Theological Opinions , PART II

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Lief, God is OUR father; there's no need for a Son of God in the Jesus sense. Every Shabbat, we recite a prayer that refers to him as "Avinu Malkenu" = Our Father, Our King in Hebrew.

And the prayer Jesus taught us to pray starts with, "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name." We pray to God as the Father just as you do. I also agree with you that God is all-sufficient- he doesn't need additional gods to back him up.

It's not a matter of God being insufficient alone and so needing Jesus too, from our perspective. Rather, it is our view that Jesus is simply part of God and a natural extension of him. As Jesus said when praying to the Father, "we are one." So saying that God doesn't need a Jesus is like saying, "I don't need my arms." It's not that God is weak and needs a buddy to back him up, but rather it's like us having received an increased knowledge of God's anatomy, and it's rather different from human anatomy.

The sun has radiation, light and energy. All three are one, in the sun. And it's not like saying that the sun has radiation means that the sun is insufficient without it- it's just describing in a bit more detail what the sun you have always known is.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

(not wishing to get into attempting to disprove the New Testament, which can only get me into trouble, given that there are about a billion Christians...)

I have no problem with your attempting to disprove the New Testament. I disagree with current Judaism, because I think it's incomplete. I disagree with everyone in the world who's not a Christian, about many significant points of religion, and I disagree with most Christians about many things as well. Disagreeing with people isn't a bad thing. Everyone doesn't have to be right. In fact, considering how many major contradictions there are between major world views, logically speaking, almost everyone has to be wrong on some things.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

there's no reason to see the Messiah as the Son of God or part of a godhead in the Old Testament, unless you reread New Testament ideas back into it.

You're ignoring all the scripture fulfillments I cited in my above post, though. Those are reasons from the Old Testament to see Jesus as the Messiah.

I agree with the Jewish view that God is your Father. Christians believe that God is our Father, as well, and we worship him that way. The prayer Jesus taught us starts with, "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name . . ."

Remember that Isaiah is part of the Old Testament, and in it, it says, "Unto us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." That Messianic prophecy says outright that the Messiah will be God, and that's from the Old Testament, not the new.

I cited many other Old Testament scriptures also that confirm Jesus as the Messiah. I'd love to go more into it, if you like . It's a wonderfully exciting subject, because the scriptural confirmation for Jesus and his ministry is astoundingly strong.

Originally Posted by biblebelievers.org

Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. The estimates were worked out by twelve different classes representing some 600 university students.

The students carefully weighed all the factors, discussed each prophecy at length, and examined the various circumstances which might indicate that men had conspired together to fulfill a particular prophecy. They made their estimates conservative enough so that there was finally unanimous agreement even among the most skeptical students.

However Professor Stoner then took their estimates, and made them even more conservative. He also encouraged other skeptics or scientists to make their own estimates to see if his conclusions were more than fair. Finally, he submitted his figures for review to a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation. Upon examination, they verified that his calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented (Peter Stoner, Science Speaks, Chicago: Moody Press, 1969, 4).

I believe that other mathematicians aside from Stoner have also made the calculations, and come up with about the same results as he has.

Stoner's calculations concluded that the probability of Jesus fulfilling by accident just eight of the prophecies he fulfilled in the scripture is one in one hundred million billion.

If each of those numbers was a silver dollar, they'd cover the whole state of Texas with a depth of two feet. Mark one silver dollar and have a blindfolded person pick one of the silver dollars up randomly, and that's the likelihood that Jesus would have had of fulfilling those 8 by accident, on his own.

Jesus fulfilled at least 48 prophecies that the Jews knew about and accepted as Messianic, at his time. There are actually about 300 prophecies from the Old Testament that he fulfilled, but many of the 300 aren't explicit and are arguable. The odds of an accidental fulfillment of the 48 accepted prophecies, however, are one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion,trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion.

The odds of him having accidentally fulfilled the 48 are the same as you randomly happening to pick the single right atom from all the atoms of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, billion universes the same size as our own.

More than one mathematician has gone over these statistics, and they carefully take into account only those prophecies were considered Messianic by the Jewish community at the time of Christ's fulfillment of them.

There were a number of prophecies Jesus didn't fulfill, because we think they relate to the Second Coming. Yet even if he missed fulfilling a bunch of prophecies at the time of his First Coming, that doesn't reduce the improbability that he could have fulfilled as many as he did.

Also, there have also been repeated debates in Rabbi circles that I've read about, in which they have struggled to get the picture of the suffering and dying Messiah described in Isaiah to fit with the picture of a triumphant militarily victorious Messiah presented in Zechariah. One Rabbi said in frustration, "It is as though the Old Testament describes two different comings!" That's not an exact quote, but that was the essentials of what he said. If you want me to provide a citation, I can try to do so. It'll take me a few days to get it to you because I don't have the book with me anymore and would have to get it back from my grandmother, but if you doubt me, I could try.

The Old Testament is an almost unbelievably remarkable canon of books, not only in terms of historical accuracy and spiritual richness, but also in terms of the precise accuracy of its prophetic fulfillment.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

As for the holy spirit, I assume you're looking at Psalm 51:[11] Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. But holy is an adjective. God's spirit, the spirit of God, the divine (literal) inspiration that is given to the blessed, is holy - it is a holy spirit. But it is not The Holy Spirit that Milton conceived of as brooding, dove-like on the abyss, nor the dove the descended at Jesus' baptism.

Remember that the Holy Spirit Milton described hovering over the abyss is based upon Genesis 1, which says that in the beginning there was darkness, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. That's what Milton was basing that imagery on.

Though I'm not trying to push this point. It's not anywhere near as important as the fact that God's name in the Old Testament is plural, that he refers to himself as plural, and that the prophecies not only point to Jesus but say in Isaiah 9 that the Messiah would be God.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

And on the other point, I'd say the current webpage of the Lutheran Synod of Missouri might be more recent than the 16th century, although it still holds 16th century beliefs (hey, Christianity's a 1st century belief, and Judaism older than that...)

Well of course they're going to have documents from their forebears on their websites. It doesn't mean they'll agree with every view all these forefathers say.

But would you provide a link to this site and to the document you're citing from it? You're getting me interested in really checking this out.

[Count Comfect]

Lief, again:
Messiah does not equal God except when you read the New Testament. Even the idea of the aspect of the son-as-God appears only in that quotation from Isaiah, and even there "his name shall be called," not he shall be. That's deliberately ambiguous.

I'm not saying your conception of God is that he's insufficient and needs Jesus. I know that you believe Jesus to be an inherent part of God. I'm just saying we don't, and that it yields a perfectly coherent reading of the Old Testament. OBVIOUSLY not of the New, nor of the Old-when-assuming-the-truth-of-the-New, but of the Old alone.

And calculations like your example are inherently bogus - first, where do you get your numbers from? people guessing how unlikely something is? second, you're assuming independent variables, without proving them. third, any 300 things are unlikely - hell, the 300 most likely things, say with probability 99%, are, if independent, less than 5% likely to ALL happen (.99^300 = .049). But I really don't care enough to argue whether Jesus is the Messiah, because your worldview is so clearly predicated on the idea that he is, and I will confess mine on the idea that he is not. If I can't get you to agree that homosexual marriage isn't harmful, what are my odds on "Christianity is false"?

As for those pesky Lutherans
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2217

[Butterbeer]

no offence -

but is there anyone else out there bored by all this??????

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

no offence -

but is there anyone else out there bored by all this??????

Probably "out there" . I don't know why people in here would be in here if they were bored. Purely out of curiosity, why are you in here, seeing as the thread bores you?

I don't generally do things that bore me, unless I have to.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Lief, again:
Messiah does not equal God except when you read the New Testament. Even the idea of the aspect of the son-as-God appears only in that quotation from Isaiah, and even there "his name shall be called," not he shall be. That's deliberately ambiguous.

Scriptural language isn't always the same as ordinary English, because it was originally written in a different language and time period. Hence it has a different style from the way we normally talk, often. Gilgamesh and Egyptian and Babylonian texts I've read also read differently from normal English. The Bible itself has a different style from modern writing that is clear and distinctive. Once in a Mythology class, we were asked to attempt to imitate the Bible's distinctive style and it was tricky work, for there were many differences between its form and that of modern English. That's common to ancient writing. That doesn't make it at all ambiguous- just a different style.

Besides, if one is calling someone's name Mighty God, one is calling the person Mighty God. Would you be comfortable with calling my name "Mighty God" instead of "Lief Erikson," in a serious rather than a humorous way?

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I'm not saying your conception of God is that he's insufficient and needs Jesus. I know that you believe Jesus to be an inherent part of God. I'm just saying we don't, and that it yields a perfectly coherent reading of the Old Testament. OBVIOUSLY not of the New, nor of the Old-when-assuming-the-truth-of-the-New, but of the Old alone.

I don't know a very large amount about Judaism, so lacking knowledge about your perceptions of God, it's kind of hard to respond. But I will think about this carefully and get back to you when I've finalized my thoughts.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

And calculations like your example are inherently bogus - first, where do you get your numbers from? people guessing how unlikely something is?

They're mathematicians and fully acquainted with how to calculate probability.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

second, you're assuming independent variables, without proving them.

Yes, this assumes a random fulfillment rather than a purposeful fulfillment. I already pointed out that many of the major prophecies wouldn't have been possible for Jesus to purposely fulfill, however.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

third, any 300 things are unlikely

I think we would probably agree, though, that some predicted events are more unlikely than others.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

- hell, the 300 most likely things, say with probability 99%, are, if independent, less than 5% likely to ALL happen (.99^300 = .049). But I really don't care enough to argue whether Jesus is the Messiah, because your worldview is so clearly predicated on the idea that he is, and I will confess mine on the idea that he is not. If I can't get you to agree that homosexual marriage isn't harmful, what are my odds on "Christianity is false"?

We weren't discussing whether or not Christianity was false, though. We were discussing whether or not the Old Testament contains passages that describe the Trinity or validate Christianity.

I agree that we both go into it with a lot of bias. I've seen huge amounts of evidence that I believe fully validate my position, and you may have seen the same for your position (I don't know your experiences or evidence). Yet we both worship the same God, do you agree? Perhaps if each of us prayed to him for one another and for ourselves that he would reveal himself more fully to us and would expose any wrongness in either of us on this matter, along with revealing new knowledge to both of us wherever we need it, he may intervene and bring us to greater understanding. I want him to reveal himself in new ways to both of us through this discussion. I long to know more of God, and if I'm making serious errors, I'll gladly pray that he'll reveal them to me. And I'd pray for you too, and you can pray for both you and me, that he will give us new knowledge.

And then each of us may carefully consider the other's arguments. We may try to attack one another's arguments as fully as we can, but this is fine, for if all the arguments and evidence have not been brought forward, there will always be barriers to any growth in understanding for whoever of us is wrong.

And of course each of us would enter it fully convinced that we're right. But maybe God will guide us to new knowledge, if we appeal to him in this way and then carefully consider one another's arguments.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

As for those pesky Lutherans
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2217

That is far from the position of the Lutheran denomination as a whole. In 1999, Lutherans and Catholics signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which "put to rest centuries of disagreement on the nature of salvation." The Pope said it was a significant step toward the achievement of deeper Christian unity. That agreement put away the disagreement between Luther and the Catholics, where Luther had contended that salvation came from faith alone, whereas the Catholics had contended that it was both faith and works (probably largely because of the Book of James). That essential dividing issue was ended. Now the Methodists are seeking to join that agreement as well.
http://www.thelutheran.org/article/a...rticle_id=5732

I see endeavors from both denominations in the articles of ECLA.org, that show that greater harmony and unity is continually sought between Lutherans and Catholics.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Even the idea of the aspect of the son-as-God appears only in that quotation from Isaiah

Here's another that indicates a Trinity:

Originally Posted by Psalms 110:1

The Lord says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

Note that this is full of a context in which the word "Lord," used dozens of times all around this verse, is used only in reference to God. Never is it used to refer to a human ruler in any of the verses anywhere close, though the word is to be found everywhere all around the verse in question. This is also someone David refers to as his Lord and so is superior to him. As king, David had no one superior to him except God. Yet "The Lord" speaks to "my Lord" and raises David's Lord to his right hand.

And here's another indicating the deity of the Messiah:

Originally Posted by Jeremiah 23:5-6

"The days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The Lord our Righteousness."

As with the verse from Psalms, you find this passage surrounded by many, many times in which the word "Lord" is used, and all of them in that context refer to God.

And an explicit passage on the plurality of God, not only in his name Elohim but in the pronouns he uses to describe himself. He is described here both as a "he" and as an "us," and "our."

Originally Posted by Genesis 1:26-27

Then Elohim said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So Elohim created man in his own image, in the image of Elohim he created him; male and female he created them.

These scriptures show the plurality of God, the Lord speaking to the Lord (both of whom are higher than David), and the Messiah's name being "The Lord our Righteousness," a claim that strongly indicates deity, especially when seen in the context of all the other uses of the word Lord in Jeremiah that cluster around that passage, and all are references to God.

[Count Comfect]

Lief; on Psalm 110, those are two different words for Lord; one of them is the one that cannot be spoken (ie God's name), and thus is translated Lord, the other the actual word for a lord; also, being at or aided by God's right hand is a trope for divine support throughout the Bible, not a literal description.

As for Jesus as the Messiah, show me a genealogy in which he is actually of the branch of David. The only one the New Testament provides is through Joseph, who happens not to be Jesus' father if you accept the rest of the New Testament.

As for being called, it's a typical Biblical poetic phrase - Jerusalem shall no longer be called desolate - and phrase for changes of name only - Abram shall be called Abraham. It does not mean he is God. And I wouldn't call you Mighty God (although that's just M'od-el) because I don't believe you're particularly close to either, no offense. Same as calling someone "Glory to God" when I don't think they glorify God...

EDIT: Also, el gibor (the hebrew in that Isaiah passage) can also be God IS mighty, being unhyphenated (unlike Shar-Shalom, prince of peace, which is hyphenated)

And what do you do with the child named "The spoil speedeth, the prey hasteth" in Isaiah chapter 8, right before chapter 9? Seems likely to me that both are metaphors, rather than actual children.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

They're mathematicians and fully acquainted with how to calculate probability.

Dr. Peter Stoner, from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Stoner

Dr. Peter Stoner, from a dear friend and brother in Faith(bottom of page)
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/NewsL.../JUNJUL80.html

Dr. Stoner's emeritus "Science" credit Westmont, today.
http://www.westmont.edu/

Westmont's Statement of Faith
http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/p..._of_faith.html

I'm sure "Dr." Stoner was a good old man and a dedicated teacher. But I don't have any reason to suppose he was a skilled mathematician.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

in all seriousness.

I very much doubt that you came to your identity as a Christian as a result of American Protestantism's beautiful command of the Scientific Method. If you're talking about a direct relationship with ineffable immanence, other issues are, and should be, imo, secondary. After all, a miracle is something which CANNOT be explained by more mundane methods.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

no offence -

but is there anyone else out there bored by all this??????

I'm not bored, but I'm really having trouble following this. What do you say you and I have a pint in the Teacup until the debate moves on to something we understand?

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'm not bored, but I'm really having trouble following this. What do you say you and I have a pint in the Teacup until the debate moves on to something we understand?

Hm. Might join you, and get a stiff drink. Need it for this sorta debate.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Christianity. Note that in the NSRI and ARIS studies, based on self-identification, Christianity includes: Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Methodist/Wesleyan, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Pentecostal/Charismatic, Episcopalian/Anglican, Mormon/Latter-day Saints/LDS, Churches of Christ, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh-Day Adventist, Assemblies of God, Holiness/Holy, Congregational/United Church of Christ, Church of the Nazarine, Church of God, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical, Mennonite, Christian Science, Church of the Brethren, Born Again, Nondenominational Christians, Disciples of Christ, Reformed/Dutch Reformed, Apostolic/New Apostolic, Quaker, Full Gospel, Christian Reform, Foursquare Gospel, Fundamentalist, Salvation Army, Independent Christian Church, Covenant Church, Jewish Christians, plus 240,000 adults classified as "other" (who did not fall into the preceding groups). "

Yep, and most assuredly sociologists are the best equipped persons to determine who is and is not Christian.

So. You've, personally, eliminated Mormons. Then there's folks who don't support your view of the Trinity as essential doctrine. That would include Christian Unitarians, Christian Scientists, the Society of Friends, Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentacostals.

That is basically the reason to eliminate someone as Christian, rejection of the Trinity.

Is the Westboro Baptist Church Christian?

As far as I know, sadly, yes.

I rather think calling the papacy the antichrist counts as calling Catholics unChristian

Actually, it doesn't.

Both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses come from some kind of "Gnostic" seed or other, so technically, they're heretics.

Mormonism, sure, but JW is more Arian. But anyway, they are not heretics. This is a pet peeve of mine, that people speak of the Arian heretics. But to be a heretic requires to be a Christian rejecting some part of the defined faith, whereas to be Christian requires to believe in the Trinity, so that a non-Trinitarian is not a heretic.

Ari, JW's reject the divinity of Christ. They say he is essentially a Christian synonymous with St. Michael.

Mormons think they're Christian. The Pew Research Council thinks they're Christian. The National Survey of Religious Identification thinks they're Christian. The American Religious Identity Survey thinks they're Christian.

The only one of those that matters counts for more than a fig is the Mormons themselves, but they are just plain wrong.

WHAT GIVES YOU PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO PASS JUDGEMENT ON THEIR IDENTITY?

How about being the single oldest religion to lay claim to Christianity?

[hectorberlioz]

Ahem, superfluous quoting there...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

How about being the single oldest religion to lay claim to Christianity?

I'm new, here. That would be The Roman Catholic Church? Or an Orthodox church?

I've heard all kinds of folks claim to be Christian, or claim to be the oldest, or most correct, or whatever brand of Christian.

Fortunately for me, I know that God will be the judge of that.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Mormonism, sure, but JW is more Arian. But anyway, they are not heretics. This is a pet peeve of mine, that people speak of the Arian heretics. But to be a heretic requires to be a Christian rejecting some part of the defined faith, whereas to be Christian requires to believe in the Trinity, so that a non-Trinitarian is not a heretic.

Arius WAS a heretic, maybe not on the technicality of the trinity...
And anyways, seeing as how he didn't believe in Christ's full divinity, how could he fully believe in the Trinity?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I've heard all kinds of folks claim to be Christian, or claim to be the oldest, or most correct, or whatever brand of Christian.

So you challenge history itself?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

What category would someone volunteer for people who believe they are being personally saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, but don't meet these other standards someone includes?

I'm not asking if you believe they ARE in fact saved, because then we get into Universalism, and I don't have the energy. But if their religion is Christo-centric, what would they be called?

[hectorberlioz]

Is Mormonism Christo-centric? Not from what I know...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

So you challenge history itself?

Constantly. But in this case I'm questioning whether we're not looking at two separate standards. It seems like "definition of Bible" "definition of Christian" are categories that fall here into "majority rules".

But if Truth is Eternal, and I, personally believe it is, then Man's judgement, even over a period of hundreds of years, or in large groups, or accompanied by incense and holy music, doesn't really count for much on this issue. Only God's Judgement does.

And the question of how we, failable as we are, get any kind of a handle at all on the nature of God's Judgement, does not seem to me as easily resolved as some of these posts seem to assume.

I'm a "Pray for mercy, not for justice" type from the get-go, but the tone of this, honestly, upsets me. I think a lot of people are going to be surprised, at judgement.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Is Mormonism Christo-centric? Not from what I know...

But there are big pictures of the Dude on the website.

[hectorberlioz]

...centric? I'll look it up on Google...

[Count Comfect]

So Gwai, if calling the chief priest of another sect the ANTICHRIST isn't calling them unchristian, what is? Because I always thought following the orders of the antichrist would've been somewhat, I dunno, anti-christian? By definition?