Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Simply stated, Bertrand Russell was not a Christian because he couldn't bring himself to believe that there is a Hell.

Or more accurately...he couldn't bring himself to believe that he was a sinner fully worthy to suffer the pains of hell for all eternity. Nearly everyone believes he or she is too good for hell. It's only others who may be worthy.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Or more accurately...he couldn't bring himself to believe that he was a sinner fully worthy to suffer the pains of hell for all eternity. Nearly everyone believes he or she is too good for hell. It's only others who may be worthy.

Have you read Russell's opus?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Have you read Russell's opus?

I have read lengthy excerpts from Russell. He'd just another lost, blind soul groping in the dark.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Nearly everyone believes he or she is too good for hell. It's only others who may be worthy.

What makes one worthy of hell?

[Hank]

Originally Posted by Actor

What makes one worthy of hell?

I'll go way out on a limb, and say not holding religious beliefs identical to Boxcar's.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Actor

What makes one worthy of hell?

The fact that Adam and Eve ate an apple eons ago.

[Actor]

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What makes one worthy of hell?

All a person's sins.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The fact that Adam and Eve ate an apple eons ago.

Oh...so you're another sinless human being, heh?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Hank

I'll go way out on a limb, and say not holding religious beliefs identical to Boxcar's.

Ahh...so you were the big crash I heard....

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

All a person's sins.

One more chance. Define sin.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Before I answer...explain, please, why are "all the instances in the OT a stretch and a half"? Would you have a reasonable, viable, logical explanation for each instance or do you just conveniently lump them altogether and summarily dismiss them in favor of some fanciful interpretation of the We's and Us's, etc?

There is no explanation of the us's or our's that appear in the OT...you are going to assume they refer to the Trinity?

Maybe there are multiple Gods and the Jews and Christians and Muslims are getting it all wrong...

Where exactly is it explicitly stated that the multiple instances of "us" and "our" refer to the Holy Trinity in the OT? Or is this simply some assumption to make it fit with the NT?

Don't look to me for answers. I'm the ignorant sinner/devil in this thread, remember?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

There is no explanation of the us's or our's that appear in the OT...you are going to assume they refer to the Trinity?

Maybe there are multiple Gods and the Jews and Christians and Muslims are getting it all wrong...

Where exactly is it explicitly stated that the multiple instances of "us" and "our" refer to the Holy Trinity in the OT? Or is this simply some assumption to make it fit with the NT?

Don't look to me for answers. I'm the ignorant sinner/devil in this thread, remember?

If by your own admission you're so spiritually ignorant, then how can you be so dogmatic that the monotheistic godhead of the OT cannot consist of multiple persons? How can you say with any certainty "not by a stretch and a half"? An alternative explanation for the We's and Us's is polytheism but this interpretation cannot be true, given the OT text of Deut 6:4. And this isn't the only passage that clearly refutes polytheism -- not by 2-1/2 stretches! See also Deut 4:35-36, 5:6; Isa 44:6,8;45; Jer 10:10-11. So...now we're left with only one other viable explanation: There is one God in Multiple Persons. I will follow in my Master's steps since there has never been a spiritual teacher his equal, nor will there ever be. I will leave you to ponder questions that he presented to his detractors about his own identity.

Matt 22:41-46
41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question,42 saying, "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" They said to Him, "The son of David." 43 He said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying,

44 'The Lord said to my Lord,
"Sit at My right hand,
Until I put Thine enemies beneath Thy feet"'?

45 "If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?" 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question.
NASB

The bolded passage to which Jesus alluded is found in Ps 110:1 Jesus presented the Pharisees with quite a dilemma to which they could not answer without putting themselves in a very poor light. But allow me to lay out the problem for you since you are ignorant of the scriptures. Psalm 110 was penned by King David (the operative term here being "King"). As king of Israel, David answered to no other earthly ruler. He answered to no earthly"lord" since he was "lord" over Israel -- David was God's appointed and anointed King who replaced King Saul! Now, perhaps you can begin to understand the very sharp and pointed questions Jesus asked in vv. 43 and 45. Who was David's first Lord and second Lord? Moreover, David used two different names for "Lord" in verse 1 of this psalm. The first Lord is "Yahweh" and the second Lord (unto my Lord) is "la-Adoniy".

Further, Yaweh is telling Adoniy to sit at His right hand. To sit where? To sit on his throne (that is to say, the Davidic throne) at the right hand of Yahweh -- the highest possible place of honor was to st at the right hand of the king.

So...how can Jesus be the Son of David when it is Adoniy who will occupy the Davidic throne forever and ever? This the dilemma the Pharisees faced. Will you, too, be as silent as they were?

Also, in closing, I would refer you to post 19844 in the old Religious thread wherein an abundance of OT scripture is cited for the Trinitarian doctrine.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If by your own admission you're so spiritually ignorant, then how can you be so dogmatic that the monotheistic godhead of the OT cannot consist of multiple persons?

Because then, it's not by definition monotheistic.

And btw, are you telling me all those times Jews refer to God as Adonai, they are unwittingly talking about Jesus?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Because then, it's not by definition monotheistic.

And btw, are you telling me all those times Jews refer to God as Adonai, they are unwittingly talking about Jesus?

Of course, it is. The bible everywhere teaches there is only ONE God; yet at the same time this one God is in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- Three Persons in ONE godhead. Or another way to understand this is ONE divine essence in three persons or three personalities.

And, no, I'm not saying that the Jews always understood every instance of Adoniy in the OT as referring to Jesus or even the Messiah. But...that is certainly how Jesus understood and interpreted the instance in Ps 110:1.

There is only one answer to Jesus' questions in Matthew 22. The Jews did rightly understand that the Christ (the Messiah) would descend from David's line, hence they understood that the Messiah would be the Son of David. (All this is made clear in the Davidic Covenant.) But what they did not understand is that this Son of David would also be the Son of God!

Ps 2:7-9
7 "I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord:
He said to Me, 'Thou art My Son,
Today I have begotten Thee.
8 'Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Thine inheritance,
And the very ends of the earth as Thy possession.
9 'Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron,
Thou shalt shatter them like earthenware.'"
NASB