[Galatea]

(Original post by NathanL)
If you hear 'manifestation' or 'form', however, run a mile. That's not Christian theology.

What about 'emanation'? Christ is somehow an emanation of God?

[NathanL]

I can't see anything wrong with that - one of the better analogies for the trinity is that the Father is a lamp, Christ is the light (or emanation ) of the lamp, and the Spirit is the lamp's warmth. I say better because it fits what the NT seems to say about the Trinity better than the more metaphysical models of the later creeds (e.g. Chalcedonian, 451 - if you want a mind ravisher, try reading that one!)

Most of the problems with the Trinity are linguistic, how exactly do we articulate it and as such understand/comprehend/apprehend it - my lecturer once said something very wise, that one word can make the difference between heresy and orthodoxy. 'form' vs. 'emanation' for example

we gotta be careful ^o)

[Howard]

(Original post by *Stargirl*)
Jesus is part of God, but not all of God. Doesn't sound good how I put it, but Jesus constantly refers to as being sent by "my father". There is God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and together they make up God...if anyone can explain better please do!

No. Jesus is ALL God, as is the Father, as is the Holy Ghost. They are not three parts of one God, or three Gods. Each are 100% God although Jesus was also 100% man. (Jeeez.....I dunno!)

[Justintabib]

Nathan, your responses leave me no doubt that you indeed know (or atleast on your way of knowing) the bits and pieces of Christanity very well. And I must admit you can defend a point wisely (is that a pre-requisite for a degree in theology ).

Literally, you are the saviour of Christianity in TSR. And I can say that if Jesus re-appears tomorrow and says that he is not God but merely a Messenger of God, you will be the first one to accept that . (I know you believe that will never happen but I just gave you the picture of the other side of a coin).

[john!!]

I have a question,

as "God" is your explanation of the origin of life, the universe and everything, please elaborate on the origin of God. Do you not agree in principle, and in general, that an intentional creator must at least be as complicated as whatever he choses to create?

edit: Ill elaborate... to make a bowl of cereal, you need to first have the idea in your mind to put in the coco-pops, then pour the milk on, then put the spoon in the bowl, before you can eat it. So the cereal is complicated, but you're at least as complicated as the cereal for having the idea in your brain in the first place, and being able to make it happen. A machine that automatically carves a shape out of wood when you press a button is at least as complicated as the shape of wood it makes, and the person that made the machine is at least as complicated as the machine.

Do you accept this idea in general, and if so, why do you not apply it to the God explanation to arrive at the conclusion that God, rather than providing an explanation in itself, simply extends, or at least does not help, in the pursuit of an explanation to why we are here.

[Agent Smith]

Because God must be at least as complicated in everything in the Universe put together, you mean? That's intriguing. I hadn't looked at it that way before.

I suppose one way to reconcile the two would be to say that just as the maker of wood-carving machines can be summarised in a few words (ie, normally when talking about him the important aspect of him that you would want to convey would be not the complexity of his artistry but his personality, which you could describe simply as kind, selfish, cocky or whatever), so too can God, despite indeed having that immense complexity implicit within Him, also be described very simply. And just as with the designer of machines, 99% of the time the simple view is more relevant than the complex one.

I hope that made sense once it left the warm safety of my brain.

[RawJoh1]

(Original post by john!!)
as "God" is your explanation of the origin of life, the universe and everything, please elaborate on the origin of God. Do you not agree in principle, and in general, that an intentional creator must at least be as complicated as whatever he choses to create?

That doesn't follow at all. If it did follow, then the ontological argument for God's existence would work (the argument does not work).

Words like "complicated" and "simple" aren't particularly helpful in discussing God. I mean ... we've got some idea what complicated might mean with regards to natural objects, but what on Earth might it mean with regards to God?

[asadtamimi]

Is there no way that Jesus being the son of God was a figure of speech. Because Jesus like Adam, had no human father, and so the son of God is an expression signifying no human father. I say this because in the Qur'an it says something like "We created Jesus with similtude of Adam - in both We breathed Our Holy Spirit"

[NathanL]

The 'Son of God' title is definitely rooted in previous experience and attestation - e.g. Israel was called a child of God, as were some of the prophets, David was etc.

In this regard, with this tradition behind Him, Jesus was putting Himself in a state of Holiness and Anointedness.

But in Jesus' usage, we see something exclusive - Jesus is the way to His Father, His Father and Him are 'one', no one knows the Father except Jesus etc etc. We also know that His Jewish contemporaries found His statement of being the Son blasphemous (Mark 14:62-63).

So whilst the Son title was used by Jesus in the same vein as the OT prophets, Kings or Israel itself, He also used it exclusively and claimed that in His revelatory relationship with His Father, all find salvation or 'the truth', implying that the title of the 'Son of God' was being used and advanced by Jesus.

But if you mean, do we think the Son of God title is literal, as in, the Father is literally Jesus' Father, then no, we have never thought that, we save such heresy for the Mormons.

Nathan

[john!!]

I understand the argument, but disagree. In describing the macine, you can chose to simplify it in your description by saying "it makes a wooden thing, that looks like a swan" (for example), but in that 'simpler' description is not contained all the information of the wooden model, let alone the details of the machine, so you can't use that as the "overall" description.

[john!!]

(Original post by phawkins1988)
That doesn't follow at all. If it did follow, then the ontological argument for God's existence would work (the argument does not work).

Words like "complicated" and "simple" aren't particularly helpful in discussing God. I mean ... we've got some idea what complicated might mean with regards to natural objects, but what on Earth might it mean with regards to God?

Please elaborate, I don't understand your point at all. I thought the argument you're referring to is more about "perfection" than "complexity".

I suppose if you want a concise defenition of my "complicated", you could think about entropy, or disorder?

[*Stargirl*]

(Original post by Howard)
No. Jesus is ALL God, as is the Father, as is the Holy Ghost. They are not three parts of one God, or three Gods. Each are 100% God although Jesus was also 100% man. (Jeeez.....I dunno!)

The Bible says the Holy Spirit is God's spirit. Im sure I read somewhere that they together make up God. God must have his spirit and Jesus is the Son of God. They are ONE God, not 3. Jesus says he was sent by "my father" and he prays to his father about his fate...he is not praying to himself and he is not his own father. Isnt he seated at the right hand of the father

[Justintabib]

that is: Jesus+holy spirit+father together make up One monotheistic God!
(but Jesus is not his own father which is not possible, nor is the father his own son Jesus.)

[Howard]

(Original post by *Stargirl*)
The Bible says the Holy Spirit is God's spirit. Im sure I read somewhere that they together make up God. God must have his spirit and Jesus is the Son of God. They are ONE God, not 3. Jesus says he was sent by "my father" and he prays to his father about his fate...he is not praying to himself and he is not his own father. Isnt he seated at the right hand of the father

Jesus is praying as a human.

Besides, it's all very complicated - keeps philosophers busy but I don't tend to dwell on it. That's the advantage of theology as a discipline - it's dogmatic - we can accept the Trinity without thinking too hard about it.

[Melancholy]

Some may argue that the idea of the trinity is beyond human understanding. That's where faith comes in.

[NathanL]

I would say it's beyond comprehension, but certainly within the realms of understanding and/or apprehension. It is a religious mystery, in the old and noble sense of the word - but it isn't a purely non cognitive affair.

[Invocation]

Besides Biblical, what evidence is there that Jesus ever existed ?

[*Stargirl*]

Besides Biblical? The Bible is formed because of his existance...half of it. Thats more than enough evidence!

[*Stargirl*]

Do you expect him to have left a handprint in wet concrete so you could say "look thats the imprint of his hand!" i dont think so...what about christians. We are evidence...christianity was made when he died on the cross to save us from sin

[NathanL]

Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus are the strongest extra biblical sources.

But half of the problem comes when Jesus mythers decide to throw out methods of historical inquest and throw out anything Biblical basically for no good reason - even the most liberal scholars of the NT accept it says something about the historical person of Jesus Christ.

Basic and crude arguments along these lines follow the "Well, it's the NT, it's biased and therefore all rubbish, there we need extra biblical sources" line, only begging the question, how Josephus is any less biased. Regardless of whether you see the NT's worldview[strike] of the supernatural being possible as credible or not, it is undeniable that it contains some historical traditions, and isn't historically fantastical - you do not see, for example, active attempts to mythologise, like in the Gospel of Peter, a much later text.

The other line of argument is more sophisticated, claiming that Jesus was a spiritual figure 'in the heavens', that Paul knew nothing about Him, and therefore although He is definitely historically mentioned, He is still mythical. Earl Doherty and G.A. Wells are among the bigger proponents of this theory.

And to go into that, it would require a loooong rant from me about how bad their exegesis is of Paul, how much they beg the question (i.e. why should Paul mention anything historically specific in what is otherwise polemical and/or instructive?), and so on and so forth.

Either way, the view that Jesus didnt exist is absolute pablum for the sceptical crowd with no brain.

I have a large, large respect for some atheists, on this board and in the academy. It is telling, that especially in the latter, no one of note or rememberance bothers to support the Jesus Myth view.

Nathan