Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

if youre a Christian

if you are a jew it means none of that.

its all later Christian interpretation guided by believe in jesus.

All later Jewish interpretations are also guided by denial of him. For instance, Jews started teaching that God's use of plural pronouns in referring to himself (let us make man in our image) is him talking to his angels; this reading was developed simply to counter Trinitarin readings, but that would mean the angels were co-creators with YHWH, which is not proper.

Not necessarily. Early Hebrews were polytheistic. They believed in many gods, though they swore allegiance to YHWH alone, on paper anyway. How we think they viewed the YHWH's position in that cosmological order is controversial even among individual faculty here at Yale. It's not outside of the realm of possibility that the text claim God was speaking to his angels, or some heavenly court of lesser gods, etc. What we do know however is that the Anti-Trinitarian argument some Jewish Scholars have made in recent years is that YHWH is using the "Royal We," an odd singular plural used by monarchs in feudal Europe. Ancient Hebrew had no such grammatical quirk.

We do know that God is speaking to somebody when he says "us" the question is who? It's possible He's referring to Asherah, who some have argued, could be YHWH's wife that was edited out by the Deuteronomist Reforms.

Could be Christ, could be his angels. It's a matter of interpretation as it stands.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

God didn't lie to his people, the Pharisees did. God literally came down and called them on it, and used his word to substantiate it, and so they killed him.

"Son of God" and "mighty God, the Prince of peace, " as terms for the Messiah are both in OT, and Genesis 18 overtly depicts God as Triune. Proverbs 8 and 9 clearly illustrate God's Wisdom (identified as Christ in the NT) as distinct from the Father, yet still divine, and in Isaiah God talks about sending his Word into the world almost as a person to accomplish his will, and God's Spirit is regularly spoken of in a distinct way.

Genesis 18 does not overtly depict God as triune, it declares Abraham saw three men. However the interactions between God, Abraham, and Sarah come from only one of the Men.

Genesis 18:22 sets 22 So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the Lord.

And Genesis 19 opens, "And the two angels came to Sodom."

The text itself presents the three men as the Lord and two of his Angels, not a Triune God, without a level of creative interpretation.

Proverbs 8 and 9 are examples of Biblical poetry. There's no indication in the text that gives the impression that Wisdom is meant to be taken as a literal person, and not just as a literary character.

[Luminesa]

Mm, yes he act did, both in the prophets and in Christ himself. He certainly didn't them explicitly that Christ doctrine is a lie. God doesn't found false religions.

my point is, no he didn't, and that leaving shit out is par for the course, it seems for this god.

his lack of informing the jews that he had a son and that they should expect him to show up as a normal man has left millions out of the Christian fold. he was a trinity the whole time and yet let the jews think he was one god in one.

there is no reason why he wouldn't do the same shit to Christians when he decided to bring in mohammed.

Well, you see, God IS one...in Three Divine Persons, which He revealed over time. He revealed everything He wanted the Israelites to know, just over roughly 6,000 years' time. Including His triune nature. So it's not a matter of lying, it's a matter of slowly revealing different facets about Himself.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

my point is, no he didn't, and that leaving shit out is par for the course, it seems for this god.

his lack of informing the jews that he had a son and that they should expect him to show up as a normal man has left millions out of the Christian fold. he was a trinity the whole time and yet let the jews think he was one god in one.

there is no reason why he wouldn't do the same shit to Christians when he decided to bring in mohammed.

Well, you see, God IS one...in Three Divine Persons, which He revealed over time. He revealed everything He wanted the Israelites to know, just over roughly 6,000 years' time. Including His triune nature. So it's not a matter of lying, it's a matter of slowly revealing different facets about Himself.

Typical. Waits until you've made commitments and then tells you he has a son and a split personality.

[Luminesa]

Well, you see, God IS one...in Three Divine Persons, which He revealed over time. He revealed everything He wanted the Israelites to know, just over roughly 6,000 years' time. Including His triune nature. So it's not a matter of lying, it's a matter of slowly revealing different facets about Himself.

Typical. Waits until you've made commitments and then tells you he has a son and a split personality.

Son? Yes, lol. Split personality? No. If you want to clarify, I mean...

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Typical. Waits until you've made commitments and then tells you he has a son and a split personality.

Son? Yes, lol. Split personality? No. If you want to clarify, I mean...

Being one person in three is fairly split, I'd say. And that's something that really ought to come out fairly early on in the relationship, long before the 40-year desert-themed trekking holiday, and certainly before moving into a promised land together.

[Salus Maior]

Son? Yes, lol. Split personality? No. If you want to clarify, I mean...

Being one person in three is fairly split, I'd say. And that's something that really ought to come out fairly early on in the relationship, long before the 40-year desert-themed trekking holiday, and certainly before moving into a promised land together.

Again, the Trinity can't be summed up that way accurately.

But it seems like you're more interested in trolling than learning anything.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Being one person in three is fairly split, I'd say. And that's something that really ought to come out fairly early on in the relationship, long before the 40-year desert-themed trekking holiday, and certainly before moving into a promised land together.

Again, the Trinity can't be summed up that way accurately.

But it seems like you're more interested in trolling than learning anything.

I would hardly call that trolling. But is your god not one being sort-of split into three? Do enlighten me.

[Luminesa]

Son? Yes, lol. Split personality? No. If you want to clarify, I mean...

Being one person in three is fairly split, I'd say. And that's something that really ought to come out fairly early on in the relationship, long before the 40-year desert-themed trekking holiday, and certainly before moving into a promised land together.

40 days. Remember that Jesus only lived for 33 years.

Well, it's a rather complicated concept, to be truthful. Not even Aquinas could totally wrap his head around it, when he wrote about the topic. However, yes it is fairly split, but they all share a will. That's important to remember. Even Jesus, as He had a human will-human emotions and a set of human daily-goals-also had a Divine Will which perfectly matched that of God the Father. If they were all forces that worked against each other, as might be characteristic of Multiple Personality Disorder, then in theory they could not bring the Universe together. Does this help any?

[Salus Maior]

Again, the Trinity can't be summed up that way accurately.

But it seems like you're more interested in trolling than learning anything.

I would hardly call that trolling. But is your god not one being sort-of split into three? Do enlighten me.

This would be the easiest way of explaining it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Being one person in three is fairly split, I'd say. And that's something that really ought to come out fairly early on in the relationship, long before the 40-year desert-themed trekking holiday, and certainly before moving into a promised land together.

40 days. Remember that Jesus only lived for 33 years.

Well, it's a rather complicated concept, to be truthful. Not even Aquinas could totally wrap his head around it, when he wrote about the topic. However, yes it is fairly split, but they all share a will. That's important to remember. Even Jesus, as He had a human will-human emotions and a set of human daily-goals-also had a Divine Will which perfectly matched that of God the Father. If they were all forces that worked against each other, as might be characteristic of Multiple Personality Disorder, then in theory they could not bring the Universe together. Does this help any?

I meant the Israelites in the desert, not Jesus in the desert. Actually, 40 seems to be a bit of a theme: the Genesis flood was supposedly 40 days too.

So Jesus' human will, at least, could act against--or not in perfect harmony with--God's right? Hence "Why hast thou forsaken me?", perhaps. Also, possibly the use of divine powers for cursing trees.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Again, the Trinity can't be summed up that way accurately.

But it seems like you're more interested in trolling than learning anything.

I would hardly call that trolling. But is your god not one being sort-of split into three? Do enlighten me.

Here is a summing up of it.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. [For the person of the Father is one; of the Son, another; of the Holy Spirit, another.]
6. But the Godhead [the divinity] of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. [Such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit.].
8. The Father uncreate [is uncreated], the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate.
9. The Father incomprehensible [infinite], the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. [And yet there are not three eternal Beings, but one eternal Being.]
12. As also there are not three untreated nor three incomprehensible, but one untreated and one incomprehensible. [ So also there are not three uncreated Beings, nor three infinite Beings, but one uncreated and one infinite Being.]

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. [In like manner, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent.]
14. And yet they are not three almighties [omnipotent Beings], but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; [For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess each person distinctively to be both God and Lord,]
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say thar there are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another [nothing prior or posterior]; none is greater or less than another.
26 But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped [adored].
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

As you can see, it's quite a lot, and that is still just a summing up.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I would hardly call that trolling. But is your god not one being sort-of split into three? Do enlighten me.

Here is a summing up of it.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. [For the person of the Father is one; of the Son, another; of the Holy Spirit, another.]
6. But the Godhead [the divinity] of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. [Such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit.].
8. The Father uncreate [is uncreated], the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate.
9. The Father incomprehensible [infinite], the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. [And yet there are not three eternal Beings, but one eternal Being.]
12. As also there are not three untreated nor three incomprehensible, but one untreated and one incomprehensible. [ So also there are not three uncreated Beings, nor three infinite Beings, but one uncreated and one infinite Being.]

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. [In like manner, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent.]
14. And yet they are not three almighties [omnipotent Beings], but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; [For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess each person distinctively to be both God and Lord,]
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say thar there are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another [nothing prior or posterior]; none is greater or less than another.
26 But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped [adored].
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

As you can see, it's quite a lot, and that is still just a summing up.

Complex. It doesn't seem to define Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, though, beyond mentions of begotten and proceeding, which don't explain much. If all three are omnipotent and in harmony, is there any meaningful difference? Presumably the Father could, being omnipotent, perform any role the Son or Holy Spirit might, and vice-versa.

[United Muscovite Nations]

CNN continues its assault on anything Russian

Those evil clerics and believers, in league with PUTIN no less, have the gall to demand that something stolen from them be returned. I mean, look, they wear golden robes! And they don't like homosexuals, and, and, PUTIN.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

CNN continues its assault on anything Russian

Those evil clerics and believers, in league with PUTIN no less, have the gall to demand that something stolen from them be returned. I mean, look, they wear golden robes! And they don't like homosexuals, and, and, PUTIN.

"If there were no Orthodox Christianity, there would be no Russia," Kormukhin said.

Goodness, wouldn't that be a shame.

"Assault" hardly seems the word. The least neutral term I'm seeing in that article is "fiery, ultra-conservative". It's hardly a tabloid rant.

[Venerable Bede]

All later Jewish interpretations are also guided by denial of him. For instance, Jews started teaching that God's use of plural pronouns in referring to himself (let us make man in our image) is him talking to his angels; this reading was developed simply to counter Trinitarin readings, but that would mean the angels were co-creators with YHWH, which is not proper.

Not necessarily. Early Hebrews were polytheistic. They believed in many gods, though they swore allegiance to YHWH alone, on paper anyway. How we think they viewed the YHWH's position in that cosmological order is controversial even among individual faculty here at Yale. It's not outside of the realm of possibility that the text claim God was speaking to his angels, or some heavenly court of lesser gods, etc. What we do know however is that the Anti-Trinitarian argument some Jewish Scholars have made in recent years is that YHWH is using the "Royal We," an odd singular plural used by monarchs in feudal Europe. Ancient Hebrew had no such grammatical quirk.

We do know that God is speaking to somebody when he says "us" the question is who? It's possible He's referring to Asherah, who some have argued, could be YHWH's wife that was edited out by the Deuteronomist Reforms.

Could be Christ, could be his angels. It's a matter of interpretation as it stands.

I'm not interested in secular speculation, I only care about what saints have to say. Understanding Scripture comes from reading the works of the Holy and leading an ascetic and holy life; I'd give more credence to the interpretation of an iilliterate hermit in constant prayer, so long as he's in the Church, than I would to the foremost secular academic of Scripture

[Luminesa]

40 days. Remember that Jesus only lived for 33 years.

Well, it's a rather complicated concept, to be truthful. Not even Aquinas could totally wrap his head around it, when he wrote about the topic. However, yes it is fairly split, but they all share a will. That's important to remember. Even Jesus, as He had a human will-human emotions and a set of human daily-goals-also had a Divine Will which perfectly matched that of God the Father. If they were all forces that worked against each other, as might be characteristic of Multiple Personality Disorder, then in theory they could not bring the Universe together. Does this help any?

I meant the Israelites in the desert, not Jesus in the desert. Actually, 40 seems to be a bit of a theme: the Genesis flood was supposedly 40 days too.

So Jesus' human will, at least, could act against--or not in perfect harmony with--God's right? Hence "Why hast thou forsaken me?", perhaps. Also, possibly the use of divine powers for cursing trees.

Yes it is! TYPOLOGY! \o/

He was quoting Psalm 23, actually, if you look at the entire thing. And well, when Jesus cursed the tree, He was making an example, as God, to explain Judgment Day.

[United Muscovite Nations]

CNN continues its assault on anything Russian

Those evil clerics and believers, in league with PUTIN no less, have the gall to demand that something stolen from them be returned. I mean, look, they wear golden robes! And they don't like homosexuals, and, and, PUTIN.

"If there were no Orthodox Christianity, there would be no Russia," Kormukhin said.

Goodness, wouldn't that be a shame.

"Assault" hardly seems the word. The least neutral term I'm seeing in that article is "fiery, ultra-conservative". It's hardly a tabloid rant.

They basically implied that the Russian Orthodox Church somehow has a special relationship with the Kremlin, which isn't true at all. The Kremlin recognizes many religious authorities as traditional authorities, and actively promotes those, including the two Islamic Muftiates in Russia (Tatarstan and the Caucases), and Russia actually has quite a bit of religious harmony, because all the religious authorities sort of stick together after that whole communism debacle.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I meant the Israelites in the desert, not Jesus in the desert. Actually, 40 seems to be a bit of a theme: the Genesis flood was supposedly 40 days too.

So Jesus' human will, at least, could act against--or not in perfect harmony with--God's right? Hence "Why hast thou forsaken me?", perhaps. Also, possibly the use of divine powers for cursing trees.

Yes it is! TYPOLOGY! \o/

He was quoting Psalm 23, actually, if you look at the entire thing. And well, when Jesus cursed the tree, He was making an example, as God, to explain Judgment Day.

Numerically speaking, God needs to branch out.

That Psalm is interesting. So was Jesus quoting the first line because he genuinely felt abandoned or to communicate that he knew everything would be all right?

I would probably say something like that if someone recorded me cursing a tree.

[Luminesa]

Yes it is! TYPOLOGY! \o/

He was quoting Psalm 23, actually, if you look at the entire thing. And well, when Jesus cursed the tree, He was making an example, as God, to explain Judgment Day.

Numerically speaking, God needs to branch out.

That Psalm is interesting. So was Jesus quoting the first line because he genuinely felt abandoned or to communicate that he knew everything would be all right?

I would probably say something like that if someone recorded me cursing a tree.

He was probably too tired to go through the whole thing, it is really long. I mean, He was on the cross for six hours at this point, his lungs would have collapsed before He got to the end. If they had not already, anyway.

[Venerable Bede]

"Son of God" and "mighty God, the Prince of peace, " as terms for the Messiah are both in OT, and Genesis 18 overtly depicts God as Triune. Proverbs 8 and 9 clearly illustrate God's Wisdom (identified as Christ in the NT) as distinct from the Father, yet still divine, and in Isaiah God talks about sending his Word into the world almost as a person to accomplish his will, and God's Spirit is regularly spoken of in a distinct way.

Genesis 18 does not overtly depict God as triune, it declares Abraham saw three men. However the interactions between God, Abraham, and Sarah come from only one of the Men.

Genesis 18:22 sets 22 So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the Lord.

And Genesis 19 opens, "And the two angels came to Sodom."

The text itself presents the three men as the Lord and two of his Angels, not a Triune God, without a level of creative interpretation.

Proverbs 8 and 9 are examples of Biblical poetry. There's no indication in the text that gives the impression that Wisdom is meant to be taken as a literal person, and not just as a literary character.

The angels took until nightfall to get to Sodom?

I'm sticking with what the saints say Proverbs 8 and 9 mean.

[New Serrland]

The last few years have been a bit of a journey for me. I was born and confirmed in the Latin Catholic tradition. After that I spent a good 5-6 years attending an Eastern Catholic church.

However, the last year and a half or so I have been attending an unprogrammed Quaker meeting.

I have to admit - reluctantly - that the Latinist masses and later Melkite divine liturgies began to feel like... going through the motions. I felt religious but, on further reflection, felt no real connection to the divine within the Divine Liturgy.

Since I started attending meetings of the Society of Friends I have felt a greater connection to God than I ever have before. I think I have finally found the religious tradition that truly speaks to my soul.

[Salus Maior]

The last few years have been a bit of a journey for me. I was born and confirmed in the Latin Catholic tradition. After that I spent a good 5-6 years attending an Eastern Catholic church.

However, the last year and a half or so I have been attending an unprogrammed Quaker meeting.

I have to admit - reluctantly - that the Latinist masses and later Melkite divine liturgies began to feel like... going through the motions. I felt religious but, on further reflection, felt no real connection to the divine within the Divine Liturgy.

Since I started attending meetings of the Society of Friends I have felt a greater connection to God than I ever have before. I think I have finally found the religious tradition that truly speaks to my soul.

Why is that?

[New Serrland]

The last few years have been a bit of a journey for me. I was born and confirmed in the Latin Catholic tradition. After that I spent a good 5-6 years attending an Eastern Catholic church.

However, the last year and a half or so I have been attending an unprogrammed Quaker meeting.

I have to admit - reluctantly - that the Latinist masses and later Melkite divine liturgies began to feel like... going through the motions. I felt religious but, on further reflection, felt no real connection to the divine within the Divine Liturgy.

Since I started attending meetings of the Society of Friends I have felt a greater connection to God than I ever have before. I think I have finally found the religious tradition that truly speaks to my soul.

Why is that?

I've put a lot of thought into that, to be honest. I can't come up with a satisfactory answer. Something about the Quaker ethos appeals to me - something I'd selectively sought out and found in limited ways in the Eastern Catholic tradition.

But, like in so much in matters spiritual, I'm not sure there's an entirely rational way to describe my feelings. Or rather - I'm not sure I have the vocabulary to describe it. It's as if something has changed in me? The concept of how the Divine speaks to me has changed entirely. Silent worship of the unprogrammed Quaker sort speaks to the soul in a way that the Divine Liturgy never did for me. Again I speak only for my own experiences, but I tried tradition after tradition to try to feel... anything.

I think I have found the style of practice through which I feel a connection to God.

[Salus Maior]

Why is that?

I've put a lot of thought into that, to be honest. I can't come up with a satisfactory answer. Something about the Quaker ethos appeals to me - something I'd selectively sought out and found in limited ways in the Eastern Catholic tradition.

But, like in so much in matters spiritual, I'm not sure there's an entirely rational way to describe my feelings. Or rather - I'm not sure I have the vocabulary to describe it. It's as if something has changed in me? The concept of how the Divine speaks to me has changed entirely. Silent worship of the unprogrammed Quaker sort speaks to the soul in a way that the Divine Liturgy never did for me. Again I speak only for my own experiences, but I tried tradition after tradition to try to feel... anything.

I think I have found the style of practice through which I feel a connection to God.

I think I understand.