Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    What point are you even trying to make?
    Sheesh, is it really that hard to figure out? C-3 claims that even the Quran says Jesus was born of a virgin. I asked him where did he think they got that story from, implying they got it from the bible. And he said they got it directly from Allah. I then said, "but you don't believe that, do you.' The point being that they got it from the bible so the Qurans confirmation means nothing.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Forget what you're talking about already? Believe that the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin came to Islam directly from Allah?
      I didn't understand what your question was referring to: the virgin birth of Jesus? or something else.

      I think the contents of the Qur'an has the fingerprints of Muhammad all over it. I think Muhammad heard that Jesus was born of a virgin from Christians in his area and he inserted it into the Qur'an as revelation from Allah.
      Last edited by Christian3; 06-20-2020, 07:59 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by siam View Post
        What I meant to ask was ---some Christian ideas might be traced to Hellenization or Judaic (influences) but if a concept of "sex is bad/sin" exists in Christianity, what would be its historic precedent culture/theology...if any?
        Paul was clearly against uncontrolled passion. In I Thessalonians 4:2-5 he makes it clear that For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; each one of you know how to control your own body[b] in holiness and honour, 5 not with lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God.

        However, what does Paul really mean by ‘lustful passion’? In Corinthians 7:9 he instructs those who ‘burn’ (are inflamed) that it is better to marry but what does he really mean by that? How did Paul view this feeling of ‘burning’ as a metaphor for being inflamed with desire? How would Paul have viewed a man who ‘burned’ for his wife or a wife who ‘burned’ for her husband? Would that have been lustful passion ’ or acceptable behaviour for Paul? We do not know.

        Was he advocating marriage as a way of engaging in passionless sex? This passage is widely interpreted to be condemnatory of any kind of passion – so does that include passion in the marriage bed? [see Stoic views on appetites and passions].

        Certainly some of the ECFs considered it to be so. Augustine of Hippo, after his own Manichean past had been firmly put behind him, regarded sex as a lamentable admission of sinfulness and alienation from the divine; and while marital intercourse was within the range of forgiveable sins, it was, inevitably and always, smeared over by guilt and lustful disobedience [see Augustine De civitate Dei, Against Faustus, On Marriage and Concupisence, and Against Julian of Eclanum].

        Augustine was not alone in his views on sex and marriage and with Jerome and Ambrose rounded on the late fourth century bishop Jovinian [340-405 CE] who, having become alarmed in the way the ascetical movement was developing in the West with its detrimental views on marriage and sexuality had written a book arguing that both the ascetics and those who were married had equal spiritual status within the church. He also expressed doubts over the perpetual virginal state of the virgin Mary. His views were enough for Ambrose to condemn him at the Synod of Milan and for Augustine, Pelagius, and Jerome to make (often extremely vitriolic) attacks on him. The protests succeeded in securing Jovinian Imperial exile and the burning of his books.
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • Not that passion in sex has anything to do with the birth of Jesus, or even the Trinity, but ok...
          Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
            Not that passion in sex has anything to do with the birth of Jesus, or even the Trinity, but ok...
            Merely offering some information to siam's question.
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              Paul was clearly against uncontrolled passion. In I Thessalonians 4:2-5 he makes it clear that For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; each one of you know how to control your own body[b] in holiness and honour, 5 not with lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God.

              However, what does Paul really mean by ‘lustful passion’? In Corinthians 7:9 he instructs those who ‘burn’ (are inflamed) that it is better to marry but what does he really mean by that? How did Paul view this feeling of ‘burning’ as a metaphor for being inflamed with desire? How would Paul have viewed a man who ‘burned’ for his wife or a wife who ‘burned’ for her husband? Would that have been lustful passion ’ or acceptable behaviour for Paul? We do not know.

              Was he advocating marriage as a way of engaging in passionless sex? This passage is widely interpreted to be condemnatory of any kind of passion – so does that include passion in the marriage bed? [see Stoic views on appetites and passions].

              Certainly some of the ECFs considered it to be so. Augustine of Hippo, after his own Manichean past had been firmly put behind him, regarded sex as a lamentable admission of sinfulness and alienation from the divine; and while marital intercourse was within the range of forgiveable sins, it was, inevitably and always, smeared over by guilt and lustful disobedience [see Augustine De civitate Dei, Against Faustus, On Marriage and Concupisence, and Against Julian of Eclanum].

              Augustine was not alone in his views on sex and marriage and with Jerome and Ambrose rounded on the late fourth century bishop Jovinian [340-405 CE] who, having become alarmed in the way the ascetical movement was developing in the West with its detrimental views on marriage and sexuality had written a book arguing that both the ascetics and those who were married had equal spiritual status within the church. He also expressed doubts over the perpetual virginal state of the virgin Mary. His views were enough for Ambrose to condemn him at the Synod of Milan and for Augustine, Pelagius, and Jerome to make (often extremely vitriolic) attacks on him. The protests succeeded in securing Jovinian Imperial exile and the burning of his books.
              1 Thessalonians 4: 3 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control your own body[a] in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God;

              Paul is talking about sexual immorality -- sex outside of marriage.

              1 Corinthians 7: 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

              Muslims would believe it is immoral to have sex with someone who is not your wife or husband.

              Only Catholics believe Mary remained a virgin, which contradicts Scriptures.

              Matthew 1: 27 “You have heard that it was said, Do not commit adultery. 28 But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
              Last edited by Christian3; 06-20-2020, 10:21 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by siam View Post
                What I meant to ask was ---some Christian ideas might be traced to Hellenization or Judaic (influences) but if a concept of "sex is bad/sin" exists in Christianity, what would be its historic precedent culture/theology...if any?
                Christianity began with Jews, therefore it was informed by Jewish views of sexual relations. Adultery and fornication is forbidden as per the Law, and confirmed in New Testament as being of the flesh, whereas in marriage it is honorable. It seems there was a thread of asceticism in Judaism but I can't find that it was common. In pagansim the tendency to view sex as bad was more common. Paul's cautions to the Corinthians show that there was a tendency towards that. Yet there was also a problem with adultery (husbands visiting prostitutes in the temple before going home), so I guess they were conflicted.

                But I really don't think the idea of Mary always a virgin came as much from the idea of sex being bad as it was about the question of sin itself. The argument was how the sinless Son of God could be born from a woman who herself was a sinner? This is what many of the early Christians were grappling with, despite the prophecy that the Messiah would be born of the seed of the woman.
                Last edited by DesertBerean; 06-20-2020, 10:52 AM.
                Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  The Bible is not a reliable historical source because it does not meet the standard criteria of source reliability used by historians, namely 'historical critical methodology'.
                  The historial New Testament documents predate the 'Historical Critical Methodology' and played a role in bringing that methodology about.
                  Last edited by 37818; 06-20-2020, 11:35 AM.
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Esther View Post
                    God is not depicted as one God in the Bible. God is one in the sense that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are in harmony. One in thought and purpose for example. So 3 God's then can be one in unity.
                    1 Corinthians 85-6, ". . . For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. . . ."

                    Isaiah 44:6, ". . . Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. . . ."

                    Isaiah 43:10-11, ". . . understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. . . ."

                    1 Timothy 2:5-6, ". . . For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. . . ."
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      The concept that he was God incarnate is a much later theological construct. You are retrojecting fourth century Hellenistic beliefs back to the early years of the first century and attributing such beliefs to a group of observant Jews for whom such concepts would be both completely abhorrent and in violation of the first two commandments.

                      Jesus and his followers were pious and observant Jews. They did not worship anthropomorphic gods.

                      It is in the writings of Paul that are to be found concepts that would eventually lead to the theological development of Jesus' divinity.

                      The Jewish Messiah is not a divinity.

                      Would you care to elucidate?

                      The Jewish Messiah does not forgive sin.

                      It’s generally known as Second Temple Judaism.

                      The Maccabees rebelled against the very things you are suggesting a group of first century observant Palestinian Jews had no issue with, namely Hellenistic religious practises [including anthropomorphic deities] and the attempt to destroy the Jewish religion and force those practises upon the Jewish people.

                      You might also recall the delegation sent Gaius [Philo of Alexandria was one of them]. Or the outrage caused when Pilate brought the standards into Jerusalem.

                      Yet here you alleging that a group of Galilean Jews from that same period [i.e. the first half of the first century] were quite prepared to worship a human being. You will excuse me if I think you are writing nonsense.

                      Rabbinic Judaism developed as a result of the First Jewish War.

                      What form was this?

                      That subject would constitute an thread devoted to it.
                      "It is in the writings of Paul that are to be found concepts that would eventually lead to the theological development of Jesus' divinity."

                      Cite Scriptures to backup your opinion.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        The historial New Testament documents predate the 'Historical Critical Methodology' and played a role in bringing that methodology about.
                        Don't forget Porphyry, Celsus, and Julian.
                        "It ain't necessarily so
                        The things that you're liable
                        To read in the Bible
                        It ain't necessarily so
                        ."

                        Sportin' Life
                        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                          Typed before I had my first cup of coffee.

                          Should read Jesus was born of a virgin, siam; even the Qur'an confirms that.
                          This would probably be one of those things that appear conceptually similar but are functionally different?.....
                          Since Jesus is not God---but a human being, the symbolism, likely, functions in a different way....?....

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                            Christianity began with Jews, therefore it was informed by Jewish views of sexual relations. Adultery and fornication is forbidden as per the Law, and confirmed in New Testament as being of the flesh, whereas in marriage it is honorable. It seems there was a thread of asceticism in Judaism but I can't find that it was common. In pagansim the tendency to view sex as bad was more common. Paul's cautions to the Corinthians show that there was a tendency towards that. Yet there was also a problem with adultery (husbands visiting prostitutes in the temple before going home), so I guess they were conflicted.

                            But I really don't think the idea of Mary always a virgin came as much from the idea of sex being bad as it was about the question of sin itself. The argument was how the sinless Son of God could be born from a woman who herself was a sinner? This is what many of the early Christians were grappling with, despite the prophecy that the Messiah would be born of the seed of the woman.
                            can you elaborate on the underlined part....
                            Mary was not a sinner because she did not have sex? therefore, if she did she would be a sinner? ...except if she were married?
                            Would there be a theological problem if God were to incarnate by a married woman?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              Paul was clearly against uncontrolled passion. In I Thessalonians 4:2-5 he makes it clear that For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; each one of you know how to control your own body[b] in holiness and honour, 5 not with lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God.

                              However, what does Paul really mean by ‘lustful passion’? In Corinthians 7:9 he instructs those who ‘burn’ (are inflamed) that it is better to marry but what does he really mean by that? How did Paul view this feeling of ‘burning’ as a metaphor for being inflamed with desire? How would Paul have viewed a man who ‘burned’ for his wife or a wife who ‘burned’ for her husband? Would that have been lustful passion ’ or acceptable behaviour for Paul? We do not know.

                              Was he advocating marriage as a way of engaging in passionless sex? This passage is widely interpreted to be condemnatory of any kind of passion – so does that include passion in the marriage bed? [see Stoic views on appetites and passions].

                              Certainly some of the ECFs considered it to be so. Augustine of Hippo, after his own Manichean past had been firmly put behind him, regarded sex as a lamentable admission of sinfulness and alienation from the divine; and while marital intercourse was within the range of forgiveable sins, it was, inevitably and always, smeared over by guilt and lustful disobedience [see Augustine De civitate Dei, Against Faustus, On Marriage and Concupisence, and Against Julian of Eclanum].

                              Augustine was not alone in his views on sex and marriage and with Jerome and Ambrose rounded on the late fourth century bishop Jovinian [340-405 CE] who, having become alarmed in the way the ascetical movement was developing in the West with its detrimental views on marriage and sexuality had written a book arguing that both the ascetics and those who were married had equal spiritual status within the church. He also expressed doubts over the perpetual virginal state of the virgin Mary. His views were enough for Ambrose to condemn him at the Synod of Milan and for Augustine, Pelagius, and Jerome to make (often extremely vitriolic) attacks on him. The protests succeeded in securing Jovinian Imperial exile and the burning of his books.
                              Thanks for the interesting info.

                              looked up stoics....
                              apparently their concern was with "attachment"---very Buddhist---though they seem to be on the extreme end of the scale!!!.

                              http://www.themontrealreview.com/200...x-and-Love.php
                              Like Lucretius and the Epicureans, the Stoics believe the custom of monogamy is both unnatural and not beneficial to human happiness.
                              According to Diogenes Laertius, the Stoics "think the wise men should have their wives in common, so that anyone might make love to any woman." Only in this way could the Stoics continue to maintain their lack of attachments to external things. In such a system, "the jealousy occasioned by adultery would be removed."

                              ...but I can see how the combination of Jewish views on marriage + Stoic views on sex could have led to Christian perspectives on the issue.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by siam View Post
                                can you elaborate on the underlined part....
                                Mary was not a sinner because she did not have sex? therefore, if she did she would be a sinner? ...except if she were married?
                                Would there be a theological problem if God were to incarnate by a married woman?
                                No. The Catholics developed a teaching called Immaculate Conception that said Mary was without sin since her conception, in order to explain to their satisfaction that she was an acceptable vessel for the divine, sinless Son of God. I'm not sure if this is the also the reason they insist she was a perpetual virgin.

                                The prophecy declared that the Messiah was to be born from a virgin. I imagine that, yes, incarnation through a married woman would not fulfill that prophecy.
                                Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                161 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X