david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (12/26/83)
Larry West asks some very valid questions about the nature of the Trinity. I will answer them as best I can. If I am mistaken in my explanations, hopefully someone will rush to my aid. > 1) So why wasn't Christ mentioned earlier in the Bible? By earlier I assume you mean the Old Testament. Christ is referenced many times (esp. in Isaiah). The Messiah is depicted both as a suffering servant and as a redeeming King. During the time of Jesus, the Jews were expecting the conquer- ing King to free them from their Roman bondage; this was one of the reasons Jesus was rejected as the Son of God. Now, I think that a Jew would disagree with me here; I do not believe that they think the Messiah has arrived yet. But you wanted a Christian response. > 2) What was HE doing before coming to earth? > 3) What exactly do you believe the Trinity to be? > 4) Are God and Christ two separate individuals [in your view] or two > facets of the same being? I am going to try all of these at once. The Trinity is a difficult concept for both Christians and non-Christians alike. Christians are fond of using analogies (understanding some Christian doctrine is like explaining "up" to a Flatlander), so maybe this will help. There are three forms of water: solid, liquid, and gas. The three facets of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) may be likened to them. They appear totally different, each has a different function, but they are all the same thing. But this is a crude analogy. If it helps you to understand, use it. If it doesn't, drop it. > 5) Why the emphasis on the Father/Son relationship between God/Christ > if in fact they are supposed to be "the same"? Or rather, what > is the meaning of the terms Father and Son in this case? The greek word used most often by Jesus when he referred to himself as the "Son of man" or the "Son of God" is 'huios', which loosely translated into English means son, but emphasizes the idea of relationship, and considers especially the inward, ethical, and legal aspects. Father/Son best describes the relationship between these two facets of God in a manner that we can understand. > 6) Did God exist before Christ? No. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John uses the greek "logos" (word), which means something said (including the thought or *expression* of the thought). John is referring to Jesus here (Jesus being the outward expression of God's love for mankind). There is a dependency here, though, that (again) can best be explained by (a stolen) analogy: picture two books, one on top of another, resting on a tabletop. Now imagine that these books have been in this position forever; they have always been this way. The top book has a position which is dependent on the lower book; it could not be there but for the lower book. > 7) Given the existence of God/Christ, is it unlikely that the Father/Son > relationship is a convenient fiction [like 'good' and 'evil'] used > to convey the closeness of Jesus to God? That is, since I doubt > anyone will respond to #5 by saying that God literally fathered Christ, > is the Father/Son relationship more symbolic than literal? This > question is probably more pertinent to those who believe in the > absolute literal truth of the Bible. God did literally father Christ through the Holy Spirit (virgin Mary, etc.) I do not doubt that there is symbolism there, but the Virgin birth was an essential part of God's plan of salvation. All of the Christmas stories in the gospels tell that Jesus was concieved of the Holy Spirit. Larry has a second article which I will also respond to here. > How does this fit in with the obvious personality changes God goes > through as the Old Testament progresses? > (mentioned is made of Pharaoh here) In Exodus 7, God appears to make Pharaoh do what He wants and then blow him away. Three words are used for the hardening of Pharaoh's heart: 'hazaq', "to be or make strong" (7:13,22; 8:19); 'kabed', "to be or make heavy, slow to move" (7:14, 8:15,32); and 'qasha', "to harden" (7:3). King James makes it difficult to understand that, for the most part, Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Only in verse 7:3 does it clearly state that it was God that did the hardening. Even then, an acceptable translation would be to "allow to be hardened" (or, in reverse, "not to soften"). The means by which God hardened Pharaoh's heart doesn't necessarily mean any sort of divine intervention. Most probably, Pharaoh's heart was hardened just as men's hearts are hardened today: thrugh the principles and character of human nature. If you were Pharaoh, King of all Egypt, and an old man in rags ordered you to release your entire work force, would you do it? Moses asked Pharaoh to give up quite a lot, and in return offered him nothing (except maybe a good feeling). > If this is just a matter of how God chooses to reveal himself, > why do you think that the picture of God painted by Jesus is any > more accurate than that painted in the Old Testament? The answer to this stems from an answer to an earlier question. Jesus had firsthand knowledge of His Subject. > And why the two-thousand year absence of any (direct) signs of God > -- compared with the previous two thousand during which [if you believe > what the Yahvehists wanted people to believe] he interfered in wars and > personal affairs so (relatively) frequently. The answer to this will have to be a personal one, and may not reflect the truth or what other Chistians believe; but this is one Christian perspective. The period of time known as the "law and the prophets" (the earlier 2000 years) was a time that God was attempting to show man that he could not make it by himself; you had to pay for your mistakes by such-and-such a sacrifice. The bigger the mistake, the bigger the sacrifice. Finally, God sent His last word on the subject; His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice to pay for all mistakes. During the second 2000 years, God is giving man a chance to accept His offer or reject it. But He has to prove to mankind, once and for all, that we are lost without Him. Thus, God will let mankind work his way to the brink of Armageddon before intervening again. (How this will happen is greatly disputed among Christians today. But the important thing is to be on the right side when it happens). > I'm also curious as to why this should be so: why shouldn't Christianity > change? Why shouldn't God change? Is he incapable of learning? > ( That question assumes a belief in something resembling "free will", > such that God doesn't know what people will do; otherwise, of > course, everything we talk about in net.religion is moot. ) One of the tenets of the Christian faith is that Christ is the same "yesterday, today, and forever." Psalm 147:5 indicates that God's understanding is infinite. I suppose He is incapable of learning as there is nothing that He doesn't know. A personal belief of mine is that God exists outside of Time (that explains a lot of things, like perfect prophecy, etc.). This implies that God knows what people are going to do. He sees you becoming a Christian 10 years from now, or He sees you dying in a car accident 5 years from now. But seeing someone do something is not making them do it. > Was Jesus then not in direct communication with his "cosmic self"? > ( Since he was in human form, and part of being human is changing. ) > If he wasn't, was he then perhaps subject to human mistakes and > misapprehensions? I lumped these together because I do not understand what you mean by the term, "cosmic self"; God? Holy Spirit? Or is this a non-Christian term? I need a definition to continue. > If he was not truly here in limited human form, what is the point of > his death? The heart of Christianity. The animals used in the sacrifices I mentioned earlier had to be "without blemish". God allowed the "clean" animal to take the blame for whoever it was being sacrificed for; the sins were transferred from the man to the animal (and, in reverse, the cleanliness of the animal was transferred to the man). Jesus, our sacrifice, was also without sin; in order for us to be acceptable to God, we must accept Christ as having taken our sins upon himself. The gravity of the situation becomes apparent when you realize that Jesus took upon himself the blame of the billions of people who have inhabited this planet. Such a weight would destroy a mortal man; it could only be endured by Jesus' infinite love for mankind. > And how can he sit in judgement over those with whom he > shares so little --> no pain, no learning, no uncertainty, no fear, > no lust, no love of another member of the same species... Precisely the reason God had to become man. The pain of the crucifixion was very intense, not from just a physical point of view (it was), but from a spiritual point of view. Jesus, who was without sin, and who knew the love of God more than any man, was made sin for us, and was rejected by God so that Jesus could accept the blame. God loved mankind so much He allowed Himself to be literally torn apart. As for the other catagories (learning, uncertainty, fear, lust, love), they cannot be lumped together, at least from a Christian point of view. Jesus was a man, and was subject to the same temptations that all men are subjected to. He was undoubtedly tempted by many women; where Jesus differed from all other men is that He did not give in to temptation (this would exclude lust, or at least my definition of it). Uncertainty and fear? Mark 14:36 leads me to believe otherwise. > And while I'm rambling, what is the point of allowing the "devil" > (for those of you who believe in his existence) to do his evil work, > other than to test humans? Why should we be concerned about the > devil when he's actually acting on behalf of God? The second question is badly worded, for it assumes that "God's purpose for Satan is to test human beings". It presents God and Satan as some sort of team to test humans, which is not the Christian viewpoint. God and Satan are diametrically opposed. Satan rebelled against God, because he didn't like the way God was running the show. He was, in fact, jealous of God; he wanted to take over. God, of course, "threw the bum out". (I am reminded of the lines spoken by Khan in Star Trek II, from Milton; they are very moving, and suggest very well what Satan was probably thinking). Satan is acting on behalf of himself, not God. Misery loves company. Satan hates for hate's sake; the idea that God will allow some puny humans to enter the heavenly kingdom infuriates him. Add to that the fact that we will have a status higher than he had when he "got the axe" probably makes him worse. He will do anything to keep as many of us as he can away from that which he has been denied (If I can't have it, you can't have it). > And why on earth do some Christians seem to think that being told > that a policy "accept Jesus into your heart or burn in hell for > eternity" is a policy of love? (And what a choice you're offered!) I have already explained the nature of God's love in the crucifixion of Jesus. The choice we are offered is to love Him or to reject Him. But I think your feelings stem from a misunderstanding of what it means to be a Christian, as if to "accept Jesus into your heart" is something terrible. The reasons people think it so are many. Some, I suppose, think that their entire lifestyle will be reorganized instantly and they will be turned into a mindless robot reciting Scripture all day. Personally, I feel that when you become a Christian you become more yourself than ever before. As you allow God to infiltrate your heart and boot out all of your vanities, blindly accepted social values (you get a lot of these from movies), prejudices and external influences, more and more of the real person called Dave Norris or Larry West will emerge, unfettered by such chains. > Yes, David Norris did not say "God does not change". Another > question: how does "God" differ from "Christianity (the truth)", > if either of those terms has any meaning for you? Larry, the statement directs the question at net.religion in general, but I will accept it as being directed to me. But I think I have already answered it in my discussion of the Trinity. > A final question: if you're one who believes that God is beyond > our understanding ["the Lord works in mysterious ways"], why > do you believe (if you do) that the God conceived by Christians > is anything more than a small fraction of his true essence? How > do you know that the Buddhists and Muslims aren't just approaching > God [far beyond our understanding, remember] from a different path? John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life, but he who disobeys the Son will not see life but God's wrath upon him." Rom 10:9 "that if you confess with your lips the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." I cite these verses only to indicate that the Christian God is not the same as the gods of other religions. There are basic doctrinal differences between Christianity and other religions. Remember, Christianity teaches that there is nothing man can do in and of himself to obtain salvation; it is the free gift of God. Most other religions teach some method, or ceremony, or something that will "punch your ticket". But Christians do not believe that God is beyond our understanding. 1 Cor. 2:12 "Now we have recieved, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." God is not far beyond our understanding. He is as close to you as your own heart. So here is one response to your questions, Larry. I hope my bumbling explanations have not been *too* amusing, and that somebody out there got something out of this. -- David Norris -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
smb@ulysses.UUCP (01/01/84)
Certainly an interesting exposition of one view of Christianity. To be
sure, many of the doctrines stated by David Norris are not shared by
all Christians, either today or historically. But I wanted to raise a
different point this time: it would be a mistake to attach too much
meaning to the exact words of Jesus as given in Greek. After all, he
spoke Aramaic; even assuming that the transcriptions are exact, we must
consider the problem of translation. Whoever wrote the Greek version may
have had an imperfect understanding of Aramaic, or the two languages may
not have the same concepts. David cited a similar problem in the King
James translation of certain Hebrew phrases; I see no reason to believe
that the same couldn't happen in the Gospels. It's interesting to note
the one phrase that *is* rendered in Aramaic: "Eli, Eli, lamah samachthani?"
("My Lord, my Lord, why have You forsaken me?") A professor of Judaic
studies (secular outlook) at Chapel Hill once remarked to me that that
outcry must have *really* impressed Jesus' followers, to have been preserved
in its original form rather than simply be translated.laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/02/84)
Did you know that this business of viewing the Trinity as water/ice/steam is an explicit heresy called modalism? I can post more details if you are interested... It was punishable by excommunication and death as well... I am taking a whole battery of Christian Theology courses at university right now. The more I study the more I see that most of the Christians I know take whatever they like about Christianity and define this to be Christianity. This is conveninet if you want to forget about the things you don't like about Christianity. As classes go on I see more and more shocked faces as the Christians who are also taking this courses find that their cherished beliefs are actually heresies. Some of these people are seriously reexamining their faith. Some are claiming that the professor is lying, though he keeps producing the original references and photocopies of documents which does wonders for laying this one to rest. The Protestants are often caught saying that these are all Catholic problems which will get cleared up by the Reformation. (this is the opinion of my tutor, by the way). I came to a certain set of conclusions a long time ago, but they are really being driven home now. The first is that religion is not good for everybody. This of course is a real problem for those who believe that there is only one life time and that one will be judged by one's "faith", but the alternative is to let the ignorant use their religion to do horrible things which is, in my opinion, far worse. What I cannot understand is why people would prefer to not view the horrible aspects of their religion and keep a 'good-bits' verison which they consider the real religion as opposed to rejecting the whole thing outright. There are other things which I find hard to understand. For instance, of the 30 people that started the tutorial with me (the tutorial is down to 10 people now) only 5 of us had actually read the Gospel of Mark. Of the 5, there is pagan me and a Jewish theology student, and 3 Christians. I wonder what the other 25 actually do as Christians? From what I have observed, they do not know a single thing about Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Judaism, Islam of Confucianism, which puts them out of tough with a great deal of religious thought. I cannot see that they know much about Christianity -- for instance they could not tell the difference between the Greek Orthadox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, which is a pretty fundamental split. However, they were perfectly willing to tell the Jewish Theology Student why he ought to be a Christian. Eventually, he gave up and dropped the course. This struck me as a very good version of "the grass is greener on MY side of the fence". With 2 notable exceptions (my tutor was NOT one of them) none of these people knew very much about Judaism. They said things that *I* knew were wrong, and I am not exactly an expert... Now the firghtening thing is that these people are the people who are interested enough in their religion to take a university course in it (or perhaps they thought it would be an easy credit?). Now what this says about the people who consider themselves good Christians who didn't think that it was worth the effort is rather frightening to consider. Misinformation spreads. My tutor is getting his Masters degree in Christianity and is training to get his own Church. I had to explain to him that the Temple in Jerusalem was not just another synagogue.... I am wondering why the various Christian Churches put up with and encourage these uneducated sort of Christians? I should theink that they would be the ones that would give the religion a bad name and so should be weeded out, but this does not seem to be happening. Indeed, Christians seem to, if anything, be becoming more lenient in outlook and producing the lowest-common denominator type religion. The people taking this course claim that their Churches do not give any instruction beyond the sort they give children, which will not help the problem. I get the impression that it is the Christian attitude that it is better that they be lousy Christians than not-Christians. Of course, this is not the first think which comes to mind when I question the wisdom of Christianity but I do find it extremely strange. Is there any reason why bad Christians are better than non-Christians that i have missed? I can't find any. In fact, I would think that the non-Christians would be better off under certain versions of Christianity, since Limbo, while not considered a great place, is not Hell. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
mark@utzoo.UUCP (mark bloore) (01/02/84)
from utcsstat!laura: > What I cannot understand is why people would prefer to not view the horrible > aspects of their religion and keep a 'good-bits' verison which they consider > the real religion as opposed to rejecting the whole thing outright. but they still NEED a religion. if they reject one they must find or create another. i suspect that most people would find it easier to modify an existing (and familiar) one than construct a new one from whole cloth. thus churches tend to reproduce themselves. > I get the impression that it is the Christian attitude that it is better that > they be lousy Christians than not-Christians. . . . Is there any reason > why bad Christians are better than non-Christians that i have missed? it depends on your point of view. if you want a good church then lousy christians are a nuisance at best. if you look not at the goodness of churches but just their existence then things may be different. if everyone were thoughtful and cared to examine their beliefs closely then "good" churches would prosper, but of course most people don't behave this way. a church must have followers, and it is useful to have many of them, since they will do such things as getting more followers, and giving the church financial and physical security. these things do not depend on the theological quality of the church-goers, and so it is better to have many lousy christians than few good ones (and given what i said above, that is the choice). there may well be churches which prefer non-christians to lousy ones, but they will tend to be small, and perhaps short-lived, churches. i am not saying that church leaders deliberately plan how to get the most converts and the most money. it is not necessary, and probably not desirable, that they do so. those churches which are good convert makers, for whatever reasons, will tend to expand, while the others flourish briefly and disappear. if you detect a strong flavour of darwinism in the above, it is no coincidence. any collection of entities which must struggle for survival and which modify or reproduce themselves will inevitably display natural selection and evolution. theology is a survival mechanism for churches just as head hair is for humans. neither is very important. mARK bLOORE univ of toronto {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!mark