Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the bible

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

22-12-2006, 08:49 PM
stroller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

don't worry,surasak has enough for everybody.he's a well travelled chap.

Thank you for your reasoned argument and respecting fellow posters in issues!:D
22-12-2006, 08:52 PM
Boon Mee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

Quote:

Originally Posted by humphrey

Excuse my naivity

don't worry,surasak has enough for everybody.he's a well travelled chap.

Yep...been to Koh Phi Phi once.
didn't like it 'cause of all the rude Yids...
22-12-2006, 08:52 PM
ceburat

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

No, it's this:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The problem is the incorrect interpretation from Greek because later on 'Word' is meant to imply Jesus. Here one assumes that Word Was God means Word is God. That's wrong.

If we accept what you say "word is meant to imply Jesus"

Then, In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.

It is not an incorrect interpretation, only your interpretation.
22-12-2006, 08:54 PM
Little Chuchok

Quote:

Originally Posted by stroller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

don't worry,surasak has enough for everybody.he's a well travelled chap.

Thank you for your reasoned argument and respecting fellow posters in issues!:D

YW.:D

But it is true......He's a Monday morning quarter back.Makes like everything is true,but he's been nowhere.
22-12-2006, 08:57 PM
man with no head

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceburat

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

No, it's this:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The problem is the incorrect interpretation from Greek because later on 'Word' is meant to imply Jesus. Here one assumes that Word Was God means Word is God. That's wrong.

If we accept what you say "word is meant to imply Jesus"

Then, In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.

It is not an incorrect interpretation, only your interpretation.

It's not my interpretation..it's John's. Are you calling John's Gospel wrong?

You've got to read the original text...not something that came along 1500 years later.
22-12-2006, 08:57 PM
ceburat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

Quote:

Originally Posted by stroller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

don't worry,surasak has enough for everybody.he's a well travelled chap.

Thank you for your reasoned argument and respecting fellow posters in issues!:D

YW.:D

But it is true......He's a Monday morning quarter back.Makes like everything is true,but he's been nowhere.

:iagree:
22-12-2006, 09:05 PM
ceburat

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceburat

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

No, it's this:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The problem is the incorrect interpretation from Greek because later on 'Word' is meant to imply Jesus. Here one assumes that Word Was God means Word is God. That's wrong.

If we accept what you say "word is meant to imply Jesus"

Then, In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.

It is not an incorrect interpretation, only your interpretation.

It's not my interpretation..it's John's. Are you calling John's Gospel wrong?

You've got to read the original text...not something that came along 1500 years later.

John wrote it correctly. You are pretending to know more about the greek language then you really know and are incorrectly interpretating the passage. Not only that Surasak, there is many many more passages that tell us plainly that Jesus was God in the flesh on earth. Even the RCC agrees that Jesus was God in the flesh on earth as stated in John the first chapter.
22-12-2006, 11:42 PM
Butterfly

If Jesus was God, then why he is a mortal ?
23-12-2006, 01:02 AM
ceburat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butterfly

If Jesus was God, then why he is a mortal ?

As God he has the power to be what he wants, when he wants.
23-12-2006, 01:06 AM
attaboy

I think it had something to do with God wishing to experience humanity in the flesh so he could better understand His creation.
23-12-2006, 02:55 AM
Sakeopete

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceburat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sakeopete

"How did Noah get to South America to pick up the giant anteater," they will ask. "How did he get to Australia to round up the platypuses and numbats? How did he get to Antarctica to collect emperor penguins? And how did he do all that in just seven days, as implied in Genesis 7:4?"

I'm sorry but it confuses me as to how people can believe any religious teachings when recent history has shown us how easily people can be manipulated to believe what you want them too through "Propaganda". Put any magician in front of a primitive tribe and he will be a God.

Just because it was believed for centuries that the world is flat didn’t make it true!

If you want peace in the world embrace your own evolution and open your eyes to science. Though the masses and I included really don't want to believe our deaths will be then end of our existence. I'm not about to burry my head in the worlds multitudes of religious nonsense.

If it makes you feel better to believe in some God fine but don’t destroy our children’s future because just maybe there are no Gods.

Well if there is a God, but we follow what you say, we then destroy our children's future. :confused:

I can't see how believing in evolution and living in peace with our fellow man as opposed to slaughtering each other in the name of religion would piss off a God if there is one. The biggest risk to my childrens future is intolerant religous fanatics in this world . We are wasting so many resources on fighting each other over Gods that may not exsist which could be put to solving world hunger and the degridation of our enviroment.
23-12-2006, 06:53 AM
lom

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sakeopete

We are wasting so many resources on fighting each other over Gods that may not exsist which could be put to solving world hunger and the degridation of our enviroment.

The fight is actually over a very important point.
Was Jesus God or was he God's son ?
Surely you understand that this is worth killing for..
23-12-2006, 08:25 AM
barbaro

Quote:

Originally Posted by attaboy

I think it had something to do with God wishing to experience humanity in the flesh so he could better understand His creation.

Can someone refresh my memory on this, or correct me if need be?

There was a vote a very long time ago by a church as to what Jesus was:

Son of God

A god

Or human

I believe the vote that prevailed did so by only 1 vote.

Can anyone clarify this?

Thanks.
23-12-2006, 08:47 AM
ChiangMai noon

I've never actually come across a real live proper christian that believes stuff in the bible.
probably because i am not American.
this is fascinating, I can not believe that ceburat really believes the stuff he's writing.
the idea that he does is just amazing.
23-12-2006, 08:48 AM
ChiangMai noon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

I believe the vote that prevailed did so by only 1 vote.

Can anyone clarify this?

Thanks.

I'm not sure about the 1 vote part, but i think the vote to make him divine did happen long after he was done performing miracles.
23-12-2006, 08:53 AM
barbaro

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

I've never actually come across a real live proper christian that believes stuff in the bible.
probably because i am not American.
this is fascinating, I can not believe that ceburat really believes the stuff he's writing.
the idea that he does is just amazing.

A very valid point, CMN.

America has hundreds and hundreds of denomination of Xtianity.

One Orthodox Xtian told me there were actually thousands.

There are many different interpretations by American Xtians (and international Xtians).

I believe that Americans Xtians can be a lot more political than British Xtians, for example.

That's a shame. People mixing religions with politics, Supreme Court rulings, local laws, and public education.
23-12-2006, 11:06 AM
Little Chuchok

The only "real" Christian that I knew had a Doctorate in Theology.Spent most of his adult life as a Rev,studing and taking services etc.

As you could imagine,he did more study on these issues,than most people on this board would ever hope to.

He always said that there was one God,but there were many paths to get there...Christianity,Islam,judism etc.

And another great point that he used to make.."Anybody that took the bible 100% literally,needed their head read!":)
23-12-2006, 12:18 PM
Butterfly

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

this is fascinating, I can not believe that ceburat really believes the stuff he's writing.

I met a number of seppos in the US who were exactly like him. Actually he is "mild" compared to the other Bible fruitcakes I met there. I have seen much worse. Hard to believe, isn't it ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

And another great point that he used to make.."Anybody that took the bible 100% literally,needed their head read!"

Yes, the Theology Academics I have met and studied with were saying the same thing. The Bible, even the KJV, can't be taken literally, as some sections are not accurate and contradicts later findings. It's unreliable and definitely not God's direct work. He said that shouldn't stop a religious man from believing in God, but he warned against the "false prophets" who would use the Bible as a cornerstone for their faith. If a man need the Bible to believe in God, and think that the Bible is God unilateral truth or he needs the Bible to find all his answers, then that person is not a real believer, just a fraud.

Also mixing Politics and religion like it is in the US, put them on the same level as the Islamists and other muslim extremists who use religion as a political weapon. GW Bush is the proof of that. No better than the Iranian Khomenis. It won't be along before those Christian fanatics start suicide bombing in the name of God when they don't get what they want politically in the near future. They are almost there and it's burning inside of them.
23-12-2006, 12:45 PM
Begbie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

Quote:

Originally Posted by attaboy

I think it had something to do with God wishing to experience humanity in the flesh so he could better understand His creation.

Can someone refresh my memory on this, or correct me if need be?

There was a vote a very long time ago by a church as to what Jesus was:

Son of God

A god

Or human

I believe the vote that prevailed did so by only 1 vote.

Can anyone clarify this?

Thanks.

I presume your referring to the council of Nicea. However this was a vote an aspect of divinity which I don't understand but didn't dispute the divinity of Jesus.

The only christian sects to have denied the divinity of Jesus were the Paulicians the Bogomils and possiblty the Cathars. They were all wiped out by the catholic church. The Bogomils believed that the earth was created by Satan.
24-12-2006, 09:54 PM
ceburat

Who was Jesus?

Why did he come as a mortal?

Consider the following: Isaiah prophesied and said, "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." Isaiah also said that His name would be called Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Jesus was really God, clothed in human flesh and dwelling among us. He who knew no sin found it necessary to share our grief and sorrow, so that He might pay the debt we owed for our sins.

Only then, through a sinless sacrifice, could we be brought back into perfect fellowship and harmony with God. All mortals had their sin debt "paid in full" once and for all by Jesus' death on the cross. This great and tragic event marked the end of an era in history. No more must we offer sacrifices once a year for our sins. Jesus paid the supreme sacrifice, and He did it willingly.
24-12-2006, 10:23 PM
ceburat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Begbie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

Quote:

Originally Posted by attaboy

I think it had something to do with God wishing to experience humanity in the flesh so he could better understand His creation.

Can someone refresh my memory on this, or correct me if need be?

There was a vote a very long time ago by a church as to what Jesus was:

Son of God

A god

Or human

I believe the vote that prevailed did so by only 1 vote.

Can anyone clarify this?

Thanks.

I presume your referring to the council of Nicea. However this was a vote an aspect of divinity which I don't understand but didn't dispute the divinity of Jesus.

The only christian sects to have denied the divinity of Jesus were the Paulicians the Bogomils and possiblty the Cathars. They were all wiped out by the catholic church. The Bogomils believed that the earth was created by Satan.

Yes, Council of Nicaea 325 AD. When the RCC came up with the word "Trinity" Used by the RCC and some protestant churches today. The Oneness Churches believe that Jesus was God in the Flesh on Earth, John, first chapter, New Testament.
24-12-2006, 10:40 PM
Begbie

I don't see what the difference is.

The Cathars have been called the European buddhists as they believed in re-incarnation and had a core of the devout who practised abstention. They thought that the earth was created and ruled by Satan and man was created by god. The logical extension of this was that the catholic church worshiped the devil, which didn't make them very popular with the pope.
24-12-2006, 10:54 PM
stroller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Begbie

I don't see what the difference is.

I can't see the difference, either, the 3 is one, the son is the father. A bit like Hindu gods and their aspects.
It would be spurious to prepose that a god can only have one form at a time.
25-12-2006, 11:04 AM
jopi

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceburat

As God he has the power to be what he wants, when he wants.

Descartes speculated that Monkeys have the capacity for human speech, but choose to remain silent in order to avoid having to converse with Man.

There are some things we may never discover.
25-12-2006, 11:28 AM
jopi

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceburat

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceburat

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

No, it's this:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The problem is the incorrect interpretation from Greek because later on 'Word' is meant to imply Jesus. Here one assumes that Word Was God means Word is God. That's wrong.

If we accept what you say "word is meant to imply Jesus"

Then, In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.

It is not an incorrect interpretation, only your interpretation.

It's not my interpretation..it's John's. Are you calling John's Gospel wrong?

You've got to read the original text...not something that came along 1500 years later.

John wrote it correctly. You are pretending to know more about the greek language then you really know and are incorrectly interpretating the passage. Not only that Surasak, there is many many more passages that tell us plainly that Jesus was God in the flesh on earth. Even the RCC agrees that Jesus was God in the flesh on earth as stated in John the first chapter.

Excuse me, who knows who wrote what correctly? With so many absurdities and contradictions in biblical works both accepted and rejected by those who compiled what we know as the bible, and with their historical applications in mind, if one is correct then others dealing with the same issue must be wrong. Can you tell us which is which, considering the unknown and unknowable adverse effect of human skullduggery and interference on the actual truth? Do you or anyone you could name guess at the truth with more than a wishful fancy? Can you say with absolute certainty that there is or is no God, or anything about him or it, or which religion or gender or race he favours and or despises, or if he ever had children and how many and what happened to them? Does he need to eat and drink to survive as we do? Does he have the power of thought and is this human or godlike?
I could go on but will make it easier for you...please talk of anything at all about your god or the biblical god or any other god before or since, which you know with a certainty worth killing for, or indeed worth arguing about. Or confess you are a victim of the greatest hoax in the history of the known universe.

typo

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page