I am inclined to Jew's version

[Krill]

WTFp?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
It would be also interesting if Jesus himself (according to the bible) said that he, god and the holy spirit are the same, or if this is just a later interpretation and there is no account in the bible of Jesus himself claiming to be god (and the holy spirit) himself.

I mean, most accounts seeem to point to the latter direction,
especially the "Eli Eli, lama sabachtani" that Jesus according to John has cried out at the cross.
If Jesus is god, that means he has left himself?

These things were asked and talked about in theological cricles for almost 2000 years. I would recommend that you and Pekka and others who are interested read some.

It is true that the trinity is just the explanation that many Christian groups came up with for the divinity of Christ. He definitely used language associated with God. But again, this is all talked about, in great detail, by theologians for almost 2000 years.

There are Christian groups that aren't trinitatarrian btw. While most Nicene churchs think that it is key (mine doesn't, of course, mine wasn't trinitarrian for a while), it isn't key to Christianity as a whole.

JM

[Pekka]

No I'm not interested in reading the interpretations of theologians. It is taught as it is.

It IS the key to whole Christianity, because it divides people that go to heaven or hell. If it isn't the holy trinity, then Jesus isn't the son of God, as in God. He'd be just a man, or perhaps a prophet.

[Jon Miller]

That is why I told you to read some theology. How can you say it is this or that if you aren't educated? There is a whole range of interpretations that aren't trinittarian and aren't Jesus was just a prophet.

Even just reading Wiki would inform you a little. As it is, there are so many misinformed statements in your posts in this thread that I don't even know where to begin.

JM

[Jon Miller]

How long have you spent studying information security? How long have you spent studying Christology? At least be familiar with what the discussion is actually about before you make grandios statements.

JM

[Jon Miller]

A place to begin in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology

JM

[Pekka]

Then don't begin.

What makes you the authority? You just said there are millions of interpretations! Why should YOU be right? I can read the Bible myself. What makes theologians right or educated about the issue? Is there a consensus? It doesn't even matter what they think, because the church teaches the holy trinity, that's the only thing that matters.

Hey, I can be fairly sure and say holy trinity is bunch of balony. There is no one truth, ok? It doesn't matter what bunch of people think, that well it's not really taht way and we are Christians and we say it is also Christian to think Jesus as something else. That's not the point, the point is the church teaches this kind of stuff. It's the exact point I'm making, that it sounds like a man made riddle, and it is used because it gives them power.

[onodera]

Actually, Holy Trinity was invented by theologists (see Nicaea councils) to explain controversial Jesus' sayings. According to Christianity, the Bible cannot be wrong, so if Jesus says he's God in one place and that he's his son in another, he must be true both times. The same with his dual nature.
Actually, if you ignore everything the theologists have written, and if you also ignore everything by St. Paul (I mean, he hasn't even been a real apostle!), then real Christianity starts to look like another Apocalyptic cult.

[Jon Miller]

Do you go through and make grand statements about information security without studying? Should I say "the key to information security is for everyone to use 8 character passwords with completely random letters and numbers"... would my statements be at all informed? People have thought about information security, studied it, and so their perspectives (even if wrong) are worth understanding.

Same with sociology, psychology, science, and mathematics.

And yet you feel comfortable without any understanding of the positions (Because what your statements of the church's official positions are wrong, you obviously don't know them or have read them) making statements about them. This is complete ignorance.

JM

[Pekka]

Right. Thus the statement that it looks like people with funny hats.

Christianity is the most adaptable religion there is. You can take ANY issue, turn it against the teachings and form your own church and still be Christian. Just look at all the cliques there is. It makes absolutely no sense, there has to be few key issues, I think this is one.

I'm not saying that people aren't realy Christian. And there might be churches and schools of thought where holy trinity is overturned or explained in other ways. However, it is the only thing that would make him son of God. And no, a quotation by some old person with a wild interpretatin in a form of a poem won't make it any different. This is a key issue and if this turns out to be false, then the son of God issue is challenged at that very second. AND THAT is the key to Christianity, that Jesus is the son of God. If you deny Jesus, you aren't going to make it, that's the key!

People can go and trivialize this issue all they want, but this is what Christianity as mainstream teaches.

And I'm much more inclined to think that Jesus was just a man or perhaps a prophet. I'm not denying religion, I'm saying that I find the Jew version much more sensible.

[Pekka]

JM, Dude, we are talking about R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N! I'm not claiming anything, except that by logical sequences of thought the holy trinity makes absolutely no sense.

Hey guess what, you can do it in science as well!

Oh and would you like to see my calculations as to the odds of holy trinity being a scam? that's going to be very valid science alright.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Do you go through and make grand statements about information security without studying? Should I say "the key to information security is for everyone to use 8 character passwords with completely random letters and numbers"... would my statements be at all informed? People have thought about information security, studied it, and so their perspectives (even if wrong) are worth understanding.

Same with sociology, psychology, science, and mathematics.

And yet you feel comfortable without any understanding of the positions (Because what your statements of the church's official positions are wrong, you obviously don't know them or have read them) making statements about them. This is complete ignorance.

JM

Well if they are going to make assumptions like the Bible can not be wrong then why should we concern ourselves with what they say?

[Pekka]

Also, I'm not stating what the truth of the issue is, but neither can you, now can you? Or theologians for that matter.

If you want to know the password issue in security, hey, in that I AM an authority. We can calculate the strength of certain rules that are used, but we also know that it isn't so simple, because people forget difficult passwords and attach post it notes next to their computers, totally making it a moot thing. There are other ways of authentication as well, would you like to hear about them? I can give you a lecture about biometrics if you're interested, or other methods of authentication, or we can go and learn how to calculate the strength of passwords?

You see the difference is these things are FACTS. As in real science.

And even if I wasn't in the field, I can still QUESTION the paradigm, I can still make suggestions, or think that something is completely false. And even in this scientific field things sometimes turn out to be otherwise. But you see, if I challenge something, I have to proceed in scientific process to show what I did and it has to be proven right and pass the peer review.

In religion? Impossible. Hey this is becoming a joke, let's not go over the "but you can't prove Jesus isn't the son of God".

[Jon Miller]

Once more, read some of the thought out there. There is a whole lot of it.

And the aspects of religion that are still commonly held are the ones that resist experimental validation. This makes atheists/agnostics/deists.

Anyways, how easy would it be to just read the Wiki and inform yourself to what is out there? I Am not even saying read some books (Although you should, and so should I, I am not an expert).

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Well if they are going to make assumptions like the Bible can not be wrong then why should we concern ourselves with what they say?

Even with that assumption there are many interpretations. Just like for any book.

JM