Is God A "He"...?

[Vox]

In your opinion. Too bad, it's on the table, and has been for millennia.

No, it is not. And has not been. for millenia

maybe for decades after somebody decided to write a book on his own interpretation of the his own view of some cults.

which doesn't mean it is true. just somebody's theory and somebody not especially well educated

Fine. You go tell the Greeks that their Sophists never existed. And that there's no such thing as philosophy. As noted, the nice thing about ignorance is you can choose your own field to be ignorant in.

I don't need to tell the Greeks anything.
ANCIENT Greek mythology has absolutely NOTHING to do either with Hagia Sophia or St.Sophia, or Emperors Constantine or Justinian or the reality of the Byzantine empire in 4-6 century.

I do, obviously, realize, that the claims of the New Age as the newly invented gnosticism ( not at all important at the times of Byzantine empire we are talking about) are more dear to you as it has been a popular myth on the US territory
It simply has nothing to do with the reality the connection is being attributed to.

That's all.

 

[Pogo]

No, it is not. And has not been. for millenia

maybe for decades after somebody decided to write a book on his own interpretation of the his own view of some cults.

which doesn't mean it is true. just somebody's theory and somebody not especially well educated

Fine. You go tell the Greeks that their Sophists never existed. And that there's no such thing as philosophy. As noted, the nice thing about ignorance is you can choose your own field to be ignorant in.

I don't need to tell the Greeks anything.
ANCIENT Greek mythology has absolutely NOTHING to do either with Hagia Sophia or St.Sophia, or Emperors Constantine or Justinian or the reality of the Byzantine empire in 4-6 century.

I do, obviously, realize, that the claims of the New Age as the newly invented gnosticism ( not at all important at the times of Byzantine empire we are talking about) are more dear to you as it has been a popular myth on the US territory
It simply has nothing to do with the reality the connection is being attributed to.

-- Or so your intellectual overlords would have you believe...



Just FYI, the contemporary works I referenced most in there were the Jonas book already linked (published 1963) and Graves' The White Goddess (1948).
Some "new age" that is...

 

[Chuckt]

Can you "disprove" the existence of Santa Claus? And even if you could, what would be the point?

No, I can prove his existence in history.
The tradition was started by St. Nicolas, who is a real historical figure and the presents have their own story.
Strange that you don't know it.
Saint Nicholas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

probably, because it is basically the Eastern Church Saint, however, the western Church honors him as well.

You're missing the point.
I know all about Sinterklass and all that background. This is all an allegory addressing ChuckT's vow to "disprove" myths. I'm pointing out they can't be "disproven".

But speaking of the Eastern Church, I'm reminded again who else was a big wheel in it:

-- Sophia.

Big monument in Constantinople, circa 6th c CE. The Roman church, embarrassed by the unignorable and starkly feminine Hagia Sophia, invented a fake "St. Sophia" and redefining the traditional meaning of female wisdom to "Christ, the Word of God", despite what it really means in Greek.

But a propos of the topic here, one of Sophia's aspects in mythology is that she was in some mythology the "mother of God".

Just sayin'...

Gnosticism has been disproven. I have a big book on it.

(1) Arguments offered to "prove" a Christian dependence on the
mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause. This
fallacy is committed whenever someone reasons that just because two
things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other.
As we all should know, mere coincidence does not prove causal
connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.

(3) The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of
information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced
early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers
quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts
to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the
assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or
practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore
had the same belief or practice in the first century.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0169a.txt

There are other reasons. Just saying.

 

[tinydancer]

The "spirit" of Santa exists, that's why you see pictures of Santa everywhere in December, and children everywhere love him. And, he doesn't need a chimney, he can fit through the tiniest of holes...... We didn't have a chimney in the house where I grew up, but Santa never failed to leave us at least one gift!

That's true. I think he's part mouse.

Must be.....or invisible.....he quit coming once I grew up.....then I took his place

Saint Nicholas.

It shows your undying love for yourself that you think you are a Saint. With a big S.

Because Santa Claus is based on Saint Nicholas. A Saint. Now we are all saints. Not sure if you've got that as well, but Saint Nicholas was a special dude.

 

[Pogo]

No, I can prove his existence in history.
The tradition was started by St. Nicolas, who is a real historical figure and the presents have their own story.
Strange that you don't know it.
Saint Nicholas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

probably, because it is basically the Eastern Church Saint, however, the western Church honors him as well.

You're missing the point.
I know all about Sinterklass and all that background. This is all an allegory addressing ChuckT's vow to "disprove" myths. I'm pointing out they can't be "disproven".

But speaking of the Eastern Church, I'm reminded again who else was a big wheel in it:

-- Sophia.

Big monument in Constantinople, circa 6th c CE. The Roman church, embarrassed by the unignorable and starkly feminine Hagia Sophia, invented a fake "St. Sophia" and redefining the traditional meaning of female wisdom to "Christ, the Word of God", despite what it really means in Greek.

But a propos of the topic here, one of Sophia's aspects in mythology is that she was in some mythology the "mother of God".

Just sayin'...

Gnosticism has been disproven. I have a big book on it.

(1) Arguments offered to "prove" a Christian dependence on the
mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause. This
fallacy is committed whenever someone reasons that just because two
things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other.
As we all should know, mere coincidence does not prove causal
connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.

(3) The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of
information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced
early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers
quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts
to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the
assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or
practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore
had the same belief or practice in the first century.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0169a.txt

There are other reasons. Just saying.

You're still at it??

You can't "disprove" Gnosticism or any other set of oral traditions. It's not possible to 'disprove' myths.

What you've done here is set up your own strawman about some causal relationship (?) and then shot it down, or so you think. Nothing is "disproven".

Gnostics existed, Christians existed, Zoroastrians existed, and on and on.

STILL offtopic.

 

[Mertex]

That's true. I think he's part mouse.

Must be.....or invisible.....he quit coming once I grew up.....then I took his place

Hmm...

You lost a lotta weight

That must help with the small spaces

Yeah, I didn't go for the fat belly.....

 

[Pogo]

That's true. I think he's part mouse.

Must be.....or invisible.....he quit coming once I grew up.....then I took his place

Saint Nicholas.

It shows your undying love for yourself that you think you are a Saint. With a big S.

Because Santa Claus is based on Saint Nicholas. A Saint. Now we are all saints. Not sure if you've got that as well, but Saint Nicholas was a special dude.

She's not talking about Saint Nicholas, TD. Lighten up.

 

[Mertex]

Must be.....or invisible.....he quit coming once I grew up.....then I took his place

Saint Nicholas.

It shows your undying love for yourself that you think you are a Saint. With a big S.

Because Santa Claus is based on Saint Nicholas. A Saint. Now we are all saints. Not sure if you've got that as well, but Saint Nicholas was a special dude.

She's not talking about Saint Nicholas, TD. Lighten up.

Talk about someone having a stick up their nose!

 

[Vox]

Fine. You go tell the Greeks that their Sophists never existed. And that there's no such thing as philosophy. As noted, the nice thing about ignorance is you can choose your own field to be ignorant in.

I don't need to tell the Greeks anything.
ANCIENT Greek mythology has absolutely NOTHING to do either with Hagia Sophia or St.Sophia, or Emperors Constantine or Justinian or the reality of the Byzantine empire in 4-6 century.

I do, obviously, realize, that the claims of the New Age as the newly invented gnosticism ( not at all important at the times of Byzantine empire we are talking about) are more dear to you as it has been a popular myth on the US territory
It simply has nothing to do with the reality the connection is being attributed to.

-- Or so your intellectual overlords would have you believe...



Just FYI, the contemporary works I referenced most in there were the Jonas book already linked (published 1963) and Graves' The White Goddess (1948).
Some "new age" that is...

exactly - as I have said - couple of decades ago.

Not the "millenia"

and FYI if the REAL history, not some blabber is "intellectual overlords" I kind of understand why Americans are deemed confused ( in general) not only on geography but on world's history as well.

 

[Pogo]

I don't need to tell the Greeks anything.
ANCIENT Greek mythology has absolutely NOTHING to do either with Hagia Sophia or St.Sophia, or Emperors Constantine or Justinian or the reality of the Byzantine empire in 4-6 century.

I do, obviously, realize, that the claims of the New Age as the newly invented gnosticism ( not at all important at the times of Byzantine empire we are talking about) are more dear to you as it has been a popular myth on the US territory
It simply has nothing to do with the reality the connection is being attributed to.

-- Or so your intellectual overlords would have you believe...



Just FYI, the contemporary works I referenced most in there were the Jonas book already linked (published 1963) and Graves' The White Goddess (1948).
Some "new age" that is...

exactly - as I have said - couple of decades ago.

Not the "millenia"

Desperate spin attempt noted. You called it "the New Age as the newly invented gnosticism", which refers to some 'revival' you imagine. I pointed out that the youngest of the references used in this thread is 50 years old, a time in which the concept of "New Age" anything lay far in the future. Nevertheless, they all refer to ancient Greece and the historical like, which goes back 2500 to 2800 years. If that's what you consider "New Age", my compliments on how good you look for your age.

and FYI if the REAL history, not some blabber is "intellectual overlords" I kind of understand why Americans are deemed confused ( in general) not only on geography but on world's history as well.

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense.

 

[The Professor]

You are wrong, there is no trinity. Nothing you posted proves it nor supports the contention.

Jesus is a separate, distinct creature, he is NOT God, he is his son. Not his natural born son but the first creature God Created.

The Holy Ghost is an entity that God uses to do his biding, again NOT God.

The fact that this supposed trinity idea did not come up for hundreds of years after Jesus is telling also.

You of course are free to believe what ever you want. You are wrong. God does not appreciate worshiping others. He was clear in the Old testament about that.

Just as it is a sin to worship Mary it is a sin to worship Jesus as if he were God. And the same is true of the Holy Ghost. There is ONLY one God. And Jesus repeated that more then once.

There are verses in the Bible which some Christians interpret as establishing that Jesus is God. Since those verses have already been referenced in this thread, I will not repeat them. However, there are other versus which lead other Christians to assert that Jesus is not God. Here are some of those verses:

Matthew 19:17 and Luke 18

“And he said unto them, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, the Father.”

(Christ acknowledges that He is not good. Now, logically speaking, if Christ is not good, how can He be God or even a part of God?? How can a perfect God have even a single component which is not good?)

Matthew 20:23:

“He said to them, You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for who it has been prepared by my Father.”

Matthew 27:46:

“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

(One does not forsake, that is leave or abandon, himself; therefore that which forsakes and that which is forsaken must obviously be two different entities.

Mark 13:32:

“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but only the Father.”

(Since the knowledge of the Father is greater than that of the Son, they cannot be the same person.)

Mark 16

“So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.”

(Clearly Jesus cannot sit on the right hand of himself, therefore Jesus and God must be two distinct entities).

Luke 22:42:

“Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.”

(This verse shows that The Father and Son did not share the same objectives. The Son would just as soon have avoided His "death" but He acquiesced to the will of His Father.)

John 8:42:

“Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.”

(Jesus said He did not come of Himself but was sent by the Father. It is axiomatic that the one who sent and the one who was sent cannot be the same person. If Jesus and the Father really were one and the same, Jesus would have come of himself, and the words He said in John 8:42 could not be true.

John 14:28:

“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I" (emphasis my own).

(These are the words of Christ. This is one of the strongest proofs that Father and Son are two separate entities and the Father is superior to the Son.)

John 20:17:

“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”

(As a friend of mine once said, If Jesus is His own God, then I'm my own grandpa.)

1 Timothy 2:5-6:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

(If Christ is a mediator between God and men, then logically He cannot be God.)

There are more such verses of course, but I've shown enough to establish that those who believe that the Father and Son are two different entities and One is greater than the Other have a Biblical basis for their belief.

 

[GISMYS]

God is God the Father,Son and Holyspirit =one but three just as man is body,soul and spirit . man's spirit is often "mediator between man's soul and body!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

myself, I can't bring myself to believe that God has anything so base as a gender...

Depends on what god in which religion you're thinking of. Will assume you're speaking about the god of Abram though.

Judaism refers to G-d as a 'he' AND a 'she' because Hebrew has no neutral gender words. As jewfaq.org amusingly says, "G-d is no more male than a table is."

Nature of G-d in Judaism
Judaism 101: The Nature of G-d

"G-d is Incorporeal

Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d's body (the Hand of G-d, G-d's wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Much of Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively.

We are forbidden to represent G-d in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form.
G-d is Neither Male nor Female

This follows directly from the fact that G-d has no physical form. As one rabbi explained it to me, G-d has no body, no genitalia, therefore the very idea that G-d is male or female is patently absurd. We refer to G-d using masculine terms simply for convenience's sake, because Hebrew has no neutral gender; G-d is no more male than a table is.

Although we usually speak of G-d in masculine terms, there are times when we refer to G-d using feminine terms. The Shechinah, the manifestation of G-d's presence that fills the universe, is conceived of in feminine terms, and the word Shechinah is a feminine word. "