Originally posted by advanceparty:

are u gonna say that people are frivolous if people choose to look to God for some help in their life eg when they are suffering or dying etc and all that are thrown at them are bible verses????

not if you remember that a lot of social welfare / humanitarian agencies are church based or related to Christianitiy in one way or another.

Matt 7:1-5 tells us to evaluate carefully and choose between good and bad people . intentions (e.g. false prophets 1 John4:1). The apostle Paul even makes a judgment call and labels some people as dogs (Philippians 3:2). If bible believers don't "judge", wouldnt we be responding to all sorts of irrelevant criticisms?

Rather, i'd think in this case, it's more discernment, than 'judge'. In fact, you will find a just 3 chapters down that Jesus instructed in Matt 10:16 - be wise and discerning.

Being a relative noob to this forum, i checked up on the definition of 'troll' and observed some similarities. Here

Originally posted by domonkassyu:

God has a template for all things and based on decision made by the creatures,

Actually this is not sovereignty that is taught in calvinism. This is the arminian thought.

i find it hard to neglect the idea of God electing people unto salvation, Rom 9-11, John 6, Matthew 24:24, the fact that Paul talks about it in his letters?

 

Just had a thought. Much of Christian scholarship is dominated by calvinists and not arminians. I feel that the calvinist thought is better supported from the bible and they're more rational / academic in their thinking. What do you think? I reckon there're more calvinists writing stuff just because the arminians are out there trying to evangelize, rather than write about doctrinal stuff. But of course, this is an unfair caricature of the two schools of thought.

Originally posted by january:

i will counter this argument. Your argument is errornous. Our house is built first by early cavemen and later modified and improved with new knowledge.

 

Nobody says universe and our things in modern life is a lego box with million of things at first and after shaking, these things pop out. As you can see , our the things in the universe has a history of how they have evolved.

 

You analogy is misleading and also unreasonable in comparing with universe.

 

secondly, if god is not obligated to save his believers, then that ,means that being a believer cannot ensure safety of oneself.

i will come up with this statment contradiction.

 

When people manage to survive an accident, they can attribute it to god and say that he saves them.

When people failed to survive, you then say the god is not obligated to save them. Isn't there some kind of favortism reasoning down here. god get credited if people survives but he is not responsible when people dies.

 

your 2nd reasoning is flawed. Since when is it God's sole responsibility and obligation to ensure believers' safety? HOWEVER, what you do see in the bible is that,

Jeremiah 11:17, "The Lord of hosts, who planted you, has decreed disaster against you, because of the evil that the house of Israel and the house of Judah have done, provoking me to anger by making offerings to Baal.” (ESV)

God can choose to keep us from harm or not. Either way, it is just, because as echoed in :

Romans 9:20-21, "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”  Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"

Either way, we know it remains in God's sovereignty, because

Romans 8:28 says, "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good"

I am of the view that God allowed all things to happen, but the question is not “Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people” but rather, “Why would a good God allow bad people to live?”. In fact, is there anyone "good" to begin with?

If you have read this far, including the bible verses, take a look at this.

Depending on which culture and country you come from, but when i was growing up, my parents warned me a lot about having a good behaviour, but i still chose to take a different route and did a lot of wrong things and put myself in harm's way. By my choice. By my wilful decisions. Can i still blame them?

Originally posted by davidche:

hmm. I was thinking, if in cell grps i talk openly about my own problems, would the like-minded people with the correct purpose in church, share their problems wif me too.

why not? doesnt hurt to try right?

but with all things, sure helps to be discerning. not that u shld unleash a verbal diarrhoea upon those whom you're not familiar with, but to see whether the situation is right and relevant.i guess this is about knowing how to maintain or start friendships, comes with trial and error.

Originally posted by EvolutionPIG:

further more, i have rarely seen a christin that is good enough to the ppl around him.. manyy of my christin friends disparage other ppl and their attitude really suks

i wonder what happens when you see that happening? do u join in or not? As James 4:17 says, "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins."

But surely, that is not a strong reason to leave the faith. Do you put your faith in man, or in God? Because if you look at man's behaviour as the sole gauge of the validity of a faith, you will most certainly be disappointed.  

Originally posted by davidche:

XD. I said that fellowship is not a valid reason, since like evolPIG said, which is true, many people go church to see chiobus. Moreover, most teenagers dont seek fellowship or discussion about christian life, difficulties in life etc.

 

Only very good friends are 'useful.' Those normal friends or even gangs are easily forgotton once you leave the place.

see chiobus... i guess that's what happens when the church is filled with unregenerate people.

church gatherings exist for the fellowship of the saints - to encourage one another, to serve one another, to edify and build up one another, etc. Goes beyond just mere chats and conversations.

As much as there're those who dont seek what you seek, im sure there are others who do. If you find that those surrounding u are pp who only go and see chiobus, then i would suggest u start finding (actively) like-minded people who dont have that agenda. Either change cell group, zone, change church, or find other means of doing so. I hesitate to think of this forum as a place for u to seek the fellowship u want.

One doesnt go to church merely for sermons, that's just one aspect. A christian doesnt grow (mature, fruits of the spirit, etc) without a context. The spiritual body of Christ provides that environment.

Dont give up.

Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:

All your statements are assumption. Those who are born without souls are damned by God upon birth.

Who are born without souls? On what basis do you say his statements are assumptions?

Originally posted by grandmaster89:

Essentially, all religion and philosophy boils down to a common theme - faith in mankind.

This hypothesis is consistent in Christianity as well.

1) The various gospels were written by men centuries ago (30-100AD)

2) Men selected which books were true and termed them as Scripture (various councils in 4th century by Catholic Church) while deeming the rest as wrong. Their yardstick was their own intepretation of what was taught by the representatives of Christ at that time - Catholic Church. Other christian groups had their own NT Canon.

3) Hence the books selected by the men of the Catholic Church became the Christian Bible and since it is scripture, it is also God's words.

Based on this historical premises, it can be argued that faith in God is derived from faith in men and his ability to separate the inspired scripturefrom the mundane. If you did had faith in man, can we have faith in God?

An aethist can point out that this is hypocrisy while a religious men can point out  how can we place our faith on what is unseen when we can't even trust what we can touch, feel and smell haha. :)

And since i can't touch, feel or smell you, i shouldnt think you exist too. So basically, i've just wasted 5 seconds of my life reading this post and replying you.

You cannot read my post in part and ingore rest. Then twist it to your liking. That's lying.

Hi Miracles,

Let's not make this a flame war. I haven maligned you but i've been asking you for clarification and i did say that i "venture to guess" what you're saying. I ask if you've done the same likewise?

You responded to my post about the main objective of Christianity by asking me to " Hold your horses don't be too quick to come to a conclusion". And you went on to say that God means to make us the head and not the tail, then in your most recent post, you say God is the ruler of all things.

So i wont interpret anything now, can you tell me how that has answered your objection to my argument that the main objective of Christianity is to address the sinful nature of man?

Each of created has a connection with God. In that God is in every one of His creations

Hi Miracles,

If i didnt know read your other posts, i would have assumed you to be a New-Ager, from that above sentence. Since God is in every one of His creations, so we can worship every leaf, animal, object and it would still be worshipping God?

That said, I still wonder about what you're thinking the main objective of Christianity is? Why did Jesus Christ come to earth? I reckoned it's to address the sinful nature of man, you felt (i assumed but no clarification thus far) it was to make man the 'head'. Appreciate the sharing of your testimonies too, and i've read quite a bit from you over the forum too, would be good if we could skip past that and go to your reasoning =) 

 Hold your horses don't be too quick to come to a conclusion,

Hi Miracles,

Not sure what you're arguing because you've not explained anything from your articles that relates to the primary motive of Christianity.

So i venture to guess you're saying God means to make us the "head and not the tail"? From the common prosperity gospel teaching, i reckon you say that God wants us to succeed wherever we are, whatever we are doing, because we've His favour?

My take: from that verse u quoted from the OT, it is a resultant factor, not a pervasive theme of the bible. As in it is a result of something happening first, before that will happen. And what's that? We see it in the same verse,

If you pay attention to the commands of the Lord you God

We need to follow the commands of God. Which then, we ask what are the commands for Israel then (for which this verse is written)? What were the commands for?

I reckon commands are to keep ourselves in check. Rules to ensure we dont get out of hand. So it presupposes that there is a tendency for us to get out hand. And that tendency, i would argue, is our sinful nature.

Throughout the bible, it talks more about sin and God's wrath, rather than on God wanting to pour forth His blessings upon us. They come as a result of, not something that we ought to get. I love Jesus. And i dont think He came just to help us simply to be the "head". He already said His kingdom isnt of this world.

It is good that though you have no religion but still believe in morality. :)

Hi Displayname,

you're insinuating that morality is derived from religion to which TS will disagree?

imho, doesnt matter which religion teaches good or remains silent, problem remains with the believers, who choose to abuse it.

Jesus can teach all about non violence, but if Christians choose to ignore that and still declare crusades and inquisitions, criticism (objectively) should be levelled at the believers, not the faith itself. Case in point: when Peter slashed off the Roman guard's ear, Jesus didnt leave it at that but went on to restore that ear.

The primary objective of Christianity is to address the sinful nature of man and not to elevate man's status, be it individually (his self-esteem) or politically.

 

 

Originally posted by User9754:

Hi everybody ,

Please debate the following. It's long. And I am not here to create any mess and I'm not a clone , just an old Sgforummer that had lost his account.

Found this post on the internet.

Anyone to comment about it ?

At something like after 10p.m., an old friend asked me for my world view on Facebook. My friend is a very staunch Christian. I popped by his blog and saw that he would be one of those qualified to be an apologetic anytime (he has read Ravi Zacharias -- maybe I spelled the name incorrectly -- and a whole lot of other Christian literature...I singled Ravi out because he is among the more well-known ones, with his well-known 'Can Man Live Without God')

I could type another 17-page or 170-page essay to explain why I do not believe in God or any religion, but I have given up on these debates unless it's really called for.

To cut the long story short, anyone who wants to know why I do not believe in the Christian religion should read the following in their entirety, because to summarise them takes time and I do not have the time :

1) Dan Barker: Losing Faith in Faith
2) Thomas Paine: The Age of Reason
3) Joseph Wheless:Is It God's Word
4) Farrell Till: The Skeptical Review (online magazine)

All of the above are available on the Internet, you do not have to go anywhere else to look for them. However, you would probably take about six months (three if you are fast) to finish all of it and to check the stuff with your Bible.

***

Before this post ends up being a 'Why I Am Not A Christian' post, I shall talk about my world view.

1) On the supernatural and death/afterlife

I do NOT believe in any form of supernatural things/beings ranging from black magic to gods to ghosts to demons/devils and what-have-you.

I do NOT believe in afterlife. I believe that when I die, I will return to nature. I will rot and decompose. Full stop.

2) On morality and values

I believe that morality is relative and it is a human construct. There are things that are immoral, moral and amoral. To each his own as long as one does not exploit,harm, or negatively affect others (or oneself) in the process of achieving one's own happiness.

To elaborate on this topic in specific detail would be to write a book. Email me at loksin@yahoo.com if you are really keen on answers to specific questions/issues.

3) On the meaning of life

(I've answered this so many times until I'm sick and tired of it...but let me go to Yahoo Answers to dig out my model answer...)

There you go; copied and pasted it with some minor editing:

What is the meaning of life?

a) Life has some sort of an ultimate meaning. This usually applies to religious people who seek either Enlightenment (in Buddhism) or the Kingdom of Heaven (Christianity, Islam amongst other religions)...

b) There is no such thing as the meaning of life. If there were, we would know it, just like we know we have basic needs like food and shelter. You might want to read Lin Yutang and Tom Hodgkinson (basically, embrace a fatalistic philosophy that everything is meaningless, and simply be happy)

c) According to Viktor Frankl's 'Man's Search for Meaning' and 'The Unheard Cry for Meaning', everyone must find his/her own meaning of life. The analogy used is chess. Everyone has a different game of chess to play, so it is absurd to ask the master 'What is the next best move?', because it varies for different games. However, we can find or create meaning in all circumstances, even as a prisoner in a concentration camp.

d) Meaning is something which evolves and changes over time. Perhaps, at sixteen, a teenager's greatest meaning is to find out more about the world. At thirty, it is settling down with a family. At fifty or seventy, it is self-actualisation.

e) According to Erich Fromm, if I remember correctly, he says that this question is absurd because it assumes that life has a meaning. But I do think he agrees with Frankl that life is a unique challenge presented to us.

Finally, after giving all the examples, what is MY OWN take? Well, I believe in being compassionate (Thanks to books on Buddhist philosophy and Mitch Albom's 'Tuesdays with Morrie'). I also embrace a fatalistic philosophy (I believe that everything is predestined and everything is meaningless -- look at the book of Ecclesiates in the Bible) I find my meaning in simple joys such as drawing, painting, writing, reading, singing, and having coffee with friends, as well as taking long walks in nature.

Currently, I just want to keep working at my art, and hope to print my own art books one day. :)

Friend wrote:

The title sounds big, but it's not strictly original. I'm currently listening to Dr. Ravi Zacharias' series on "Unplugging Truth in a Morally Suicidal Culture", the "Culture" in his talk referring to America. But I do sense that our country—Singapore's culture is equally suicidal, if not more dangerously so. Why do I say that?

One of Ravi's laments about American culture is its secularization—there's a deliberate attempt to keep what is religious private. In a secular society, you're entitled to your own private religious beliefs, as long as you keep those beliefs private. Ravi argues that it basically eradicate any moral point of reference, when a moral point of reference is being called for. It is rejected on the premise that any moral point of reference is based on a larger, religious worldview, and that worldview has no place in the public arena of a secular society.

I say:

A moral point of reference is being called for when there is injustice and crime, although of course, every society needs to have their definition of crime. For example, kissing in public is a crime in some conservative societies/countries, while incest is not a crime in some communities that our modern world might consider primitive.

The moral point of reference, however, obviously CANNOT be based on a religious view if that society is NOT religious. I understand that the Christians and Muslims are very upset by the gay issue in Singapore, but to declare homosexuality as immoral based on religious reasons is simply being irrational.

Furthermore, the Bible does not have a SINGULAR moral point of reference. Thou shall not kill? Then why were the Israelites allowed to kill the Amorites and Hittites and a whole host of other tribes just because the Lord commanded thus? The Israelites were also immoral and sinful people, were they not? But they were just privileged to be God's chosen people, so what sort of morality are we talking about here? Before the books of Deutronomy and Leviticus, I'm pretty sure incest wasn't a sin when there were only Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. How else did the people come about?

Friend wrote:

As I reflect on the Singapore scene, I thought I saw a similar trend of thought developing. It might not have happened in the same way in our law courts, but you can smell it coming.
I'm referring to the decision to build the casino (what political correctness rendered, 'integrated resorts') in Singapore, despite the degree of protest. I'm referring to the gay debate in Oct 07. I'm referring to the apparent trend to undo laws, legislations and once-commonly-held values and beliefs in what constitute right and wrong, propriety and impropriety. I'm referring to the growing populace that supports (or is indifferent to, which is commonly interpreted as supportive anyway) such a trend.

I'm referring to the emerging Singapore culture.

And there's something that worries me more as I ponder this on the bus.
It is the unthinking, unreflective acceptance, even embracement, of anything Western. Anything American. A walk through the stores of bestsellers in Borders, the streets of flashing adverts along Orchard Road, a glance through the iTunes library of any youth on the street, and you have empirical evidence. Our thinking, our likes, our values, are so easily shaped by what Americans think, by what they like and what they wear.

What troubles me is the unreflective part. Singaporeans are, by and large, unreflective. Where the abuses of secularization fought their way into the American system of thought, the amoral values of the West simply walked unabashedly into our minds.

We are not prepared, because we are not mentally prepared. We have not thought through the issues. We have not thought through the implications, of a worldview that rejects any other worldviews founded on higher values as irrelevant, even irreverent.

If Ravi is right about American culture being suicidal, it is not alone. Many among the younger generations will be pulled along by it.And Singapore will likely be the first. I'm open to any discussion, any debate on this topic. I'm also open to any suggestion as to what can be done.

I say:

I am saying that the solution to these issues (if we perceive this to be a problem) is education and dialogue/discussion, NOT religion.

Ultimately, values have to be chosen, not enforced or indoctrinated.

 

There are some cultures whereby cannibalism is morally allowed. Your culture obviously doesnt endorse that. IF both cultures meet on morally neutral grounds (if it ever does exist), would you have any preference as to what that culture wants to do to you? Is there still a moral point of reference?

Originally posted by Agenda:

If we are descendants of Adam and Eve, that would mean their child had sex with each other and their grandchildren had sex with each other and their grandchildren's grandchildren had sex with each other and the whole cycle repeats endlessly.

Does that mean the guy living next door is my relative? And if I have a child with my wife next time, I can be jailed because of incest?

not only is this dilemma limited to Adam and Eve, it affects even creatures that developed from single-celled organisms and between apes as well. Technically, everyone's having incest, doesnt matter if you're religious or not.

hur hur.. it's kinda.. weird to see how conversations work in forums. it's like.. EH got it's own discussion, 2 ppl arguing, then in chit chat also got another diff grp of ppl arguing.

I'm not arguing. I've tried my best to be civil and just state what i observe.

But in the process, i've been labelled 'smart ass', 'simpleton', 'ridiculous' and had my arguments misrepresented and set up as strawmen. Personal insults right?

 

Icemoon:

In the first place, I said I don't know the reality the verse is trying to portray. By answering those questions with yes, you are the one setting up the strawman!

Almost spilt my coffee when i read this....

Definition of strawman argument here.

Position X (mine): God and Jesus are latreuo on the throne.

Position Y (yours): "so if the fellows in Alice in Wonderland prostrate in front of the Queen (with the cheshire cat sitting on her lap), you cannot say they are worshipping the cat right?"

Get it?

I'm not sure if you think "i dont know" is a position, but answering those questions with yes was a simple way of presenting my case. If you think that's strawman argument, pls suggest how to present my case to you.

And I did use the analogy of the queen and her cheshire cat. If the queen were to sit on the throne with her cat on her lap and you prostrate in front of her, are you prostrating to her or her cat? Kaoz .. this is common sense isn't it? No-one will think that they are prostrating in front of the cat!

Using  your irreverent example ... You and i know that God is not One who will share His glory. Furthermore, He is so particular about who we offer worship to, do you not think He will put the cat down first?

the throne of God and of the lamb simple to understand. picture this. a throne in the room for the high king. a lesser throne for JC at the side.

 

Rev 22:3 --> throne, not throne(s).

To Icemoon:

Misrepresentations. Puerile comments. Insults. Strawman arguments. Always thought you're better than this. Seems not.

It seems to me the throne of God is somehow shared with the throne of the Lamb. Honestly, I'm not sure how this works out in reality, maybe God is together with the Lamb, like stroking the cheshire cat .. haah.

Great. Now ur contradicting urself.

Is God and the Lamb on the throne? Yes
Is God being Latreuo? Yes
Is the Lamb still with God when God was Latreuo? Yes

You claimed that only God can be Latreuo, so when the Lamb is on the throne, isn’t the Lamb receiving the same Latreuo? If the Lamb wasn’t meant to receive the same Latreuo, shouldn’t God ask Him to leave first? Or to use your irreverent example, to put him down before receiving Latreuo?

Edit: paiseh, I just realized the 'he' in verse 6 is also Jesus! Wah .. now my case becomes stronger .. lol

In no way is Jesus is saying that he is the Lord of verse 6! You can bring in your pre-conception of the Trinity and twist the verse to suit your interpretation, but this cannot convince us.

Thank u for bringing this up.
Still on NRSV:

Rev 22:6 → And he said to me, "These words are faithful and true"; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place.

Who’s the ‘he’? Read in context all the way to Rev 21:9, where this whole epilogue started. It was one of the seven angels.

Rev 21:9 → Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."

Who sent the angel? Jesus Christ.

Rev 1:1 → The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

Back to Rev 22:6, who did the angel say sent him? The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets.

Go figure.

Erm, I never say Jesus is not being worshipped.

Rather, my point is the proskeuno of Jesus does not imply the latreuo of Hashem!

Your case is very much weakened because never once is Jesus "latreuo-ed" directly. In fact, Thomas did not latreuo Jesus when he exclaimed "My Lord and My God".

You’re arguing against the dictionary.

Jesus wasn’t Latreuo because it is service-worship, service which pertains to worshipping God.

First, God wasn’t the only One who was latreuo. Twice is used of serving false gods (demons) (Ac. 7:42; Ro. 1:25). Just in case anyone has funny ideas that Latreuo is used exclusively for God.

It is used by the LXX translators to translate the following Hebrew terms:
a. `Avadh, “serve” (Dt. 10:12; Jos. 24:14 f.; 2 Kgs. 17:12).
b. Pelach , “serve” (Dn. 3:12; 6:16; 7:14-Aramaic)
c. Sharath, Piel: “minister, serve” (Nm. 16:9; Ez. 20:32).

In almost every case in the LXX, the verb latreuo translates the Hebrew verb `avadh, “to work, serve, perform the tasks of a servant or slave.”

Second, how does God want to be worshipped in the OT? --> 

Exo 20:5, Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

bow down → shachah
serve → ‘abad

These 2 words translate from Septuagint as proskeuno and latreuo respectively.

1.    So there’s nothing special about the use of latreuo.
2.    When used, mostly used to translate ‘serve’. As in how the priest performs religious rites within a temple.

Question now is, so how does God want to be worshipped?

John 4:20-24 → 20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship (proskeuno).  21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh * , when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship (proskeuno) the Father. 22 Ye worship (proskeuno) ye know not what: we know what we worship (proskeuno): for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship (proskeuno) the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship (proskeuno) him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship (proskeuno) him must worship (proskeuno) him in spirit and in truth

Matt 4:9-10 → And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship (proskeuno) me.
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship (proskeuno) the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve (latreuo).

 

We’re required to do both. Worship (proskeuno) & serve (latreuo). Jesus uses parallelism, but mean the same thing - Dont mess with rulers, dont meddle with princes. Mess and meddle are the same. Proskeuno is the more proper word for worship in Greek.

In John 4:20-24 -- > 8 x proskeuno. God wants to be proskeuno. Mentioned 8 times in these 4 verses.
Matt 4:9-10 -- > Even Satan wanted this proskeuno worship from Jesus.

Does this give anyone an idea about what proskeuno really is?  There’s nothing wrong with the rendering in the Bible!

As Icemoon affirmed, Jesus was proskeuno (worshipped)!  Only God should be proskeuno. So who was Jesus then?

Originally posted by Icemoon:

Your statements are sweeping. And your argument is pretty much recycled. :P

For example, you mentioned about Thomas invoking the name of God. But are we sure Thomas is invoking the name of God whom we know as Hashem? If you check the Greek, the words are Kyrios and Theos. None of them is a one to one mapping for Hashem!

The above illustrates just one problem of Hebrew-Greek-English translation.

Interesting you quoted John 9. I wonder have you checked Strongs or done your homework before quoting it?

The Greek word for 'worship' in John 9 is proskuneo. Before we continue, do you want to bet your last cent that 'worship' in the NT is always proskuneo? Never mind the context even.

If you are afraid to bet your last cent, smart ass. At least you aren't thinking like a simpleton!

Because there is another Greek word for 'worship', called latreuo. Heh.

Let me quote from Strongs:

The Lexicon listings are quite long, so I leave you to read yourself:
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=4352&t=KJV&page=1
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3000&t=KJV

Suffice to say, when worship is used in reference to Jesus, latreuo is never used! When there is a clear reference to Hashem, latreuo is used. See the pattern?

I shall not say much. Read, discern and be skeptical. :P

You've not made any case.

Just because latreuo is used of God and not Jesus - whats your point?

How do you render "sacred service" to God? How do you want to differentiate between these 2 words which render "worship"?

By the way, you're wrong to say worship was never used to refer to Jesus. In Rev 22:3, Christ is latreuo along with God, referred as a singular pronoun and on the throne. Does that give u a clearer picture of the Trinity?

Rev 22:3

And there shall be (5704) no more * * curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be (5704) in it; and his servants shall serve (5692) him:

Even if u refuse to see past this,

By saying Jesus is proskuneo, have you really affirmed anything?

Let's look at how God desires to be worshipped:

John 4:23

But the hour cometh (5736), and now is (5748), when the true worshippers shall worship (5692) the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh (5719) such to worship (5723) him.

Proskeuno.

 

Matt 4:9-10

And saith (5719) unto him, All these things will I give (5692) thee, if thou wilt fall down (5631) and worship (5661) me.  Then saith (5719) Jesus unto him, Get thee hence (5720), Satan: for it is written (5769), Thou shalt worship (5692) the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve (5692).

Proskeuno and latreuo.

From your lexicons, there is a type of proskuneo that is worship reserved to God alone, and there is a type of proskuneo that can be done with men--a bowing down, a courtesy, a sign of deference and respect, a tipping-the-hat, so to speak. In other words, sometimes it's okay and sometimes it isn't. What's the difference?

There is a type of proskuneo that cannot be mistaken for mere courtesy. In Acts 10:25 Cornelius fell at Peter's feet and proskuneo ("worshipped") him. In Revelation 19:10 and 22:8 John fell at the angel's feet twice and proskuneo ("worshipped") him. Both Cornelius and John were seriously reprimanded. Why?

The reason they were reprimanded is that proskuneo is generally translated to bow down but if a person is already down, the addition of proskuneo must indicate worship. Cornelius didn't fall at Peter's feet and then bow down, he was already down. John didn't fall down at the angel's feet and then bow down, he was already down. They both fell down and worshipped. Ergo the strong words of correction: "Worship God, not me."

Matt 4:9 again, if thou wilt fall down (5631) and worship (5661) me (Satan wanted not just a polite proskeuno, but one with full worship)

Matt 2:2-11, Matt 28:9 --> all indicate falling on the feet before worshipping Jesus Christ.

And of course the other references where Jesus is proskuneoed to. Worshipped.

Grant it to you that there are times when the word proskuneo is used of Jesus and other men and it doesn't refer to worship. But the context tells us (which you told me to ignore, hmm).

We looked at the context and especially the use of the phrase "falling down and worshipping." It seems hard to escape the conclusion that Jesus is being worshipped.

Originally posted by Icemoon:

Then the onus is on you to explain the reason for Rambam's perversion? Think about it, Jews read the Shema everyday. Does Rambam seriously think nobody would spot his perversion? Come on!

I don't really worry whether pp will spot his perversion. I'm more concerned at how he's able to alter the Word of God anyway he likes.

So?

There can be many explanation for the plurality, none as far-fetched and earth-shaking as proclaiming God as Trinity.

Far fetched meh? Approximately 2 billions of Christians are able to believe in it (minus away cultists, unitarians, etc, probably left with 1 billion), very outrageous meh?

If you look at Kabbalah, they even have stuff like the 10 sephiroth. Is that plural enough for you? They are dealing with 10 while you only have 3.

Thank u. I never wanted to prove Trinity from these verses in the first place. Just to demonstrate plurality.

Moot point. Are you saying the Jewish God is not sovereign because He happened to speak to the heavenly hosts, according to the Jewish pov, before creation?

Where got modern reasoning? That was what the Sages wrote, isn't it? I think Rashi mentioned the "us" refers to God and His heavenly hosts. I suspect he wasn't even the first to come out with the idea.

Modern reasoning referred to your using of the terrorist bombing as an example, not your heavenly courts. Unless Rashi used this analogy too? hmm...

 

You can read it in view of Trinity, it makes sense. So does reading it in view of Gnosticism or some pagan combination. Agree?

Finally, something that we can agree on! BUT, one needs to read it with the totality of the whole Bible.

 

The sages said the Written Torah is prone to perversion. That's one rationale for the necessity of the Oral Torah. :P

Hmm.. sounds like another term for hollow traditions of man. Seems like all faiths face the same problem after all. Ask you, Jesus made no reference to it in

Matt 5:17-18, "¹⁷"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Why not?

 

But don't worry, you are not alone. Muslims say your gospels and their Torah are all corrupted. Haha. They are the real 大赢家.

Their Torah?? This takes the cake. If this is not self-righteousness, i don't know what is.

Anyway, Sura 3:3 and 5:46 don't seem to support your view:

"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3). 
     Also, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah," (5:46).

 

Siao eh. Is there a need to mention "us" in those verses?? How about Isaiah 6:8 then?

Apparently, God consistently uses "us" whenever there's a heavenly court meeting to refer to Himself and the heavenly hosts, why no mention of it here?

 

the fullness of God through JC isnt even justified much less in him.

Col 2:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

as u said 1 man brough sin in and 1 man bring sin out. the point being refused here is that 1 man gave the whole world sins. so its fair to say 1 man bring all tat sins away.

the operational word is in "created". Can a created being redeem another created being? Can an angel redeem your sins?

lastly, the way u phrase it for the God willing it part, it sounds like the lame qn of can god create a stone so heavy tat he cant lift it.

merely quoting what you said.

I've heard your example before and people use it to argue against the omnipotence of God, but we know God doesnt defy logic. Is the Trinity beyond logic? Is it really so hard to understand?

Originally posted by domonkassyu:

my "scale' was the point that it took 1 perfect man to bring sin into the world. to redeem that, it takes another perfect man to counter it. y else would JC being called the last adam? now since God is only one, it would normally be impossible to beget anything else. therefore,he has to create the prehuman JC. fast forward that to mary's time, God then transfered JC down to earth. thus "creating" the human JC. that JC is also charged with the authority to erase man's sin. surely when God says you can do this and that means you can do it right?

as for the clay thingy, yes we are,as are all other but God.

DA Carson analogy of 1+1+1=3 but 00+00+00=00 is valid.undisputed. however, infinity also meant no end or beginning. JC has a beginning not from mary but begotten from God. thus he is no longer infinite. HS wiese, heck, it doesnt even have tat much media coverage in the bible as the father and son. you tell people abt lky and lhl people know. u tell people about gct, they say goh who again? in fact HS wasnt even being refered to as a he or she, not tat it really matters, but obviously like i said b4, 1 supreme, 1 lesser and 1 xtra lor.

Does infinity have any meaning with God?

Does God see an end or beginning to infinity (which by the way, is from Man's perspective)?

Can finite man comprehend infinity?

I'm not here to dispute whether Jesus has a beginning or not, my argument is that the bible reveals the fullness of God in Jesus. That God's nature is in Him. Doesnt matter if terms like Trinity are not found within the bible. Terms we use to describe God's nature (omniscent, omnipresent) are not inside as well. Do we not use them? These are concepts that we glean from His Word. (RCs didnt coin the word, the early church fathers did. And they're certainly not RC. Probably RCs came about 5th or 6th century, but that's another story)

As i said, 1 perfect man (created)  to bring sin in. 1 perfect man (created) to bring it away, only redeems the sin of 1. Not the world.

now since God is only one, it would normally be impossible to beget anything else.

From man's POV, impossible. Neither do we say there are three. But if God wills it, why not? As you said,

surely when God says you can do this and that means you can do it right?

If He chooses to beget His Son, and reveals it as such, with indication of the Father-Son relationship, who are we to determine that's not possible?