35
   

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God?

 
 
Smileyrius
  Selected Answer
 
  3  
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2015 09:14 am
@KoreanGodBeliever,
@KGB

A quick question my friend. do you believe in the trinity because of what you were taught in a prior faith, or because you have found scriptural evidence for it?
Smileyrius
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2015 09:59 am
@Leadfoot,
The Hebrews were quintessentially a conduit through which God would deliver his promised "seed", a covenant God had concluded with Abraham, Isaac and further king David. The mosaic law covenant was a temporary measure to keep that nation from descending into the chaos of the surrounding nations. Once Jesus, the promised seed was delivered, the covenant was complete and a new one was put in it's place.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2015 12:22 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
. . . I'm sure it was. God knew the law carved in stone was a lousy idea and wouldn't work, so I'm sure the plan to send his son was in the cards from the
beginning. But he still wanted us to learn it for ourselves. . . .
The law was necessary to identify the messiah. So, not a lousy idea. Just temporary.
KoreanGodBeliever
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2015 12:40 am
@Smileyrius,
I believe in the Holy Trinity because it says so in the Bible. Maybe due to prior faith in why I believe in the text. I've strayed from religion, but haven't strayed from the Bible as of yet.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2015 12:45 am
@KoreanGodBeliever,
KoreanGodBeliever wrote:
I believe in the Holy Trinity because it says so in the Bible. . .
Trinity? In the Bible? Where?
KoreanGodBeliever
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2015 01:21 am
@neologist,
Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
1 John 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 12:30 am
@neologist,
Quote:

Leadfoot wrote:
". . . I'm sure it was. God knew the law carved in stone was a lousy idea and wouldn't work, so I'm sure the plan to send his son was in the cards from the
beginning. But he still wanted us to learn it for ourselves. . . ."

Neo replied:
The law was necessary to identify the messiah. So, not a lousy idea. Just temporary.

I don't follow you there at all. The prophesies did that, the law had to be for another reason. From what I can tell, the law did them no good at all. It was so ineffective that Moses smashed them as soon as he came down from the mountain.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 01:05 am
@Leadfoot,
The law was more than the stone tablets. It's all the jots and tittles that aaccompanied it. The prophecies were important, of course, but only a perfect human could keep the law in its entirety. And by keeping the law, he was able to release us from it. That was the point behind the New Covenant Jesus instituted before his death.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 04:39 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
more than the stone tablets. It's all the jots and tittles that aaccompanied it. The prophecies were important, of course, but only a perfect human could keep the law in its entirety. And by keeping the law, he was able to release us from it. That was the point behind the New Covenant Jesus instituted before his death.
I've never understood any 'logic' of mainstream religions when it came to the 'mystical fix' of an action or event involving Jesus that magically puts in the 'fix' for us. Some religions believe it was his perfect life, others the fact of his spilled blood, neither of which makes sense to me. He was perfect before he came anyway, right? And the fact is, he did not keep the law and every jot & tittle perfectly anyway. I don't need to tell you how often he was criticized for 'breaking the law' by the legalistic Jews of his time. He did something very important for us but it wasn't keeping a bunch of arcane Mosaic laws. I doubt that would inspire anyone to follow his example.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 05:01 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
. . . And the fact is, he did not keep the law and every jot & tittle perfectly anyway. I don't need to tell you how often he was criticized for 'breaking the law' by the legalistic Jews of his time. He did something very important for us but it wasn't keeping a bunch of arcane Mosaic laws.
I think you may have missed the point. Jesus kept the Law. The Pharisees resented him for not keeping their traditions.

One particular aspect of the Law should be mentioned here. When the Jews performed ritual sacrifices, they were commanded to offer the best of their possessions:
First born animal with no defects, not crippled, etc.
So when God offered his first born, who had kept the Law perfectly, it fit the type prefigured by God's standards. You may ask why was perfection, the very best, required? The answer lies within the necessity of a complete answer to Satan's allegations.
From the beginning of Satan's rebellion, one of the foremost issues was the integrity of God's intelligent creation. It was highlighted in the case of Job. God allowed Satan to test him in an awful way; but Job endured without sinning against God. Jesus proved to be an even greater example. He was the perfect sacrifice and endured the worst Satan could inflict.

So, his perfect life, his suffering, his blood - all were necessary to provide the quintessential answer to Satan's challenge.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 05:13 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
I think you may have missed the point. Jesus kept the Law. The Pharisees resented him for not keeping their traditions

Horse ****. Keeping the sabbath was not just a 'Pharisee tradition'. Up until now I gave you more credit than this.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 05:24 pm
@Leadfoot,
I don't remember Jesus not keeping the Sabbath. Could you provide a citation?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 05:32 pm
@neologist,

Mark 2:23-28 KJV
[23] And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. [24] And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? [25] And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? [26] How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? [27] And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: [28] Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 06:08 pm
@Leadfoot,
I don't remember Jesus not keeping the Sabbath. Could you provide a citation?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 09:30 pm
@neologist,
Well I'll be damned. You really don't have a clue.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 11:47 pm
@Leadfoot,
I have an idea of what you may post. I just wanted you to say it.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2015 07:44 am
@KoreanGodBeliever,
KoreanGodBeliever wrote:

Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
1 John 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.



Neo?
neologist
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2015 08:43 am
@Leadfoot,
Still waiting for you to put your foot into it.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2015 09:03 am
@FBM,
Quote:

1 John 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The book also says a husband and wife shall be as one. Does anyone really believe that makes them a single being? The meaning is the same in both cases - that they are of one mind, i.e., stand for the same goals and ideas.

Sorry, couldn't resist.
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2015 09:07 am
@Leadfoot,
"are one" and "shall be as one" are not equivalent statements.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 08:04:12