The Bible Denies the Divinity of Jesus

[mobkem]

This article contains the following seven arguments which prove that the Bible denies the divinity of Jesus:


1) None of the Bible’s Writers Believed That Jesus is God

2) Evidence From the Acts of the Apostles

3) Jesus is Not All-Powerful, and Not All-Knowing

4) The Greatest Commandment in the Bible

5) Paul Believed That Jesus is not God

6) Evidence from the Gospel of John

7) God and Jesus Are Two Separate Beings



You can follow from here:
http://bit.ly/76KYFb

[bernee51]

Proof of non-existence – hmm.

Is there proof that Zeus does not exist? What about Odin? Do you allow the existence of these two.

There is abundant evidence of the existence of the god of Abraham as a concept – none as an extant being.

Ah, yes. The old 'you can't prove a negative.' Nor, it seems, can you prove the ultimate positive. For that matter, you can't prove the existence of what theoretically must compose 80% of the universe -- not to digress from the topic, however.

It seems we're at something of an impasse. An age-old one, at that.

It appears that we must either give, or withhold, our assent regarding a basic proposition: that God exists. Obviously, whether or not we assent to that proposition has nothing to do with the actual existence of God, whether positive or negative. But it has everything to do with the underlying assumptions that we will adopt to inform our hermeneutics, our exegesis, our ontology, our philosophy, our science -- our worldview.

That is precisely the point.

If the believer acts as if their god is real - no matter what the god concept - then, for all intents and purposes, that god is indeed real.

My worldview sees no need or reason for nor evidence of any god. I do not act as if any god exists – ergo no god is real.

This too does not mean no god exists. There may very well be a god who created the universe as we know it and has since had no further interaction - perhaps it was consumed by the act of creation.

As to specific gods of who specific claims are made I see no difference between your god and Zeus – other than the claims made, by mankind, on its behalf.

Some of these claims – for example that of a perfect (and therefore unchanging) deity – are logically incoherent – meaning that specific god concept is describing a logical impossibility.

That, to my mind, is evidence of non-existence of that deity.

Just as two scientists with differing underlying assumptions can look at the same geological evidence and produce two widely divergent explanations in regard to it, two textual critics can come to opposite conclusions regarding ancient texts, be they Scriptural or apocryphal.

For instance, a textual critic operating under the assumption that God doesn't exist views the ancient writings as essentially "dead" -- fossilized thoughts captured on paper of men's ideas about things that never actually existed -- e.g., the myth referred to by Cathar. He is then free to speculate and produce daring theories about how those myths developed, what they reveal about the culture that produced them, etc. -- the "cheap crop of the fall publishing list."

The believer, because he looks upon the Biblical writings as being "alive" -- the "Living Word" -- is able to take a wider view. He is able to view the formalization of the canon (that had long been widely accepted, with certain variations) at Nicaea as part of the infinite intricacy of God's will. He is able to embrace what the Scriptures say today as much or more as what they said at the time of their writing. He is astounded at their imperishable depth and meaning, both in general terms and in terms of his own and countless other lives.

Or a wider view still can be taken and writings be seen as evidence of and a guide to the evolution of belief which remains relevant to society today – i.e. are ‘living’. It can show that the later monotheisms are a syncretism of earlier patterns of belief – both theistic and secular.

And he is satisfied that the use of the term "begotten" denotes procreation, or "like begetting like" as it is used in the genealogies, so that when God gave His only begotten Son, that is the closest analogy and description in human language of what cannot otherwise be adequately expressed, the eternal co-existence of the first two Persons of the Holy Trinity: God (the father) and Jesus Christ (the begotten Son).

The concept of the trinity is evidence of the syncretic nature of Christianity. Long before the trinity was described in the christian tradition the Vedas held the concept of the knower (The father), the known (the son) and the act of knowing (the spirit). These moved into Hindism as Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the preserver) and Shiva (the destroyer).

The syncretism is noticed even in the very beginnings of the bible in the tale of Adam and Eve - the Vedas, for example, tell of the Tree of Jiva and Atman

[Volbrigade]

So according to the believer and their esoteric satisfaction it is meaningless.
So why claim "What is "begotten" (not "created") by God is God" when it is not only wrong when related to anything other then your inability to express what you don't and can't understand because it is a mystery? Your not just preaching you are tossing around believer buzz words as if they were somehow true when they can't even make sense to you...

Cathar, please don't think I'm being disrespectful by stating that the precise meaning of your post is a mystery to me, as well. What's clear is that you disagree with my assertion regarding the "begotten" nature of Jesus.

It seems your claim is that because neither I -- nor anyone else -- can fully understand, or explain, that begotten nature -- or, more accurately, supernature -- then it is therefore untrue.

But that argument is without merit. Neither I, nor anyone else, can fully explain the mechanism of a hydrogen atom, or quantum physics -- but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Metaphors are helpful in grasping the concepts of each, but the reality is beyond human explanation.

It is the same, only infinitely more so, with the Triune nature of God. Metaphors can illuminate to a certain degree, but they are woefully inadequate. A classic one is the illustration of two books, A and B, existing for all time with B resting on top of A. B's position has eternally been dependent on A, but there has never been a time when both didn't co-exist. In this metaphor, God the father is A, and God the Son is B.

But that metaphor is in actuality inferior to the Father/Son one, for a variety of reasons.
__________________________

Bernee --

This too does not mean no god exists. There may very well be a god who created the universe as we know it and has since had no further interaction - perhaps it was consumed by the act of creation.

As to specific gods of who specific claims are made I see no difference between your god and Zeus – other than the claims made, by mankind, on its behalf.

Some of these claims – for example that of a perfect (and therefore unchanging) deity – are logically incoherent – meaning that specific god concept is describing a logical impossibility.

I think it goes (almost) without saying that we need not be troubled with the god of the second sentence quoted above. As to the Jehovah/Jesus -- Zeus comparison; I don't think there really is one. And whether the "claims made on (Jehovah God's) behalf" are by man or by God himself is far from a settled issue -- as this forum provides evidence of. As has been pointed out on this thread: claiming something is so, doesn't make it so.

As to the "logically incoherent/impossibiltiy": Perhaps so. But so is the universe leaping into existence from nothing, and without a primary cause. However, I don't consider God to be logically incoherent. I consider Him to be the author of logic, and therefore transcendent to it; just as He is the author of Time, and therefore transcends time.

A God that could be fully grasped and understood by men wouldn't be God, would he? And how do you expect to fit the ocean of His presence into the teacup of your mind?

The concept of the trinity is evidence of the syncretic nature of Christianity. Long before the trinity was described in the christian tradition the Vedas held the concept of the knower (The father), the known (the son) and the act of knowing (the spirit). These moved into Hindism as Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the preserver) and Shiva (the destroyer).

The syncretism is noticed even in the very beginnings of the bible in the tale of Adam and Eve - the Vedas, for example, tell of the Tree of Jiva and Atman

Isn't it interesting how everywhere you look, you see the Truth of Christianity? All religions and cultures -- with the exception of the recent coinage of modern materialistic atheism -- express to varying degrees some aspect of The Truth, however much "through a glass darkly"; e.g., the Fertility God who dies and is resurrected on a seasonal basis being a faint precursor of the Risen Lord. And, of course, even atheism is a reaction against theism, and is in that sense dependent on it.

The triune nature of the Hindu godhead is therefore not surprising. Nor the fact that it predates Christianity. Existence itself -- which also predates Christianity -- speaks of and reflects the triune God, in the triadic nature of the 3-dimensional universe (up/down, back/forth, side-to-side); time (past/present/future); and man himself (body/soul-mind/spirit).

[Goat]

So according to the believer and their esoteric satisfaction it is meaningless.
So why claim "What is "begotten" (not "created") by God is God" when it is not only wrong when related to anything other then your inability to express what you don't and can't understand because it is a mystery? Your not just preaching you are tossing around believer buzz words as if they were somehow true when they can't even make sense to you...

Cathar, please don't think I'm being disrespectful by stating that the precise meaning of your post is a mystery to me, as well. What's clear is that you disagree with my assertion regarding the "begotten" nature of Jesus.

It seems your claim is that because neither I -- nor anyone else -- can fully understand, or explain, that begotten nature -- or, more accurately, supernature -- then it is therefore untrue.

But that argument is without merit. Neither I, nor anyone else, can fully explain the mechanism of a hydrogen atom, or quantum physics -- but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Metaphors are helpful in grasping the concepts of each, but the reality is beyond human explanation.

We have evidence for the hydrogen atom..we can make predictions about the quantum nature of the microcosom.

We have zero testable evidence of the supernatural.

It is the same, only infinitely more so, with the Triune nature of God. Metaphors can illuminate to a certain degree, but they are woefully inadequate. A classic one is the illustration of two books, A and B, existing for all time with B resting on top of A. B's position has eternally been dependent on A, but there has never been a time when both didn't co-exist. In this metaphor, God the father is A, and God the Son is B.

But that metaphor is in actuality inferior to the Father/Son one, for a variety of reasons.

Again , we have plenty of claims.. but no evidence to back up these claims. You have your beliefs, but you don't have anything to back up those beliefs except religious promotional material.

[bernee51]

Thank you for the considered response. It is refreshing to converse with a theist who has obviously given a lot of thought to their belief and the principles that support it.

Bernee --

This too does not mean no god exists. There may very well be a god who created the universe as we know it and has since had no further interaction - perhaps it was consumed by the act of creation.

As to specific gods of who specific claims are made I see no difference between your god and Zeus – other than the claims made, by mankind, on its behalf.

Some of these claims – for example that of a perfect (and therefore unchanging) deity – are logically incoherent – meaning that specific god concept is describing a logical impossibility.

I think it goes (almost) without saying that we need not be troubled with the god of the second sentence quoted above.

Why not troubled? This god was seen as the dominant deity for many hundreds of years – just because it is out of favour does not mean he no longer exists. Or are you of the opinion that he never existed in the first place othe rthan as a cultural concept?

As to the Jehovah/Jesus -- Zeus comparison; I don't think there really is one. And whether the "claims made on (Jehovah God's) behalf" are by man or by God himself is far from a settled issue -- as this forum provides evidence of. As has been pointed out on this thread: claiming something is so, doesn't make it so.

As far as the claims made on behalf of the JCI god, what we have is the Torah, the Bible and the Koran – all written by men. There are claims - by men - within these documents that god has had a hand in the authorship – either directly or as inspiration. In reference to you final sentence above – what else is there other than claims by men as to the nature, actions and intentions of this god?

As to the "logically incoherent/impossibiltiy": Perhaps so. But so is the universe leaping into existence from nothing, and without a primary cause. However, I don't consider God to be logically incoherent. I consider Him to be the author of logic, and therefore transcendent to it;...

Re: the universe – who is claiming the universe has leapt into existence from nothing? This is a common straw man.

Even if it were the case why is any god, and specifically YOUR god, the primary cause.

...just as He is the author of Time, and therefore transcends time.

Ah time... a favourite of mine. Can you show that time actually exists? Or is it a concept devised by sentient beings in order to provide some structure to existence – in particular the sense of an individual self?

Time is a concept that is used to measure the distance between instances of ‘now’. When is it never ‘now’? And how long is a ‘now’. ‘Now’ like ‘infinity’ is outside of time, it transcends time. In an emergent universe – which is how I interpret it – there is only an eternally emergent now.

A God that could be fully grasped and understood by men wouldn't be God, would he? And how do you expect to fit the ocean of His presence into the teacup of your mind?

Very similar to the ‘god works in mysterious ways’ defence – an unfalsifiable, unevidenced claim.

What is the size of human consciousness? Is it limitless? Is it bound by ‘time’?

The concept of the trinity is evidence of the syncretic nature of Christianity. Long before the trinity was described in the christian tradition the Vedas held the concept of the knower (The father), the known (the son) and the act of knowing (the spirit). These moved into Hindism as Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the preserver) and Shiva (the destroyer).

The syncretism is noticed even in the very beginnings of the bible in the tale of Adam and Eve - the Vedas, for example, tell of the Tree of Jiva and Atman

Isn't it interesting how everywhere you look, you see the Truth of Christianity?

Or isn’t it interesting how mankind continues to construct these belief systems around experience and apprehension.

All religions and cultures -- with the exception of the recent coinage of modern materialistic atheism -- express to varying degrees some aspect of The Truth, however much "through a glass darkly"; e.g., the Fertility God who dies and is resurrected on a seasonal basis being a faint precursor of the Risen Lord.

As Huxley has most excellently chronicled in his Perennial Philosophy.

And the origin of this search for god and the ‘spiritual’? The evolutionary leap our ancestors took when consciousness evolved to the point of self reflectivity – when he first asked the question “who am I?�.

That was the moment that trifggered the invention of the god concept.

And, of course, even atheism is a reaction against theism, and is in that sense dependent on it.

Indeed – without theism atheism would not exist.

The triune nature of the Hindu godhead is therefore not surprising. Nor the fact that it predates Christianity. Existence itself -- which also predates Christianity -- speaks of and reflects the triune God, in the triadic nature of the 3-dimensional universe (up/down, back/forth, side-to-side); time (past/present/future); and man himself (body/soul-mind/spirit).

Methinks you have it back to front...

Observation of apparent triune aspects in nature and applying it to the concept of ‘super’nature is an obvious consequence on man’s invention of the god concept.

[Volbrigade]

Thank you for the considered response. It is refreshing to converse with a theist who has obviously given a lot of thought to their belief and the principles that support it.

Thank you, bernee. As a reformed atheist myself, I enjoy civil exchanges with those who share views similar to what I once held, although I've long-since abandoned the sanguine notion that I could argue anyone into sharing my current belief. However, I do occasionally come across a challenge to the Faith that I'm not familiar with, which provides an opportunity for thought and reflection -- spiritual calisthenics, if you will.

Why not troubled? This god was seen as the dominant deity for many hundreds of years – just because it is out of favour does not mean he no longer exists. Or are you of the opinion that he never existed in the first place othe rthan as a cultural concept?

Actually, I am troubled -- as I'll explain in a moment.

In terms of the "god" you describe: a god who either created ("wound the clock") and then stepped back from the affairs of his creation, or perished as a result of his effort, would not be omniscient, omnipotent, and loving. He therefore would require nothing of, or from, me. This is, in fact, the attraction of Deism -- a thoroughly tame god to whom man can say, in effect, "I'll leave you alone, if you'll return the favor."

Such a god would in fact be better described as a demi-god. A "god" who is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and certainly not loving -- that pretty much describes one of the Bible's central figures, who was present in The Garden and at The Temptation. And he is certainly no friend of man.

As far as the claims made on behalf of the JCI god, what we have is the Torah, the Bible and the Koran – all written by men. There are claims - by men - within these documents that god has had a hand in the authorship – either directly or as inspiration. In reference to you final sentence above – what else is there other than claims by men as to the nature, actions and intentions of this god?

Okay. Let's say -- for the sake of argument -- that you're right. The Judeo-Christian tradition is an entirely human construct. An ancient mythic belief system initiated during the time of man's benighted superstition, which was later codified in order to solidify the power and control of the ruling class -- as all religious belief systems ultimately are, no?

And that because of the power of the human spirit, it quite accidentally evolved some strikingly beautiful concepts, which are reflected in in the more sublime passages of its Scripture. The Psalms, Proverbs, parts of the Gospels, and the epistles of Paul come quickly to mind in this regard. E.g.: "Love your neighbor as yourself"; "Do unto others as you would be done by;" "Love is the fulfillment of the Law;" I Cor. ch. 13; Phil. 4: 6,7 ("be anxious for nothing..."), etc.

My point: such a construct, spread over 4,000 years, and still going strong, which dovetails with itself and with reality (I expect a challenge on at least the second part of that clause) to incredible degrees, with new ones being discovered constantly; which has changed hearts and lives, and in its orthodox form does no harm, only good (e.g., hospitals, universities, outreach, charity, rescue), and which provides a firm structure and guide for living a righteous life --

that's quite a remarkable construct, wouldn't you agree? Would you concede that if it is not The Truth, then it at least contains considerable truth (in regard to its code of ethics, conduct, and relations between humans)?

Now, if it's true that it is not inspired by God, and therefore an expression of His will and plan, because there is no God:

And if the most valid alternative to its being the Divine Truth is, as I maintain, a universe (or multiple ones, if you like) that came into existence by some unknown (and probably unknowable) mechanism that is unplanned, undesigned, and therefore essentially random --

Then what do you propose we replace this magnificent construct (Christianity) with?

What other construct could possibly be anything other than "claims made by men," and in what sense could they have any more (or less, for that matter) value than those of Christianity?

In other words, even without God -- if that were possible -- Christianity deserves serious consideration as the best hope for the most happiness by the most people (which is essentially the credo of the modern liberal church).

Now, to be honest with you, it is not a construct that I would choose under those circumstances. There are restrictions on behavior involved with it that are contrary to my nature -- the one on fornication, for instance; and, in certain circumstances, revenge. Well, quite a few others, actually, now that I think about it.

But then I am not an atheist. Nor a deist. I am a theist -- a Christian theist. I therefore assent to the Christian construct on the basis that I believe wholeheartedly in God's existence, His omniscience, His omnipresence, His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, the Gospel of Salvation, and His inscrutably infinite Love as expressed by His intimate involvement in the affairs of men.

[Cathar1950]

Volbrigade,
I don’t want to distract you from your original post but before you go on I want to address you apology as it relates to those good things you find in “your� Christianity as I am going to assume you don’t speak for the whole. Although admirable qualities like a reverse “no true Scotsman fallacy� they are human activities not limited to Christians.
It is a selective presentation, as I am sure it is also a selective theology and Bible readings, it appears somewhat arbitrary. All things good are God (your Christianity) all things bad are us human trash.

These functions are not limited to Christians

“(e.g., hospitals, universities, outreach, charity, rescue), and which provides a firm structure and guide for living a righteous life –“

And our cultures pass on our values as well as provide guides in a variety of ways and adapt much as Christianity has.

[bernee51]

Thank you for the considered response. It is refreshing to converse with a theist who has obviously given a lot of thought to their belief and the principles that support it.

Thank you, bernee. As a reformed atheist myself, I enjoy civil exchanges with those who share views similar to what I once held, although I've long-since abandoned the sanguine notion that I could argue anyone into sharing my current belief. However, I do occasionally come across a challenge to the Faith that I'm not familiar with, which provides an opportunity for thought and reflection -- spiritual calisthenics, if you will.

I read through your narrative regarding your convesion experience - thank you for sharing it.

I do have a question, one that I have asked of many a christian and have yet to receive a heart felt response from their own experience.

You used the word 'spiritual'. What exactly, in your own words, do you mean or understand by the term?

In terms of the "god" you describe: a god who either created ("wound the clock") and then stepped back from the affairs of his creation, or perished as a result of his effort, would not be omniscient, omnipotent, and loving. He therefore would require nothing of, or from, me. This is, in fact, the attraction of Deism -- a thoroughly tame god to whom man can say, in effect, "I'll leave you alone, if you'll return the favor."

No doubt you are aware of the logical mutual exclusivity of the terms omniscient and omnipotent. And, no doubt, you will repeat the special plead of god being the author of logic and therefore not subject to it.

As to 'loving'...

My understanding of love is that it is unconditional. Love that comes with conditions is attachment. Is not your god's love of the latter variety?

Such a god would in fact be better described as a demi-god. A "god" who is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and certainly not loving -- that pretty much describes one of the Bible's central figures, who was present in The Garden and at The Temptation. And he is certainly no friend of man.

Yet another concept derived from mankind's tendency toward duality.

As far as the claims made on behalf of the JCI god, what we have is the Torah, the Bible and the Koran – all written by men. There are claims - by men - within these documents that god has had a hand in the authorship – either directly or as inspiration. In reference to you final sentence above – what else is there other than claims by men as to the nature, actions and intentions of this god?

Okay. Let's say -- for the sake of argument -- that you're right. The Judeo-Christian tradition is an entirely human construct. An ancient mythic belief system initiated during the time of man's benighted superstition, which was later codified in order to solidify the power and control of the ruling class -- as all religious belief systems ultimately are, no?

And that because of the power of the human spirit, it quite accidentally evolved some strikingly beautiful concepts, which are reflected in in the more sublime passages of its Scripture. The Psalms, Proverbs, parts of the Gospels, and the epistles of Paul come quickly to mind in this regard. E.g.: "Love your neighbor as yourself"; "Do unto others as you would be done by;" "Love is the fulfillment of the Law;" I Cor. ch. 13; Phil. 4: 6,7 ("be anxious for nothing..."), etc.

The golden rule is found in most if not all cultural/religious traditions.

Nor is the reaction to the utilization and expoitation of religious tradition by the ruling class unique to christianity. The Buddha came up with some 'strikingly beautiful concepts' some 600 years before the Christ as a reaction to the contols of the priestly class. Asoka sent buddhist missionaries as far west as Greece - through Asia Minor - some 300 years before the Christ. it is of no suprise that these concepts were adopted into religious philosophy that sought to provide salvation from the sins of the world (i.e. suffering).

More grist for the mill of syncretism.

My point: such a construct, spread over 4,000 years, and still going strong, which dovetails with itself and with reality (I expect a challenge on at least the second part of that clause) to incredible degrees, with new ones being discovered constantly;...

The advaita Vedanta scholar Shankara once said "Only that is real which does not change nor cease to exist." He was speaking of Brahman

You may claim your god fits this description.

I hold that only 'now' fits this description.

...which has changed hearts and lives, and in its orthodox form does no harm, only good (e.g., hospitals, universities, outreach, charity, rescue), and which provides a firm structure and guide for living a righteous life --

As with all dualities - and christianity is built on dualities being the child of Hellenism through Paul (never has one man taken a potential flowering and corrupted it so much as Paul) - there is a flip side to this apparent humanism. We see it still today.

...that's quite a remarkable construct, wouldn't you agree? Would you concede that if it is not The Truth, then it at least contains considerable truth (in regard to its code of ethics, conduct, and relations between humans)?

I have never contested the fact that elements of christianity holds not so much 'truth' but valuable information for aiding the evolution of consiousness.

Now, if it's true that it is not inspired by God, and therefore an expression of His will and plan, because there is no God:

And if the most valid alternative to its being the Divine Truth is, as I maintain, a universe (or multiple ones, if you like) that came into existence by some unknown (and probably unknowable) mechanism that is unplanned, undesigned, and therefore essentially random --

Why random? I do not see the process of evolution as random. I refer you again to Teilhard de Chardin.

Then what do you propose we replace this magnificent construct (Christianity) with?

It will replace itself. That which is evolving is not so much replaced as 'included and transcended' - just as I suspect you would hold the relationship between judaism and christianity

What other construct could possibly be anything other than "claims made by men," and in what sense could they have any more (or less, for that matter) value than those of Christianity?

All constructs are claims made by mankind - and it is mankind who gives them value.

I hold of value any construct that has as its central tenet an aperspectival plurality based on loving kindness.

In other words, even without God -- if that were possible -- Christianity deserves serious consideration as the best hope for the most happiness by the most people (which is essentially the credo of the modern liberal church).

It has the potential to hold hope for what you claim - best hope is an opinion and unsupported.

However in order to do so christianity must evolve beyond the guilt ridden misanthropy of Paul.

Now, to be honest with you, it is not a construct that I would choose under those circumstances. There are restrictions on behavior involved with it that are contrary to my nature -- the one on fornication, for instance; and, in certain circumstances, revenge. Well, quite a few others, actually, now that I think about it.

Thank you for making my point.

I therefore assent to the Christian construct on the basis that I believe wholeheartedly in God's existence, His omniscience, His omnipresence, His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, the Gospel of Salvation, and His inscrutably infinite Love as expressed by His intimate involvement in the affairs of men.

Thank you for the sermon.

And may you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful.

[Volbrigade]

All things good are God (your Christianity) all things bad are us human trash.

Well, that's not exactly the way I would put it, Cathar. But it is basically sound theology. And not just bad things. Apart from God, even "the righteousness of men is as filthy rags."

__________________________

I read through your narrative regarding your convesion experience - thank you for sharing it.

I do have a question, one that I have asked of many a christian and have yet to receive a heart felt response from their own experience.

You used the word 'spiritual'. What exactly, in your own words, do you mean or understand by the term?

First, bernee, a disclaimer. I assume you refer to my use of the phrase "spiritual calisthenics." The term "spiritual" may not be entirely appropriate in its usage there. I tried to come up with a word that more precisely shaded what I was trying to convey, gave up, and settled for "spiritual" as being "close enough for gov't work", since I was obviously (I hope) trying to hit a lighter note -- as evidenced by the emoticon.

That aside, I'll try to address your point.

The key to your request is "a heart felt response from their own experience." It's clear that a general response regarding the nature of "spirit" and "spiritual" -- which can obviously only be talked about in metaphorical terms, since they are "super" natural phenomena -- is not what you're looking for.

I assume, given your post count, that you're familiar with the classic "Flatland" analogy, and have probably discussed it. Maybe you've been introduced to Lewis' description of the concept of "Joy"; that longing for a quality that no experience can satisfy, but which the purest ones intensify the longing for. Perhaps you recall the climax in the very good film "The Others", which does a nifty job of illustrating the way in which a subordinate -- you might say "impoverished" -- reality could exist with only the vaguest notions of a higher reality -- and then only at those points at which the higher reality intersected it, like a three dimensional figure intersecting a plane (refer back to Flatland).

But those are not my own experiences. Well, Joy is (and, I hope, yours too). But they're not my own words in regard to my own experiences.

And I open myself to the charge of being evasive, or "copping out," by stating the plain fact that to put into language the essence of spiritual experience is probably not possible. It is the provenance of poetry, the greatest of which can only suggest it.

But it occurs to me -- what if I were to tell you that I fell into a deep hole, and the hand of God reached down and pulled me out of it? Because that's exactly what happened -- to me, and to countless others. Only it didn't happen instantaneously (in my case), but over time. Still, as you point out, what is time? Nothing (almost) from the standpoint of God's "eternal now." (by the way, I left out an essential element earlier when talking about the triune nature of space, time, and man. And that is their unity while being distinctly three parts. Height, width, and depth are distinct elements that comprise an inseparable unity. Likewise past, present, future; body, soul (psyche), spirit: and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three distinct aspects of an inseparable and eternal unity).

So, if God wants to bypass time and change water to wine in an instant -- something He does over time continually; or if God wants to take His time to pull me out of a hole, so that I can look back over a period of years and see that I have been transformed; that I am on a green, grassy slope in comparison to the hole that I was in: that "I once was blind, but now I see" -- then my only response is one of gratitude.

___________________

No doubt you are aware of the logical mutual exclusivity of the terms omniscient and omnipotent.

Actually, I'm not. Would you care to provide a brief explanation?

Why random? I do not see the process of evolution as random. I refer you again to Teilhard de Chardin.

It's probably best to save Evolution for another discussion.

However in order to do so christianity must evolve beyond the guilt ridden misanthropy of Paul.

We must be talking about two different 'Pauls'. I see very little of those qualities in P. McCartney, and none at all in P. of Tarsus.

Thank you for the sermon.

And may you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful.

You're quite welcome. I may have to pass the plate next time, though.

And thank you for the lovely blessing, which I return to you in kind, my friend.

[FinalEnigma]

But it occurs to me -- what if I were to tell you that I fell into a deep hole, and the hand of God reached down and pulled me out of it? Because that's exactly what happened -- to me, and to countless others. Only it didn't happen instantaneously (in my case), but over time.

I realize this is perhaps a bit out of venue, but assuming you are being metaphorical and were not literally very slowly lifted out of a pit, I don't see why this is significant. It does not take a God to do such things - people can do it. Human beings. How do you know that you didn't do it yourself?

I could make the very same claim, but replacing God with a human, and it would apply. However, this other human tells me she did nothing, though I would swear she saved me. Did I then do it all myself? In a way yes, I did - she didn't climb out of the hole for me.

How can you be sure that you didn't climb out of your own hole as well?

[Volbrigade]

Those are fair objections, FE.

They deserve a response from someone more qualified than I am to give one. Nevertheless, they were directed at me, so I'll give it the 'ole college try.'

First, I think when we're talking about things like "how can I be sure..."; that is to say, certainty, we may have to exclude most, if not all, human endeavor from that qualification.

In other words, certainty may be something that is reserved for mathematical formulations. We can be certain that in terms of a right triangle, a(square) times b(square) = c(square); or that 22 divided by 7 yields 3.1428571....

But how can you be certain that you love someone? Or that they love you? How can you be certain that someone is telling you the truth? Or that you're not deceiving yourself? Or that your belief, or disbelief, in God is based on an objective analysis of the evidence, and not on personal feelings, preferences, and behaviors? Or simple peer pressure?

I, for one, don't think you can be. That's why (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) it's called faith. And it's by our faith (or lack of it) that we live.

Christians speak in terms of "knowing that you know that you know" in regard to their Salvation, which is based on the scriptures and doctrines that relate events that happened on Calvary 2,000 years ago.

A psychologist, of course, would perhaps suggest that such "knowledge" is an auto-suggestion based on an acquired need for such reassurance. That it exists solely in the mind, and is not based on objective reality.

Obviously, there are problems with ascertaining which is the case with any degree of certainty. A standard is called for, but in the case of Christian belief that standard would have to come from the same supernature that it claims exists, but which the psychologists doesn't. Of course, it is part of Christian belief that the supernature will be quite evident someday, perhaps soon, at "The End of the Age". But that, too, is an article of faith.

What to do, then. We can only do what God has left us to do. He has honored us with the gift of choice. We can choose whether to believe in Him or not. we can choose whether this strange tale, this uncanny design of Heavens and Earth, and the supernatural plan that encompasses it, is real or not. And we can choose whether to enter into relationship with the Author of the plan, or not.

Christians believe that one of the ways that God works His will is through people. You mention a female who "saved" you. In that, you are fortunate -- blessed. I too have been blessed by the love a woman who has been instrumental in God's plan for me (a side note: I truly believe that God has a plan for our lives. And it is my personal belief that He is constantly adjusting His plan (His will) in order to accommodate our free will. I am certain that I've caused Him to adjust His plan for me countless times ).

You say that she "swears that she did nothing." May I ask if she prayed for you? Prayer is the most powerful force in the world. And another one of those things about which "how can we be certain?" I can tell you that I have seen miracles of healing involved with people that I (along with many others) have prayed for.

Were they supernatural (Divine) interventions, or coincidences? Or some sort of placebo effect? The doctors are dumbfounded.

I choose to believe they were the first. That is what my faith tells me. Others will have to make their own choices.