Divine Intervention v. Divine Inspiration

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by wil, Aug 8, 2011.

  1. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,270
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    Couple of nice posts there are there....

    As to service....I'm never there, I know Thomas always cringes when I say I'm always with the kids. But we get ours coming back from college singing praises of the lessons learned in Sunday School, and how they helped them through issues in relationships and the growing up that happens in college. They come back to tell our youth the value of our principles and disscussion.... I've been to church almost every week for the past 14 years, but I'll bet haven't been in service 30 times. I do get the tape/cd and do enjoy the music. When you have music with a message and a beat it does something for me, sets the mood, and also provides another tool, something else to hold on to when needed.
     
  2. Abdullah

    Abdullah Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    9

    to usher in the final revelation; to convey it to the people, explain it to them, set a practical example of it, and to purify the people [by getting them practicing] and to call all mankind to it; however the last purpose mentioned there; it's duty has been passed to the whole Muslim ummah thus the work of the prophet [saw] goes on via the Muslims who are busy conveying this message to the entire mankind till the last day!
     
  3. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    What if it wasnt a muslim, how would the muslim community view that?
     
  4. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see it so: the subject was "Why is it specifically John's version of Jesus which is suspect?" and my answer is "Because it is self-serving for the institutional church."
    And I can appreciate your concerns there. I prefer to be as "objective" as possible: but as with "certainty", the word "objective" needs some scare-quotes. Everybody thinks they are being objective when, in the final analysis, it must always come down to what is believable in terms of matching up with our own personal experience of the universe and the light we have been given to see with.
    The disappearance of social justice from the forefront of Christ's concern is a major distinction between John and the synoptics, and one of my major reasons for thinking John a "worse" text, not just less likely to be faithful to the original Jesus. The sexual obsession is a different issue, not really rooted in the texts so much as in the cultural atmosphere; sex was often used very abusively by people in power during the Roman Empire, and in the Pauline Epistles certainly we already see the revulsion against this becoming part of the Christian "program of reform", although in later periods the Church's attitudes often seem to have more to do, again, with the wish to dominate other people, finding that sexual guilt is a powerful psychological tool.
    The "certainty" that Breech and Meier are aiming at is an "objective" one: that is, if we have a room containing conservative Christians, liberal Christians, skeptical agnostics, and militant atheists, but all willing to set aside emotions and presuppositions to focus on the question of what a rational person ought to agree on from the evidence, what could they agree was "authentic Jesus"? The Christians (most of them anyhow) would think the resurrection from the dead was a crucial, central part of the story, along with (for many of them anyhow) things like the virgin birth-- but there are arguments to be made that such things could have been copied from other mythologies and folklores. You have probably seen me (of all people) fighting against Jesus-mythers who exaggerate the strength of such arguments and go to the extreme of saying "There probably wasn't any such person as Jesus in the first place", which I consider a silliness on the level of "There probably wasn't even any city of Troy"; so, "who's" certainty? Those who go to "silly" lengths are excluded from that "who"; which raises the question of "who's" definition of "silliness" we are employing...
    Take your time!
     
  5. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow someone else on here that knows that god doesnt will evil. And yes also that man cannot raise himself above god but can be like god. I have come across so many on these threads claiming to be more than what they are. They dont realize that its not something you attain. Its something you are encoded in an unchangable number and that number is the only highest self you will ever reach. Thats why the angel fell. You cannot try to raise yourself up above one that is bigger and higher in that NUMBER. I also get annoyed when people think they are going to judge angels because of a passage they are misinterpreting that really refers to their own divine selves NOT literaly beings that are divine who happen to be much bigger and consist of much more light.
     
  6. Gatekeeper

    Gatekeeper Shades of Reason

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    39

    Before you get too annoyed, donnann and since I think you may be referring to me quoting that verse. I view mankind to be the fallen elohim (gods/angels). We judge matters pertaining to our kind. We don't literally judge others, but rather we are able to know the difference between those who are still fallen and those who have been raised in Christ (Children of destruction/Children of life).

    You have not posted in that thread for some time now, so we never got the chance to discuss it further. Take care ....
     
  7. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    The ELOHIM are not fallen and men are in the image of the elohim. To you what is the difference between men who are fallen and those who are christs body?
     
  8. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christ is not a man who attained dvinity he was a prehuman elohim. Man can attain this , but isnt this the whole point of incarnation?
     
  9. Gatekeeper

    Gatekeeper Shades of Reason

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    39

    Did you not suggest that "Thats why the angel fell. You cannot try to raise yourself up above one that is bigger and higher in that NUMBER."

    Elohim is the term used for angels and gods, donnann. I'm of the mind that we fell from God's heavenly kingdom, and lost our place in Eden (Paradise/heaven on earth). We are said to be (elohim) after all, so it's just a matter of putting 2 + 2 together for me.

    Look at humanity and it is easy to see the difference between children of life and children of destruction. "For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh." (Luke 6:44-45)
     
  10. Gatekeeper

    Gatekeeper Shades of Reason

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    39
    Aren't we all pre-human divinity (Elohim)? It is the condition of our world that taints us, no?
     
  11. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Children of elohim as in the image of. So Adam really was more like Michael as a son who is like GOD. Why would anyone want to be something they are not? Your just a smaller version , human beings will never be as big as the actual elohim which is why as a perfect man jesus appears this way. You have not see his prehuman self which is literally GOD who I might have to say is huge.
     
  12. Gatekeeper

    Gatekeeper Shades of Reason

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    39
    Interesting view ..... Even so, it is not one I can agree with. Jesus was a man just like us. He was one born of the father, just as we are born of the father. If Jesus preexisted before he was born on earth, then we all preexisted before we were born on earth. The difference between Jesus and many of us is in who our Lord is. We can serve the carnal (Satan) in us, or we can serve the Father of life (God) in us. It simply comes down to who we desire to submit to most, but again, this is just my personal view. Jesus was elohim, just as we are elohim. He was made just a little lower than unfallen angels, as he too had to taste death and suffering. He was as we ARE, made like us in every respect, forced to taste death, even though he served the Father of life.
     
  13. Abdullah

    Abdullah Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    9

    not sure what you mean by that; if you mean what if a person did not become a Muslim after recieving the message of islam, then we still leave his final fate to Allah for there is a difference of opinion as to what sort of non-Muslim is rendered into a 'kaafir'; the type that burns in hell for all eternity

    some scholars say that recieving the basic message is enough and others say that the message has to be verifed and substantiated to him, and only thereafter if he rejects it [and hasn't converted till his death] he'd be a hell-dweller

    thus we leave a non-Muslims inner state to Allah and do not condemn anyone to the hellfire
     
  14. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  15. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,568
    Likes Received:
    1,550
    Where's the good in Auschwitz?

    So that makes it OK then? The end justifies the means?

    I think its a crap god that needs an Auschwitz for any reason.

    Actually, no it doesn't ... if you'd read a tad further, and thought about what the text is saying:
    "... and we shall know that ye are gods. Do ye also good or evil, if you can: and let us speak, and see together. Behold, you are of nothing, and your work of that which hath no being: he that hath chosen you is an abomination."
    Isaiah 41:23-24 — so no, not gods according to Isaiah.

    "I have said: You are gods and all of you the sons of the most High. But you like men shall die: and shall fall like one of the princes."
    Psalm 81:6-7 — so no, not gods here either, as elohiym, in the plural sense, can mean gods, angels, rulers, judges. So this psalm is a critique of Israel's leaders.

    And Jesus makes the same point, when referring to the Psalm, in the face of an audience who want to stone Him for blasphemy.

    So when you read the text in context, it doesn't mean that at all, it's a scathing critique of the vainglory of men.

    So, whereas the insist that most of Scripture cannot be taken at face value, you take this text at face value, ignoring the context in which it is said?

    And it's not, and never has been, Christian doctrine:
    "For although there be that are called gods, either in heaven or on earth (for there be gods many, and lords many (among the Gentiles)). Yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
    1 Corinthians 8:5-6

    So your interpretation of the text is a relatively recent one, and sadly ill-informed.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  16. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,568
    Likes Received:
    1,550
    Really? And the evidence for this?

    And your evidence for this?

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  17. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,568
    Likes Received:
    1,550
    The Liturgy is about communing with God, not each other ... it's the spiritual equivalent of what's commonly called 'quality time'.

    All the rest is what we should be doing anyway, so it can't be seen as an alternative, or a replacement, for the Liturgy.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  18. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,568
    Likes Received:
    1,550
    I would say synthesis.

    But sola scriptura is itself a secondary tradition, and in fact conflicts with Scripture, as the dialogue between Philip and the Ethiopian illustrates.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  19. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,270
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    I had another evangelical bible thumpin fundie who used to love to end his emails to me.... go to hell, God Bless.

    I always saw the sincerity of his 'sincerely' quite lacking.

    Appears you are leaning that way Thomas, tis a shame.

    time and understanding heals all...

    For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
     
  20. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,568
    Likes Received:
    1,550
    It seems to me you are coming across as the fundie here ... you're faced with the fact that you might have got it wrong, you seem unable to defend your position, you use insult to deflect the argument, and you simply ignore the point being made ... the last thing you want is an epiphany!

    Oh, good grief, Wil. Please don't do this ... St Paul is saying it's time to grow up, and I would echo those words.

    The trouble is, you want Christianity without the effort, the honours without the obligations. The reward without the effort.

    "Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession.... Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate." Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     

Share This Page