proof of your religion (or philosophy, or code of ethics, etc.) is how it leads you to treat others, and what sort of treatment from others you expect (and tolerate – G-d doesn’t want you to be a doormat, nor a steamroller, and if you’re an athiest, I’d hope you didn’t want to be either anyway).
Regarding the issue of whether the G-d of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity is one entity or not, I suspect that they are referring to the same deity. Of course, each faith most definitely disagrees upon the exact nature of that deity (one entity v.s. truine being, etc.) If G-d exists, he knows who he is (disregarding, of course, the possibility that G-d is another gender, none, or all), and if G-d doesn’t exist, then we’re all in danger of getting het’ up over nuthin’.
Ok, once again: once JC died for our sins, Christians were no longer bound by the OT Law. That is the whole point of Christianity, that only repentance and the mercy of Christ are needed. The OT becomes “holy history” and not a book of Laws. Thus, none of the OT laws, unless expressed again by JC, apply to Christians. This includes the 10 C. So, those not following the dietary laws, or having the Sabbath on Sunday, instead of Saturday are fine. Murder is still right out.
Now, there are certain verses in the letters of Paul that seem to condemn Homosexuality, or at least certain aspects of Gay sex. However, it is condemned no more than drunkeness, or a long list of other sins. In any case, sinner tho you may be, no matter the sin, you can be forgiven. JC was basicly not into giving lists of sins, personally, just general guidelines to live by.
Those Fundies that quote the OT for “sins” are simply wrong, AND hypocrites.
Please note, I am not preaching or trying to convert. If a Christian at all, I am a poor one, and a doubting one. But I am a better than average Biblical lay scholar.
Nope; actually abrogation refers to a particular verse in the Quran as no longer being in effect because another, revealed later, verse in the Quran has invalidated the previous verse.
The bit about polygamy being illegal in the Middle Eastern states, and some other Islamic lands, is held to be in concert with the Quran’s injunction that the husband honour all his wives equally.
Sorry, but you are mistaken. I really didn’t want to get into a discussion of biblical contradiction/inerrancy, but if you insist.
The verses you cite are not contradictions because we believe that God is a trinity, a three-in-one. When Jesus says, “I go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I.” he is speaking of the position of God. The word greater speaks of position, not nature. The word better speaks of nature. I have no qualms in saying that Bill Clinton is greater than me (i.e. a higher position). But I would have trouble saying he is better than me.
Jesus states in John 10:30 that he and the father are one and the same. This points towards the trinity; that Jesus is God. However, when Jesus came to earth, he gave up some supernatural characteristics of GOD.
Please see the explanation (albeit short and incomplete) of the trinity above. And fundamentalists don’t choose which laws to follow (not any fundamentalists that I know, anyway). They are not under the law anymore, at least if they are saved.
Well, I think it is debatable whether or not he is referencing God or himself in that passage. Satan could be tempting Jesus to jump, or he could be tempting God to send angels to save him from falling. Looks to me like he is doing both in this verse.
The OT purity laws do not apply because Jesus death washed away the uncleanness. Jesus’ fulfilment of the Law is in no way a repeal of the ten commandments. The law brings wrath, it shows our need for Jesus.
The bible is the literal historical reliable of the Creator of the Universe.
Jesus concentrated on loving your neighbor as yourself, and bringing your neighbor to salvation through His body and blood.
Yes, I would differ with a fundamentalist, say, on the issue of gays. The fundamentalist holds his sloppy exegesis up as Divine Word. He cannot see the possibilities for a more biblically conservative view in those who disagree with him. Of course certain sexual acts are an abomination to the Lord, but as is hating your brother, oppressing the poor, etc. The fundamentalist adds to the Scripture, saying that genetic evidence MUST be a fake because some people in Romans CHOSE to act that way.
The problem is that we abominators must be kind to each other as we watch over our neighbor with love and bring him to repentance, and be open to him doing the same to us. The thing we can clearly condemn is teaching the opposite of God’s word.
Believe what you will. For every scripture used to support the idea of a trilogy, the same verse can be used to refute it. It’s all in the intrepetation of the reader and what they’ve been taught. It’s all in the spin, hence the greater/better arguement you put up. Fully God and fully man is the arguement I’ve always seen, but now you are saying J.C. wasn’t fully God. Which is it? As for the Luke reference, Satan quotes the OT saying God will send his angels, but J.C. counters with another scripture, both referencing God. But again, you will see what you want. I read Numbers 23:19 and see that God can’t be a man, mainly because it says “God is not a man . . . nor is he a son of man” but I’m sure you have a spin on that one as well. But that is not what the OP is about.
And neither is this but:
But if you don’t believe in J.C., you burn in hell for eternity, sounds pretty much like wrath to me! There was no “fulfillment” because there was never a need. God set up the covenants right in the first place. Abrahamic covenant for Jews (which include the 10 C. and all the subsequent laws), Noahide covenant for Gentiles (which includes 7 Commandments and subsequent laws from such).
I’ll agree with Baloo somewhat here. God knows who he is. I trust in him enough that he judges me by my heart and actions.
> But if you don’t believe in J.C., you burn in hell for
> eternity, sounds pretty much like wrath to me!
> God knows who he is. I trust in him enough that he
> judges me by my heart and actions.
He does me and finds me to be a vile misanthrope.
“For the trouble is that part of you is really on God’s side and agrees with his disapproval of human greed and trickery and exploitation.” C.S. Lewis.
gregjohn, I don’t think you’ll find that criticizing yourself will reconcile many people to what they consider unjust criticism of them. Many people simply do not agree with you that “certain sexual acts are an abomination to the Lord,” and your saying “but my own sins are even worse” won’t change their minds. It’s irrelevant to the point at issue. And it doesn’t really make you look more humble or loving or compassionate.
