God and the suffering of Jesus

[BluePhantom]

Well that created yet other schools of thought and other branches of Christianity in the early church. Some argued that Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between Mary and Joseph. Some argued that Mary conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit, gave birth to Him and remained a virgin. Some said that after the birth of Jesus she had sex with Joseph. Others said that Mary was never pregnant at all. A light shown from her womb and from that light Jesus was created. There were tons of stories about it and each were embraced by different sects

I would think that it was the "immaculate conception" and since she was known as the "virgin Mary," then I think that tells us that Jesus was conceived through God's powers but not intercourse.

Of course like you said, nobody knows, and I'm just sharing my opinion.

No no. The immaculate conception was the conception of Mary, not Jesus. According to that dogma, Mary was conceived through sexual intercourse but the "sin nature" did not pass to her. Thus she was born sinless and worthy to give birth to God. You said you learned about this from a Catholic. This is huge Catholic stuff here.

The conception of Jesus was the "virgin conception", not the immaculate conception

Right. That means she was not "tainted" so to speak, which would probably mean she was a virgin. Correct?

Well again it would depend on who you asked in antiquity. That's actually a very interesting topic because it appears that the authors of Mark and Matthew were reading from the Septuagint (the first Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) and there is confusion between the Hebrew word used and the Greek word used. They don't quite mean the same thing. The Hebrew word "almah" could mean "virgin", "young woman" or "woman who had not gone through the final phase of marriage" (there were like 13 or 14 of them and the man had sexual rights to his betrothed after the first one although she would be considered an "almah" until the completion of the last one).

Trying to translate that to Greek was a bit of a pain because they didn't have a word that meant the same thing so they used the word "parthenos" which means "virgin". So when the authors of Matthew and Luke read it in Greek they saw "parthenos" and took it for what parthenos meant. A virgin. But that's not quite what it means in Hebrew.

In the early Christian church all these different points of view were in competition for converts and they all had different beliefs. Many of them radically different. According to research by Walter Bauer, which is mostly accepted by scholarship although not completely, it was the view of the church at Rome that won out and the rest were banished by pain of death. So that's what comes to us today. The Christianity we see today is not necessarily the original version, nor the version that was the majority opinion in antiquity. It was the view that won the war and got adopted by Constantine and Theodosius.

So to answer your question, she was not tainted, but that is only according to the proto-orthodox view of early Christianity and we take it for granted because it's the view that survived into the Middle Ages and destroyed all the other views.

Does any of that make sense?

Yes, you are saying that it all depends upon the translation of the texts and different words, but I still think the theory that Mary was a virgin and was impregnated by God through supernatural means and not actually through sex and that Jesus is God's son, who God sacrificed for mankind makes most sense. This is what they teach in the Catholic church that my mother went to.

Well yes and no. The Catholics embrace the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all different aspects to the same to the same divine entity. So while God was God, Jesus was Jesus, and the Holy Spirit was the Holy Spirit, they are all the same as well. So God is God, but God is also the Holy Spirit and God is also Jesus. It can be quite confusing.

 

[ChrisL]

Well how can that be, considering the story of Mary and Joseph?

Well that created yet other schools of thought and other branches of Christianity in the early church. Some argued that Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between Mary and Joseph. Some argued that Mary conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit, gave birth to Him and remained a virgin. Some said that after the birth of Jesus she had sex with Joseph. Others said that Mary was never pregnant at all. A light shown from her womb and from that light Jesus was created. There were tons of stories about it and each were embraced by different sects

I would think that it was the "immaculate conception" and since she was known as the "virgin Mary," then I think that tells us that Jesus was conceived through God's powers but not intercourse.

Of course like you said, nobody knows, and I'm just sharing my opinion.

No no. The immaculate conception was the conception of Mary, not Jesus. According to that dogma, Mary was conceived through sexual intercourse but the "sin nature" did not pass to her. Thus she was born sinless and worthy to give birth to God. You said you learned about this from a Catholic. This is huge Catholic stuff here.

The conception of Jesus was the "virgin conception", not the immaculate conception

And if the conception of Jesus was the "virgin conception" then you just answered your own question!

Oh I am not saying that is MY view. That is the Catholic view and the view of most protestants

I was baptized as a protestant. My mother is no longer a practicing Catholic. She doesn't care for the Catholic religion. Odd, right?

 

[ChrisL]

I would think that it was the "immaculate conception" and since she was known as the "virgin Mary," then I think that tells us that Jesus was conceived through God's powers but not intercourse.

Of course like you said, nobody knows, and I'm just sharing my opinion.

No no. The immaculate conception was the conception of Mary, not Jesus. According to that dogma, Mary was conceived through sexual intercourse but the "sin nature" did not pass to her. Thus she was born sinless and worthy to give birth to God. You said you learned about this from a Catholic. This is huge Catholic stuff here.

The conception of Jesus was the "virgin conception", not the immaculate conception

Right. That means she was not "tainted" so to speak, which would probably mean she was a virgin. Correct?

Well again it would depend on who you asked in antiquity. That's actually a very interesting topic because it appears that the authors of Mark and Matthew were reading from the Septuagint (the first Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) and there is confusion between the Hebrew word used and the Greek word used. They don't quite mean the same thing. The Hebrew word "almah" could mean "virgin", "young woman" or "woman who had not gone through the final phase of marriage" (there were like 13 or 14 of them and the man had sexual rights to his betrothed after the first one although she would be considered an "almah" until the completion of the last one).

Trying to translate that to Greek was a bit of a pain because they didn't have a word that meant the same thing so they used the word "parthenos" which means "virgin". So when the authors of Matthew and Luke read it in Greek they saw "parthenos" and took it for what parthenos meant. A virgin. But that's not quite what it means in Hebrew.

In the early Christian church all these different points of view were in competition for converts and they all had different beliefs. Many of them radically different. According to research by Walter Bauer, which is mostly accepted by scholarship although not completely, it was the view of the church at Rome that won out and the rest were banished by pain of death. So that's what comes to us today. The Christianity we see today is not necessarily the original version, nor the version that was the majority opinion in antiquity. It was the view that won the war and got adopted by Constantine and Theodosius.

So to answer your question, she was not tainted, but that is only according to the proto-orthodox view of early Christianity and we take it for granted because it's the view that survived into the Middle Ages and destroyed all the other views.

Does any of that make sense?

Yes, you are saying that it all depends upon the translation of the texts and different words, but I still think the theory that Mary was a virgin and was impregnated by God through supernatural means and not actually through sex and that Jesus is God's son, who God sacrificed for mankind makes most sense. This is what they teach in the Catholic church that my mother went to.

Well yes and no. The Catholics embrace the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all different aspects to the same to the same divine entity. So while God was God, Jesus was Jesus, and the Holy Spirit was the Holy Spirit, they are all the same as well. So God is God, but God is also the Holy Spirit and God is also Jesus. It can be quite confusing.

That really doesn't make much sense to me at all, TBH.

 

[BluePhantom]

The idea of Jesus being a sacrificial lamb is BS for many reasons.

God/Jesus is allegedly all knowing. Therefore he/God/Jesus knew the outcome of his crucifixion. Temporary death and then heaven. John 3:16 is a joke. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son... This is also BS... God can have as many begotten sons as he wants and God being all knowing knew the outcome.

Go read the last line of the OP...especially the "bugger off" part.

I'm not an atheist. I believe God exists and I know that God is evil and needs to die.

I have a great idea. Why don't you go start yet another thread that will get bumped to the Badlands for being completely asinine and let the big kids talk. Bye bye....and welcome to ignore.

 

[BluePhantom]

No no. The immaculate conception was the conception of Mary, not Jesus. According to that dogma, Mary was conceived through sexual intercourse but the "sin nature" did not pass to her. Thus she was born sinless and worthy to give birth to God. You said you learned about this from a Catholic. This is huge Catholic stuff here.

The conception of Jesus was the "virgin conception", not the immaculate conception

Right. That means she was not "tainted" so to speak, which would probably mean she was a virgin. Correct?

Well again it would depend on who you asked in antiquity. That's actually a very interesting topic because it appears that the authors of Mark and Matthew were reading from the Septuagint (the first Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) and there is confusion between the Hebrew word used and the Greek word used. They don't quite mean the same thing. The Hebrew word "almah" could mean "virgin", "young woman" or "woman who had not gone through the final phase of marriage" (there were like 13 or 14 of them and the man had sexual rights to his betrothed after the first one although she would be considered an "almah" until the completion of the last one).

Trying to translate that to Greek was a bit of a pain because they didn't have a word that meant the same thing so they used the word "parthenos" which means "virgin". So when the authors of Matthew and Luke read it in Greek they saw "parthenos" and took it for what parthenos meant. A virgin. But that's not quite what it means in Hebrew.

In the early Christian church all these different points of view were in competition for converts and they all had different beliefs. Many of them radically different. According to research by Walter Bauer, which is mostly accepted by scholarship although not completely, it was the view of the church at Rome that won out and the rest were banished by pain of death. So that's what comes to us today. The Christianity we see today is not necessarily the original version, nor the version that was the majority opinion in antiquity. It was the view that won the war and got adopted by Constantine and Theodosius.

So to answer your question, she was not tainted, but that is only according to the proto-orthodox view of early Christianity and we take it for granted because it's the view that survived into the Middle Ages and destroyed all the other views.

Does any of that make sense?

Yes, you are saying that it all depends upon the translation of the texts and different words, but I still think the theory that Mary was a virgin and was impregnated by God through supernatural means and not actually through sex and that Jesus is God's son, who God sacrificed for mankind makes most sense. This is what they teach in the Catholic church that my mother went to.

Well yes and no. The Catholics embrace the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all different aspects to the same to the same divine entity. So while God was God, Jesus was Jesus, and the Holy Spirit was the Holy Spirit, they are all the same as well. So God is God, but God is also the Holy Spirit and God is also Jesus. It can be quite confusing.

That really doesn't make much sense to me at all, TBH.

well don't worry. You are not alone. Personally, I endorse the Trinity but I understand completely how people look at it and go "HUH?!?!?"

 

[BluePhantom]

Well that created yet other schools of thought and other branches of Christianity in the early church. Some argued that Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between Mary and Joseph. Some argued that Mary conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit, gave birth to Him and remained a virgin. Some said that after the birth of Jesus she had sex with Joseph. Others said that Mary was never pregnant at all. A light shown from her womb and from that light Jesus was created. There were tons of stories about it and each were embraced by different sects

I would think that it was the "immaculate conception" and since she was known as the "virgin Mary," then I think that tells us that Jesus was conceived through God's powers but not intercourse.

Of course like you said, nobody knows, and I'm just sharing my opinion.

No no. The immaculate conception was the conception of Mary, not Jesus. According to that dogma, Mary was conceived through sexual intercourse but the "sin nature" did not pass to her. Thus she was born sinless and worthy to give birth to God. You said you learned about this from a Catholic. This is huge Catholic stuff here.

The conception of Jesus was the "virgin conception", not the immaculate conception

And if the conception of Jesus was the "virgin conception" then you just answered your own question!

Oh I am not saying that is MY view. That is the Catholic view and the view of most protestants

I was baptized as a protestant. My mother is no longer a practicing Catholic. She doesn't care for the Catholic religion. Odd, right?

No not really. Do some quick research on the Stages of Faith by James Fowler. It's fascinating. As people advance in faith they often reject their youthful religious views in favor of new ones. Often as one develops, they reject organized religions altogether in favor of their own personal views. Many people see this as losing faith, when in reality, they are merely advancing to a level that they don't need an organized structure to maintain their relationship with God anymore.

 

[ChrisL]

Right. That means she was not "tainted" so to speak, which would probably mean she was a virgin. Correct?

Well again it would depend on who you asked in antiquity. That's actually a very interesting topic because it appears that the authors of Mark and Matthew were reading from the Septuagint (the first Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) and there is confusion between the Hebrew word used and the Greek word used. They don't quite mean the same thing. The Hebrew word "almah" could mean "virgin", "young woman" or "woman who had not gone through the final phase of marriage" (there were like 13 or 14 of them and the man had sexual rights to his betrothed after the first one although she would be considered an "almah" until the completion of the last one).

Trying to translate that to Greek was a bit of a pain because they didn't have a word that meant the same thing so they used the word "parthenos" which means "virgin". So when the authors of Matthew and Luke read it in Greek they saw "parthenos" and took it for what parthenos meant. A virgin. But that's not quite what it means in Hebrew.

In the early Christian church all these different points of view were in competition for converts and they all had different beliefs. Many of them radically different. According to research by Walter Bauer, which is mostly accepted by scholarship although not completely, it was the view of the church at Rome that won out and the rest were banished by pain of death. So that's what comes to us today. The Christianity we see today is not necessarily the original version, nor the version that was the majority opinion in antiquity. It was the view that won the war and got adopted by Constantine and Theodosius.

So to answer your question, she was not tainted, but that is only according to the proto-orthodox view of early Christianity and we take it for granted because it's the view that survived into the Middle Ages and destroyed all the other views.

Does any of that make sense?

Yes, you are saying that it all depends upon the translation of the texts and different words, but I still think the theory that Mary was a virgin and was impregnated by God through supernatural means and not actually through sex and that Jesus is God's son, who God sacrificed for mankind makes most sense. This is what they teach in the Catholic church that my mother went to.

Well yes and no. The Catholics embrace the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all different aspects to the same to the same divine entity. So while God was God, Jesus was Jesus, and the Holy Spirit was the Holy Spirit, they are all the same as well. So God is God, but God is also the Holy Spirit and God is also Jesus. It can be quite confusing.

That really doesn't make much sense to me at all, TBH.

well don't worry. You are not alone. Personally, I endorse the Trinity but I understand completely how people look at it and go "HUH?!?!?"

Well, how can all of those things be God? I always understood that God was a separate entity, perfect and like no other.

 

[ChrisL]

I would think that it was the "immaculate conception" and since she was known as the "virgin Mary," then I think that tells us that Jesus was conceived through God's powers but not intercourse.

Of course like you said, nobody knows, and I'm just sharing my opinion.

No no. The immaculate conception was the conception of Mary, not Jesus. According to that dogma, Mary was conceived through sexual intercourse but the "sin nature" did not pass to her. Thus she was born sinless and worthy to give birth to God. You said you learned about this from a Catholic. This is huge Catholic stuff here.

The conception of Jesus was the "virgin conception", not the immaculate conception

And if the conception of Jesus was the "virgin conception" then you just answered your own question!

Oh I am not saying that is MY view. That is the Catholic view and the view of most protestants

I was baptized as a protestant. My mother is no longer a practicing Catholic. She doesn't care for the Catholic religion. Odd, right?

No not really. Do some quick research on the Stages of Faith by James Fowler. It's fascinating. As people advance in faith they often reject their youthful religious views in favor of new ones. Often as one develops, they reject organized religions altogether in favor of their own personal views. Many people see this as losing faith, when in reality, they are merely advancing to a level that they don't need an organized structure to maintain their relationship with God anymore.

Well, my mom isn't really so "deep." Oops, sorry mom! She just turned away from the Catholic church because she thought they were hypocrites and had some bad experiences while attending Catholic school. She didn't like how they turn people away either while harboring a known pedophile (s). You see, the church and school my mom attended was St. Mary's Church . . . and in case you didn't know . . . . that is the church where the infamous Father Porter worked.

 

[BluePhantom]

Well again it would depend on who you asked in antiquity. That's actually a very interesting topic because it appears that the authors of Mark and Matthew were reading from the Septuagint (the first Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) and there is confusion between the Hebrew word used and the Greek word used. They don't quite mean the same thing. The Hebrew word "almah" could mean "virgin", "young woman" or "woman who had not gone through the final phase of marriage" (there were like 13 or 14 of them and the man had sexual rights to his betrothed after the first one although she would be considered an "almah" until the completion of the last one).

Trying to translate that to Greek was a bit of a pain because they didn't have a word that meant the same thing so they used the word "parthenos" which means "virgin". So when the authors of Matthew and Luke read it in Greek they saw "parthenos" and took it for what parthenos meant. A virgin. But that's not quite what it means in Hebrew.

In the early Christian church all these different points of view were in competition for converts and they all had different beliefs. Many of them radically different. According to research by Walter Bauer, which is mostly accepted by scholarship although not completely, it was the view of the church at Rome that won out and the rest were banished by pain of death. So that's what comes to us today. The Christianity we see today is not necessarily the original version, nor the version that was the majority opinion in antiquity. It was the view that won the war and got adopted by Constantine and Theodosius.

So to answer your question, she was not tainted, but that is only according to the proto-orthodox view of early Christianity and we take it for granted because it's the view that survived into the Middle Ages and destroyed all the other views.

Does any of that make sense?

Yes, you are saying that it all depends upon the translation of the texts and different words, but I still think the theory that Mary was a virgin and was impregnated by God through supernatural means and not actually through sex and that Jesus is God's son, who God sacrificed for mankind makes most sense. This is what they teach in the Catholic church that my mother went to.

Well yes and no. The Catholics embrace the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all different aspects to the same to the same divine entity. So while God was God, Jesus was Jesus, and the Holy Spirit was the Holy Spirit, they are all the same as well. So God is God, but God is also the Holy Spirit and God is also Jesus. It can be quite confusing.

That really doesn't make much sense to me at all, TBH.

well don't worry. You are not alone. Personally, I endorse the Trinity but I understand completely how people look at it and go "HUH?!?!?"

Well, how can all of those things be God? I always understood that God was a separate entity, perfect and like no other.

Ok the best way I can explain it is to think of a french fry press. So you have a press and you put a potato on top of a cutting die and you start to press the potato through the die to make french fries. Follow me? But stop halfway through. Now on the top side of the die you have a solid potato and on the bottom you have individual cut fries. But they are still connected through the holes in the die. So think of it like that. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like the individual fries on the bottom of the cutter, God is the potato on the top, but they are still all connected and all the same potato.

So...essentially....God is a potato.

Follow?

 

[BluePhantom]

No no. The immaculate conception was the conception of Mary, not Jesus. According to that dogma, Mary was conceived through sexual intercourse but the "sin nature" did not pass to her. Thus she was born sinless and worthy to give birth to God. You said you learned about this from a Catholic. This is huge Catholic stuff here.

The conception of Jesus was the "virgin conception", not the immaculate conception

And if the conception of Jesus was the "virgin conception" then you just answered your own question!

Oh I am not saying that is MY view. That is the Catholic view and the view of most protestants

I was baptized as a protestant. My mother is no longer a practicing Catholic. She doesn't care for the Catholic religion. Odd, right?

No not really. Do some quick research on the Stages of Faith by James Fowler. It's fascinating. As people advance in faith they often reject their youthful religious views in favor of new ones. Often as one develops, they reject organized religions altogether in favor of their own personal views. Many people see this as losing faith, when in reality, they are merely advancing to a level that they don't need an organized structure to maintain their relationship with God anymore.

Well, my mom isn't really so "deep." Oops, sorry mom! She just turned away from the Catholic church because she thought they were hypocrites and had some bad experiences while attending Catholic school. She didn't like how they turn people away either while harboring a known pedophile (s). You see, the church and school my mom attended was St. Mary's Church . . . and in case you didn't know . . . . that is the church where the infamous Father Porter worked.

Oh I see. Well that's a shame. I am sorry to hear that but it makes sense.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, you are saying that it all depends upon the translation of the texts and different words, but I still think the theory that Mary was a virgin and was impregnated by God through supernatural means and not actually through sex and that Jesus is God's son, who God sacrificed for mankind makes most sense. This is what they teach in the Catholic church that my mother went to.

Well yes and no. The Catholics embrace the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all different aspects to the same to the same divine entity. So while God was God, Jesus was Jesus, and the Holy Spirit was the Holy Spirit, they are all the same as well. So God is God, but God is also the Holy Spirit and God is also Jesus. It can be quite confusing.

That really doesn't make much sense to me at all, TBH.

well don't worry. You are not alone. Personally, I endorse the Trinity but I understand completely how people look at it and go "HUH?!?!?"

Well, how can all of those things be God? I always understood that God was a separate entity, perfect and like no other.

Ok the best way I can explain it is to think of a french fry press. So you have a press and you put a potato on top of a cutting die and you start to press the potato through the die to make french fries. Follow me? But stop halfway through. Now on the top side of the die you have a solid potato and on the bottom you have individual cut fries. But they are still connected through the holes in the die. So think of it like that. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like the individual fries on the bottom of the cutter, God is the potato on the top, but they are still all connected and all the same potato.

So...essentially....God is a potato.

Follow?

Does that make the devil the hot potato?

 

[BluePhantom]

Yes, you are saying that it all depends upon the translation of the texts and different words, but I still think the theory that Mary was a virgin and was impregnated by God through supernatural means and not actually through sex and that Jesus is God's son, who God sacrificed for mankind makes most sense. This is what they teach in the Catholic church that my mother went to.

Well yes and no. The Catholics embrace the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all different aspects to the same to the same divine entity. So while God was God, Jesus was Jesus, and the Holy Spirit was the Holy Spirit, they are all the same as well. So God is God, but God is also the Holy Spirit and God is also Jesus. It can be quite confusing.

That really doesn't make much sense to me at all, TBH.

well don't worry. You are not alone. Personally, I endorse the Trinity but I understand completely how people look at it and go "HUH?!?!?"

Well, how can all of those things be God? I always understood that God was a separate entity, perfect and like no other.

Ok the best way I can explain it is to think of a french fry press. So you have a press and you put a potato on top of a cutting die and you start to press the potato through the die to make french fries. Follow me? But stop halfway through. Now on the top side of the die you have a solid potato and on the bottom you have individual cut fries. But they are still connected through the holes in the die. So think of it like that. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like the individual fries on the bottom of the cutter, God is the potato on the top, but they are still all connected and all the same potato.

So...essentially....God is a potato.

Follow?

Just to follow up on this potato thingy. The die itself represents the division between life (the relative world that we live in) and the afterlife (the absolute realm God exists in). So since we live below the die and can only perceive that which is relative, all we see are the fries. So Jesus and the Holy Spirit (being the halfway cut fries) are what we interact with within our realm of reality and understanding. BUT both are connect through the die to God. As such they are both individuals and yet still God as they are both individual fries but still one connected potato.

And our job is to sit underneath and let potato juice drip on our heads and try to grab on to a fry strand in the hopes of experiencing God. Then Derideo_Te comes along, throws it all in a fryer and squirts ketchup all over it and makes a huge fucking mess.

 

[BluePhantom]

Well yes and no. The Catholics embrace the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all different aspects to the same to the same divine entity. So while God was God, Jesus was Jesus, and the Holy Spirit was the Holy Spirit, they are all the same as well. So God is God, but God is also the Holy Spirit and God is also Jesus. It can be quite confusing.

That really doesn't make much sense to me at all, TBH.

well don't worry. You are not alone. Personally, I endorse the Trinity but I understand completely how people look at it and go "HUH?!?!?"

Well, how can all of those things be God? I always understood that God was a separate entity, perfect and like no other.

Ok the best way I can explain it is to think of a french fry press. So you have a press and you put a potato on top of a cutting die and you start to press the potato through the die to make french fries. Follow me? But stop halfway through. Now on the top side of the die you have a solid potato and on the bottom you have individual cut fries. But they are still connected through the holes in the die. So think of it like that. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like the individual fries on the bottom of the cutter, God is the potato on the top, but they are still all connected and all the same potato.

So...essentially....God is a potato.

Follow?

Does that make the devil the hot potato?

Well see...that's another point that is interesting. All those sects had different ideas about the Devil too. Some didn't believe in him at all (count me among them), some actually thought that the world was not created by God but created by Satan. The idea was that if God had created the world, and God being all-powerful, Satan would have never been able to take it over and make it so evil. Therefore, Satan created the world and God will eventually conquer it when he gets good and ready. Again, there were all sorts of beliefs. We only know the ones we know because those were the traditions that survived. After the proto-orthodox won the "war" and Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of Rome, he embraced the proto-orthodox view (which is what comes to us today). As it progressed to the Middle Ages, anyone who advanced any other view found themselves at the center of a bonfire. So naturally....the other views died out and only the proto-orthodox remains. That is what Christians believe today

 

[ChrisL]

That really doesn't make much sense to me at all, TBH.

well don't worry. You are not alone. Personally, I endorse the Trinity but I understand completely how people look at it and go "HUH?!?!?"

Well, how can all of those things be God? I always understood that God was a separate entity, perfect and like no other.

Ok the best way I can explain it is to think of a french fry press. So you have a press and you put a potato on top of a cutting die and you start to press the potato through the die to make french fries. Follow me? But stop halfway through. Now on the top side of the die you have a solid potato and on the bottom you have individual cut fries. But they are still connected through the holes in the die. So think of it like that. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like the individual fries on the bottom of the cutter, God is the potato on the top, but they are still all connected and all the same potato.

So...essentially....God is a potato.

Follow?

Does that make the devil the hot potato?

Well see...that's another point that is interesting. All those sects had different ideas about the Devil too. Some didn't believe in him at all (count me among them), some actually thought that the world was not created by God but created by Satan. The idea was that if God had created the world, and God being all-powerful, Satan would have never been able to take it over and make it so evil. Therefore, Satan created the world and God will eventually conquer it when he gets good and ready. Again, there were all sorts of beliefs. We only know the ones we know because those were the traditions that survived. After the proto-orthodox won the "war" and Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of Rome, he embraced the proto-orthodox view (which is what comes to us today). As it progressed to the Middle Ages, anyone who advanced any other view found themselves at the center of a bonfire. So naturally....the other views died out and only the proto-orthodox remains. That is what Christians believe today

And there is the theory that Satan was an angel cast out of Heaven by God. Even though I don't really believe in religion, it is a fascinating topic of discussion if you can keep the trolls away. I appreciate you not taking offense to some of my questions and views and being a gentleman.

 

[BluePhantom]

well don't worry. You are not alone. Personally, I endorse the Trinity but I understand completely how people look at it and go "HUH?!?!?"

Well, how can all of those things be God? I always understood that God was a separate entity, perfect and like no other.

Ok the best way I can explain it is to think of a french fry press. So you have a press and you put a potato on top of a cutting die and you start to press the potato through the die to make french fries. Follow me? But stop halfway through. Now on the top side of the die you have a solid potato and on the bottom you have individual cut fries. But they are still connected through the holes in the die. So think of it like that. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like the individual fries on the bottom of the cutter, God is the potato on the top, but they are still all connected and all the same potato.

So...essentially....God is a potato.

Follow?

Does that make the devil the hot potato?

Well see...that's another point that is interesting. All those sects had different ideas about the Devil too. Some didn't believe in him at all (count me among them), some actually thought that the world was not created by God but created by Satan. The idea was that if God had created the world, and God being all-powerful, Satan would have never been able to take it over and make it so evil. Therefore, Satan created the world and God will eventually conquer it when he gets good and ready. Again, there were all sorts of beliefs. We only know the ones we know because those were the traditions that survived. After the proto-orthodox won the "war" and Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of Rome, he embraced the proto-orthodox view (which is what comes to us today). As it progressed to the Middle Ages, anyone who advanced any other view found themselves at the center of a bonfire. So naturally....the other views died out and only the proto-orthodox remains. That is what Christians believe today

And there is the theory that Satan was an angel cast out of Heaven by God. Even though I don't really believe in religion, it is a fascinating topic of discussion if you can keep the trolls away. I appreciate you not taking offense to some of my questions and views and being a gentleman.

And that was another one. There were/are also those who argued that Satan and Lucifer were the same entity. Others said they were different entities. Others (count me among them) argue that Satan was a name and Lucifer was a title. Much like Jesus Christ. Jesus was His name. Christ was His title. Christ is the Latin form of the Greek "Christos" which in Hebrew means "Messiah". So Jesus Christ means "Jesus the Messiah". You would be amazed how many people think Christ was His last name...that he was born to Joseph and Mary Christ. Sigh. God help me. Lucifer is similar. It just means "the morning star" which was how you addressed a royal prince in antiquity. It was a title not a person's name. Jesus even refers to Himself as "Lucifer" in Revelation. What He means is that He is royal...He is of the Royal line of David and of God...thus He is the morning star....a prince. There are even those....HaShev is one...who miss the "morning star" reference as being an allusion to royalty and claim that Jesus is Satan because of that verse in Revelation.

And no...your questions do not bother me at all

 

[ChrisL]

Well, how can all of those things be God? I always understood that God was a separate entity, perfect and like no other.

Ok the best way I can explain it is to think of a french fry press. So you have a press and you put a potato on top of a cutting die and you start to press the potato through the die to make french fries. Follow me? But stop halfway through. Now on the top side of the die you have a solid potato and on the bottom you have individual cut fries. But they are still connected through the holes in the die. So think of it like that. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like the individual fries on the bottom of the cutter, God is the potato on the top, but they are still all connected and all the same potato.

So...essentially....God is a potato.

Follow?

Does that make the devil the hot potato?

Well see...that's another point that is interesting. All those sects had different ideas about the Devil too. Some didn't believe in him at all (count me among them), some actually thought that the world was not created by God but created by Satan. The idea was that if God had created the world, and God being all-powerful, Satan would have never been able to take it over and make it so evil. Therefore, Satan created the world and God will eventually conquer it when he gets good and ready. Again, there were all sorts of beliefs. We only know the ones we know because those were the traditions that survived. After the proto-orthodox won the "war" and Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of Rome, he embraced the proto-orthodox view (which is what comes to us today). As it progressed to the Middle Ages, anyone who advanced any other view found themselves at the center of a bonfire. So naturally....the other views died out and only the proto-orthodox remains. That is what Christians believe today

And there is the theory that Satan was an angel cast out of Heaven by God. Even though I don't really believe in religion, it is a fascinating topic of discussion if you can keep the trolls away. I appreciate you not taking offense to some of my questions and views and being a gentleman.

And that was another one. There were/are also those who argued that Satan and Lucifer were the same entity. Others said they were different entities. Others (count me among them) argue that Satan was a name and Lucifer was a title. Much like Jesus Christ. Jesus was His name. Christ was His title. Christ is the Latin form of the Greek "Christos" which in Hebrew means "Messiah". So Jesus Christ means "Jesus the Messiah". You would be amazed how many people think Christ was His last name...that he was born to Joseph and Mary Christ. Sigh. God help me. Lucifer is similar. It just means "the morning star" which was how you addressed a royal prince in antiquity. It was a title not a person's name. Jesus even refers to Himself as "Lucifer" in Revelation. What He means is that He is royal...He is of the Royal line of David and of God...thus He is the morning star....a prince. There are even those....HaShev is one...who miss the "morning star" reference as being an allusion to royalty and claim that Jesus is Satan because of that verse in Revelation.

And no...your questions do not bother me at all

Interesting. I am one of the ones who always thought the names were just interchangeable, perhaps of different origin or something. I always understood Lucifer to mean Prince of Darkness or something like that.

 

[Fat Bastardo]

The idea of Jesus being a sacrificial lamb is BS for many reasons.

God/Jesus is allegedly all knowing. Therefore he/God/Jesus knew the outcome of his crucifixion. Temporary death and then heaven. John 3:16 is a joke. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son... This is also BS... God can have as many begotten sons as he wants and God being all knowing knew the outcome.

Go read the last line of the OP...especially the "bugger off" part.

I'm not an atheist. I believe God exists and I know that God is evil and needs to die.

I have a great idea. Why don't you go start yet another thread that will get bumped to the Badlands for being completely asinine and let the big kids talk. Bye bye....and welcome to ignore.

I think it is time for some scripture...

What were the last words of Jesus?
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Matthew 27:46

Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. Luke 23:46

It is finished.
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. John 19:30

There are a few points here other than the pointed hat on your head. The main point is that the Bible is BS and the people who rely on it for anything are fools.

As to the OP. Jesus was just a delusional fool who lied a lot.

Jesus falsely prophesies that the end of the world will come within his listeners’ lifetimes.

Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Mark 13:30-31)

Jesus falsely predicts that some of his listeners would live to see him return and establish the kingdom of God.

"Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:27 NAB)

Jesus, if he actually existed was a known liar. He was not divine and therefore when they beat him and nailed him to a cross it hurt like hell. Leave it to a nasty evil God to kill his own son.

 

[Fat Bastardo]

Well, how can all of those things be God? I always understood that God was a separate entity, perfect and like no other.

Ok the best way I can explain it is to think of a french fry press. So you have a press and you put a potato on top of a cutting die and you start to press the potato through the die to make french fries. Follow me? But stop halfway through. Now on the top side of the die you have a solid potato and on the bottom you have individual cut fries. But they are still connected through the holes in the die. So think of it like that. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like the individual fries on the bottom of the cutter, God is the potato on the top, but they are still all connected and all the same potato.

So...essentially....God is a potato.

Follow?

Does that make the devil the hot potato?

Well see...that's another point that is interesting. All those sects had different ideas about the Devil too. Some didn't believe in him at all (count me among them), some actually thought that the world was not created by God but created by Satan. The idea was that if God had created the world, and God being all-powerful, Satan would have never been able to take it over and make it so evil. Therefore, Satan created the world and God will eventually conquer it when he gets good and ready. Again, there were all sorts of beliefs. We only know the ones we know because those were the traditions that survived. After the proto-orthodox won the "war" and Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of Rome, he embraced the proto-orthodox view (which is what comes to us today). As it progressed to the Middle Ages, anyone who advanced any other view found themselves at the center of a bonfire. So naturally....the other views died out and only the proto-orthodox remains. That is what Christians believe today

And there is the theory that Satan was an angel cast out of Heaven by God. Even though I don't really believe in religion, it is a fascinating topic of discussion if you can keep the trolls away. I appreciate you not taking offense to some of my questions and views and being a gentleman.

And that was another one. There were/are also those who argued that Satan and Lucifer were the same entity. Others said they were different entities. Others (count me among them) argue that Satan was a name and Lucifer was a title. Much like Jesus Christ. Jesus was His name. Christ was His title. Christ is the Latin form of the Greek "Christos" which in Hebrew means "Messiah". So Jesus Christ means "Jesus the Messiah". You would be amazed how many people think Christ was His last name...that he was born to Joseph and Mary Christ. Sigh. God help me. Lucifer is similar. It just means "the morning star" which was how you addressed a royal prince in antiquity. It was a title not a person's name. Jesus even refers to Himself as "Lucifer" in Revelation. What He means is that He is royal...He is of the Royal line of David and of God...thus He is the morning star....a prince. There are even those....HaShev is one...who miss the "morning star" reference as being an allusion to royalty and claim that Jesus is Satan because of that verse in Revelation.

And no...your questions do not bother me at all

Jesus was one of many Christs who came before him. Jesus was a Johnny come lately.

 

[hortysir]

So I have been thinking a lot about God and the crucifixion. For the sake of this question let's assume that Jesus was God or at the very least God resided within Jesus through the Holy Spirit during His ministry. It creates a question about God suffering at the hands of man through Jesus. This was a really big issue in early Christianity and one of the reasons why there were so many different forms of Christianity in the early church.

The question was "if Jesus was God, and Jesus suffered at the hands of man, did man cause God to physically suffer as well?" There was a lot of debate. Some said that Jesus was God, but his physical form was merely an illusion and therefore God did not suffer because you can't harm an illusion. Some apocryphal gospels even depict Jesus as laughing during the crucifixion to really make this point stick. Some said that God entered Jesus either at birth or at his baptism by John the Baptist and left Jesus before His death to avoid the suffering. The thought here was that man cannot possibly harm God so God must have left before any actual harm befell Jesus. Still others argued that Jesus was God and the whole point was for God to experience what it was to be a man. Therefore, God suffered all the same pains and agonies as Jesus did during the passion and crucifixion.

As a point of Biblical history, these schools of thought (as well as others) created rivalries and completely separate branches of early Christianity such as the Gnostics, Ebinonites, Marcionites, proto-orthodox, etc. There were tons of them. To some degree all those different points of view remain within different branches of Christianity.

So I ask this question because I am interested in what most people think of have been taught. I know my point of view on this, but I am very curious to see what others think. For those who are atheist...yeah we already know your point of view. Bugger off.

Myself, I've understood the Trinity to be that the Holy Spirit and Jesus to be OF God, not necessarily three separate manifestations of the same Being.
(kind of like His right and left hands)

 

[BluePhantom]

Interesting. I am one of the ones who always thought the names were just interchangeable, perhaps of different origin or something. I always understood Lucifer to mean Prince of Darkness or something like that.

Well actually you are right. The "Prince of Darkness" comes from the "morning star" (or Lucifer in Greek). When people call him the Prince of Darkness it is that morning star, royal reference they are drawing on (although most don't realize that)...but that's where the "prince" part came from. Although the Bible never states it like this, you could think of Satan Lucifer as being very similar to Jesus Christ. A name and then a title. Although now that I think of it, I don't think there is anywhere in the Bible where Jesus is specifically called "Jesus Christ" either. I will have to look into that