- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
That may be so, since we already created a god in our image, so a machine would be next.- sonhouse
I propose that it is not likely that God as revealed in the Holy Bible was an invention of man. Sonhouse has claimed that we created God in our image.
I do not hesitate to think that in thousands of cases we wanted any god to be like us. I agree that the creation of idols in man's imagination is often a kind of man making a god in his / her image.
I will propose that that is not realistic a possibility in the case of God as the whole Bible reveals or of Jesus Christ as the New Testament documents.
My First contention:
Man would not create a "god" as perplexing, as counter intuitive, as mind boggling and difficult to explain as the Triune God - simultaneously Father, Son , Holy Spirit yet one God.
1 + 1 + 1 CANNOT equal 1. So I think any god invented by human beings would avoid the perplexity of a Three-One Supreme Being.
Second Proposal:
Man would not invent a God so righteous as one who would not accept anything less than perfect human living as a requirement for eternal fellowship.
No one would make it and there would be no need for a PERFECT Son of God as a Savior.
Third Proposal
Man would not concoct such a Person as Jesus Christ.
Not for political reasons.
Not for gender reasons.
Not for religious reasons.
Not for racial reasons.
Not even for moral reasons.
I don't believe man would imagine up such a person as Jesus and put fictitious words into that imaginary mouth such as the Gospels record, even if man was able to do so.
A Caveat:
I would say that MAN would invent embellishments, add ons, additional imaginary tales, additional superstitious concepts to such a Person once Jesus really lived. That is possible.
IE. Apocryphal legends,
Added on mythology,
Twistings,
Slanted presentations with selfish motivations.
That is different from making God in human image.
That is trying to cash in on utilizing God with imagined embellishments.
Keep in mind that a 'triune' god wasn't the original invention, nor was this god 'perfect'. Good was a jealous, petty god who did things for his own ego (or as the bible puts it, glory' ). The addition of a 'triune' god came many years later with Jesus, a person who Jews, the inventors of the bible, reject as god.
Furthermore, the writers who wanted to pass Jesus of as god had a logical reason to insert more than one personality into God. Jesus bring one with God helps legitimize his creation.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sonshipThat may be so, since we already created a god in our image, so a machine would be next.- sonhouse
I propose that it is not likely that God as revealed in the Holy Bible was an invention of man. Sonhouse has claimed that we created God in our image.
I do not hesitate to think that in thousands of cases we wa ...[text shortened]... God in human image.
That is trying to cash in on utilizing God with imagined embellishments.
Man would not create a "god" as perplexing, as counter intuitive, as mind boggling and difficult to explain as the Triune God - simultaneously Father, Son , Holy Spirit yet one God.
1 + 1 + 1 CANNOT equal 1. So I think any god invented by human beings would avoid the perplexity of a Three-One Supreme Being.
Disproved by the existence of other three part gods [along with much weirder beliefs] that
pre and post date Christianity. This is far from the only disproof, but it's sufficient.
The only way you can claim that people wouldn't invent weird religions is a total and utter
lack of knowledge of any other religions.
Man would not invent a God so righteous as one who would not accept anything less than perfect human living as a requirement for eternal fellowship.
No one would make it and there would be no need for a PERFECT Son of God as a Savior.
Firstly, as has been said, the bible god is not perfect, or anything close to it.
Secondly, The idea that there might exist some greater, or even perfect, beings occurs to
humans all the time. Both historically and in the present day. You are claiming that which
happens all the time is impossible. I thus reject your claim as nonsense.
Man would not concoct such a Person as Jesus Christ.
Not for political reasons.
Not for gender reasons.
Not for religious reasons.
Not for racial reasons.
Not even for moral reasons.
I don't believe man would imagine up such a person as Jesus and put fictitious words into that imaginary mouth such as the Gospels record, even if man was able to do so.
The fact that you don't believe that people would invent JC isn't a compelling reason to agree with you.
I believe that people are more than capable of inventing such a person, and more to the point that they actually
did invent such a person, as that is what the currently available evidence suggests actually happened.
God's are always in out own image, in that we model gods using exactly the same tool-kit we use for modelling other people.
We evolved to be able to put ourselves into other peoples minds and guess at how they might be thinking so that we could
predict and understand what they might do. This is a vital social skill.
And it's what makes the answer 'god did it' seem 'simple' to us. Because we model the mind of god with our own.
There is nothing in the bible that is even remotely inconsistent with being made up by a bunch of ignorant people
a couple of thousand years ago.
I see nothing that either cannot be invented by humans, or that is improbable that it as created by humans.
Originally posted by sonshipYour capitalisation of the words triune and trinity highlights your error in this doctrine. These words do not even appear in scripture, let alone deserving of capitalisation.That may be so, since we already created a god in our image, so a machine would be next.- sonhouse
I propose that it is not likely that God as revealed in the Holy Bible was an invention of man. Sonhouse has claimed that we created God in our image.
I do not hesitate to think that in thousands of cases we wa ...[text shortened]... God in human image.
That is trying to cash in on utilizing God with imagined embellishments.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by vivifyPressure from philosophic opinions that the man Jesus could not be a God incarnate gave occasion to resistance from the ancient brothers against that perversion of the apostolic message. In the course of the apologetic the term "Trinity" was coined.
Keep in mind that a 'triune' god wasn't the original invention, nor was this god 'perfect'. Good was a jealous, petty god who did things for his own ego (or as the bible puts it, glory' ). The addition of a 'triune' god came many years later with Jesus, a person who Jews, the inventors of the bible, reject as god.
The "triune God" phraseology was useful in defense against disbelief that the apostles really preached that the Father and the Son are both object of supreme worship as God.
That God is perfect is the original teaching of Jesus -
"You therefore shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)
The addition of a 'triune' god came many years later with Jesus, a person who Jews, the inventors of the bible, reject as god.
It is true that the phrase "triune" or "Trinity" we do not see until latter Christian writings which have survived.
But Arius was not a Jew and he could not believe that the Son could be God. So he taught against it that the Son must be the first created angel.
See "Jehovah's Witnesses" for contemporary sympathizers with that opinion.
However, the Jewish Bible had God appearing as a man in the Genesis and other "Old Testament" scripture.
IE. Jacob wrestled with the Sent One of Yahweh - the Angel of the Lord and says that on that occasion God appeared to him.
"And Jacob said to Joseph, The All-sufficient [or God Almighty] appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me." (Genesis 48:3) Refer to Genesis 28:19 and 35:6 in the Jewish Bible. But more importantly with Jacob's wrestling match with "a man" in Genesis 32 who turned out to be God Himself.
And Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. And when the man saw that He did not prevail against him, He touched the socket of his hip; and the socket of Jacob's hip was dislocated as he wrestled with Him.
And the man said, Let Me go, for the dawn is breaking. But Jacob said, I will not let You go unless You bless me.
... And Jacob asked Him and said, Please tell me Your name. But He said, Why is it that you ask My name? And He blessed him there.
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, for he said I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been preserved." (See Genesis 35:22-32)
The Jews rejected Jesus as God incarnate. Yet in the Jewish Scriptures before the birth of Jesus, mysteriously God had appeared as a man real enough to have a night long wrestling match with Jacob.
This is the man - the Godman, who changed Jacob's name to Israel because " ... Your name will no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed." (verse 28)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Apr 15
Originally posted by divegeester
Your capitalisation of the words triune and trinity highlights your error in this doctrine. These words do not even appear in scripture, let alone deserving of capitalisation.
Your capitalisation of the words triune and trinity highlights your error in this doctrine. These words do not even appear in scripture, let alone deserving of capitalisation.
I don't think ANY capitalizations of letters appear in the Greek NT.
I am not sure if even Theos is capitalized in the Greek.
More to the point is that "Triune" or "Trinity" does not appear in the NT.
That is not sufficient grounds to assert the Son and the Father and the Holy Spirit are not simultaneously God. That teaching is written in the Bible.
So the arrived at term "Trinity" is useful if understood in its most basic sense - ie.
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
Do you disagree ?
If you agree that each is taught to be God then you can see that the term "Trinity" is useful if not explicitly derived from the text.
If you wanted to say that God was adored and you wrote that He is "Adored" would you succumb to someone's beef that you are capitilizing a phrase which is not explicitly said of God in the NT?
"IE. You shouldn't do that. God is not called "adored" in the New Testament. And you shouldn't capitalize it either or say "I believe in the Adored".
I believe in the Trinity and the Triune God.
If the capitals are a problem to you then -
I also believe in the trinity and in the triune God.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by vivifyYou were. And part of that is my fault. I did firstly reference Genesis 28 concerning God appearing to Jacob in a dream.
You're right. I must've been thinking of Jacob's ladder.
I noticed that God appearing to Jacob referred to his dream.
But I added that God also appeared to him when he wrestled the man at the place he called "the face of God".
Originally posted by vivifyThere is a hint of a triune God in the Genesis account of creation written by Moses. The Spirit of God mentioned could refer to the Holy Spirit of the Triune God. The word translated God is plural in the Hebrew and God is recorded as saying, "Let US make man in OUR image." Then Moses says that man was made in the image of God. Therefore, we have all the elements of a triune God since Moses is also attributed with recording that God is one, using the Hebrew word for a composite one.
Keep in mind that a 'triune' god wasn't the original invention, nor was this god 'perfect'. Good was a jealous, petty god who did things for his own ego (or as the bible puts it, glory' ). The addition of a 'triune' god came many years later with Jesus, a person who Jews, the inventors of the bible, reject as god.
Furthermore, the writers who wanted to ...[text shortened]... ert more than one personality into God. Jesus bring one with God helps legitimize his creation.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
16 Apr 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeOf course not, after all, YOUR mythos must be maintained at all costs.
There is nothing in the bible that is even remotely inconsistent with being made up by a bunch of ignorant people
a couple of thousand years ago.
I see nothing that either cannot be invented by humans, or that is improbable that it as created by humans.
17 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonshipThen why don't you capitalise every word?Your capitalisation of the words triune and trinity highlights your error in this doctrine. These words do not even appear in scripture, let alone deserving of capitalisation.
I don't think ANY capitalizations of letters appear in the Greek NT.
I am not sure if even Theos is capitalized in the Greek.
Originally posted by sonshipYes I disagree wholeheartedly, both with your assertion and with your semantic logic.
So the arrived at term "Trinity" is useful if understood in its most basic sense - ie.
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
Do you disagree ?
If you agree that each is taught to be God then you can see that the term "Trinity" is useful if not explicitly derived from the text.
I am a brother, a son, a husband and potentially a father.
But I am NOT 4 separate persons in one person. I am ONE.
Hear oh Israel The Lord your God is one.
17 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonshipYes I have a issue because the Name (capitalisation deliberate) and names of God are plural as are the offices of his manifestation, but the Identity of God is singular because our God is ONE not THREE.
If you wanted to say that God was adored and you wrote that He is [b]"Adored" would you succumb to someone's beef that you are capitilizing a phrase...[/b]
How many Gods do you have?
Which God do you pray to?
Who sits on the throne of Heaven?
By which name do you call him who sits there?
There is one person, many names, many manifestations, three offices, of the SAME person.