Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!fluke!ssc-vax!david From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Answers for Larry W. Message-ID: <719@ssc-vax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 26-Dec-83 07:19:05 EST Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.719 Posted: Mon Dec 26 07:19:05 1983 Date-Received: Sun, 1-Jan-84 02:13:36 EST Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle Lines: 242 Larry West asks some very valid questions about the nature of the Trinity. I will answer them as best I can. If I am mistaken in my explanations, hopefully someone will rush to my aid. > 1) So why wasn't Christ mentioned earlier in the Bible? By earlier I assume you mean the Old Testament. Christ is referenced many times (esp. in Isaiah). The Messiah is depicted both as a suffering servant and as a redeeming King. During the time of Jesus, the Jews were expecting the conquer- ing King to free them from their Roman bondage; this was one of the reasons Jesus was rejected as the Son of God. Now, I think that a Jew would disagree with me here; I do not believe that they think the Messiah has arrived yet. But you wanted a Christian response. > 2) What was HE doing before coming to earth? > 3) What exactly do you believe the Trinity to be? > 4) Are God and Christ two separate individuals [in your view] or two > facets of the same being? I am going to try all of these at once. The Trinity is a difficult concept for both Christians and non-Christians alike. Christians are fond of using analogies (understanding some Christian doctrine is like explaining "up" to a Flatlander), so maybe this will help. There are three forms of water: solid, liquid, and gas. The three facets of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) may be likened to them. They appear totally different, each has a different function, but they are all the same thing. But this is a crude analogy. If it helps you to understand, use it. If it doesn't, drop it. > 5) Why the emphasis on the Father/Son relationship between God/Christ > if in fact they are supposed to be "the same"? Or rather, what > is the meaning of the terms Father and Son in this case? The greek word used most often by Jesus when he referred to himself as the "Son of man" or the "Son of God" is 'huios', which loosely translated into English means son, but emphasizes the idea of relationship, and considers especially the inward, ethical, and legal aspects. Father/Son best describes the relationship between these two facets of God in a manner that we can understand. > 6) Did God exist before Christ? No. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John uses the greek "logos" (word), which means something said (including the thought or *expression* of the thought). John is referring to Jesus here (Jesus being the outward expression of God's love for mankind). There is a dependency here, though, that (again) can best be explained by (a stolen) analogy: picture two books, one on top of another, resting on a tabletop. Now imagine that these books have been in this position forever; they have always been this way. The top book has a position which is dependent on the lower book; it could not be there but for the lower book. > 7) Given the existence of God/Christ, is it unlikely that the Father/Son > relationship is a convenient fiction [like 'good' and 'evil'] used > to convey the closeness of Jesus to God? That is, since I doubt > anyone will respond to #5 by saying that God literally fathered Christ, > is the Father/Son relationship more symbolic than literal? This > question is probably more pertinent to those who believe in the > absolute literal truth of the Bible. God did literally father Christ through the Holy Spirit (virgin Mary, etc.) I do not doubt that there is symbolism there, but the Virgin birth was an essential part of God's plan of salvation. All of the Christmas stories in the gospels tell that Jesus was concieved of the Holy Spirit. Larry has a second article which I will also respond to here. > How does this fit in with the obvious personality changes God goes > through as the Old Testament progresses? > (mentioned is made of Pharaoh here) In Exodus 7, God appears to make Pharaoh do what He wants and then blow him away. Three words are used for the hardening of Pharaoh's heart: 'hazaq', "to be or make strong" (7:13,22; 8:19); 'kabed', "to be or make heavy, slow to move" (7:14, 8:15,32); and 'qasha', "to harden" (7:3). King James makes it difficult to understand that, for the most part, Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Only in verse 7:3 does it clearly state that it was God that did the hardening. Even then, an acceptable translation would be to "allow to be hardened" (or, in reverse, "not to soften"). The means by which God hardened Pharaoh's heart doesn't necessarily mean any sort of divine intervention. Most probably, Pharaoh's heart was hardened just as men's hearts are hardened today: thrugh the principles and character of human nature. If you were Pharaoh, King of all Egypt, and an old man in rags ordered you to release your entire work force, would you do it? Moses asked Pharaoh to give up quite a lot, and in return offered him nothing (except maybe a good feeling). > If this is just a matter of how God chooses to reveal himself, > why do you think that the picture of God painted by Jesus is any > more accurate than that painted in the Old Testament? The answer to this stems from an answer to an earlier question. Jesus had firsthand knowledge of His Subject. > And why the two-thousand year absence of any (direct) signs of God > -- compared with the previous two thousand during which [if you believe > what the Yahvehists wanted people to believe] he interfered in wars and > personal affairs so (relatively) frequently. The answer to this will have to be a personal one, and may not reflect the truth or what other Chistians believe; but this is one Christian perspective. The period of time known as the "law and the prophets" (the earlier 2000 years) was a time that God was attempting to show man that he could not make it by himself; you had to pay for your mistakes by such-and-such a sacrifice. The bigger the mistake, the bigger the sacrifice. Finally, God sent His last word on the subject; His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice to pay for all mistakes. During the second 2000 years, God is giving man a chance to accept His offer or reject it. But He has to prove to mankind, once and for all, that we are lost without Him. Thus, God will let mankind work his way to the brink of Armageddon before intervening again. (How this will happen is greatly disputed among Christians today. But the important thing is to be on the right side when it happens). > I'm also curious as to why this should be so: why shouldn't Christianity > change? Why shouldn't God change? Is he incapable of learning? > ( That question assumes a belief in something resembling "free will", > such that God doesn't know what people will do; otherwise, of > course, everything we talk about in net.religion is moot. ) One of the tenets of the Christian faith is that Christ is the same "yesterday, today, and forever." Psalm 147:5 indicates that God's understanding is infinite. I suppose He is incapable of learning as there is nothing that He doesn't know. A personal belief of mine is that God exists outside of Time (that explains a lot of things, like perfect prophecy, etc.). This implies that God knows what people are going to do. He sees you becoming a Christian 10 years from now, or He sees you dying in a car accident 5 years from now. But seeing someone do something is not making them do it. > Was Jesus then not in direct communication with his "cosmic self"? > ( Since he was in human form, and part of being human is changing. ) > If he wasn't, was he then perhaps subject to human mistakes and > misapprehensions? I lumped these together because I do not understand what you mean by the term, "cosmic self"; God? Holy Spirit? Or is this a non-Christian term? I need a definition to continue. > If he was not truly here in limited human form, what is the point of > his death? The heart of Christianity. The animals used in the sacrifices I mentioned earlier had to be "without blemish". God allowed the "clean" animal to take the blame for whoever it was being sacrificed for; the sins were transferred from the man to the animal (and, in reverse, the cleanliness of the animal was transferred to the man). Jesus, our sacrifice, was also without sin; in order for us to be acceptable to God, we must accept Christ as having taken our sins upon himself. The gravity of the situation becomes apparent when you realize that Jesus took upon himself the blame of the billions of people who have inhabited this planet. Such a weight would destroy a mortal man; it could only be endured by Jesus' infinite love for mankind. > And how can he sit in judgement over those with whom he > shares so little --> no pain, no learning, no uncertainty, no fear, > no lust, no love of another member of the same species... Precisely the reason God had to become man. The pain of the crucifixion was very intense, not from just a physical point of view (it was), but from a spiritual point of view. Jesus, who was without sin, and who knew the love of God more than any man, was made sin for us, and was rejected by God so that Jesus could accept the blame. God loved mankind so much He allowed Himself to be literally torn apart. As for the other catagories (learning, uncertainty, fear, lust, love), they cannot be lumped together, at least from a Christian point of view. Jesus was a man, and was subject to the same temptations that all men are subjected to. He was undoubtedly tempted by many women; where Jesus differed from all other men is that He did not give in to temptation (this would exclude lust, or at least my definition of it). Uncertainty and fear? Mark 14:36 leads me to believe otherwise. > And while I'm rambling, what is the point of allowing the "devil" > (for those of you who believe in his existence) to do his evil work, > other than to test humans? Why should we be concerned about the > devil when he's actually acting on behalf of God? The second question is badly worded, for it assumes that "God's purpose for Satan is to test human beings". It presents God and Satan as some sort of team to test humans, which is not the Christian viewpoint. God and Satan are diametrically opposed. Satan rebelled against God, because he didn't like the way God was running the show. He was, in fact, jealous of God; he wanted to take over. God, of course, "threw the bum out". (I am reminded of the lines spoken by Khan in Star Trek II, from Milton; they are very moving, and suggest very well what Satan was probably thinking). Satan is acting on behalf of himself, not God. Misery loves company. Satan hates for hate's sake; the idea that God will allow some puny humans to enter the heavenly kingdom infuriates him. Add to that the fact that we will have a status higher than he had when he "got the axe" probably makes him worse. He will do anything to keep as many of us as he can away from that which he has been denied (If I can't have it, you can't have it). > And why on earth do some Christians seem to think that being told > that a policy "accept Jesus into your heart or burn in hell for > eternity" is a policy of love? (And what a choice you're offered!) I have already explained the nature of God's love in the crucifixion of Jesus. The choice we are offered is to love Him or to reject Him. But I think your feelings stem from a misunderstanding of what it means to be a Christian, as if to "accept Jesus into your heart" is something terrible. The reasons people think it so are many. Some, I suppose, think that their entire lifestyle will be reorganized instantly and they will be turned into a mindless robot reciting Scripture all day. Personally, I feel that when you become a Christian you become more yourself than ever before. As you allow God to infiltrate your heart and boot out all of your vanities, blindly accepted social values (you get a lot of these from movies), prejudices and external influences, more and more of the real person called Dave Norris or Larry West will emerge, unfettered by such chains. > Yes, David Norris did not say "God does not change". Another > question: how does "God" differ from "Christianity (the truth)", > if either of those terms has any meaning for you? Larry, the statement directs the question at net.religion in general, but I will accept it as being directed to me. But I think I have already answered it in my discussion of the Trinity. > A final question: if you're one who believes that God is beyond > our understanding ["the Lord works in mysterious ways"], why > do you believe (if you do) that the God conceived by Christians > is anything more than a small fraction of his true essence? How > do you know that the Buddhists and Muslims aren't just approaching > God [far beyond our understanding, remember] from a different path? John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life, but he who disobeys the Son will not see life but God's wrath upon him." Rom 10:9 "that if you confess with your lips the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." I cite these verses only to indicate that the Christian God is not the same as the gods of other religions. There are basic doctrinal differences between Christianity and other religions. Remember, Christianity teaches that there is nothing man can do in and of himself to obtain salvation; it is the free gift of God. Most other religions teach some method, or ceremony, or something that will "punch your ticket". But Christians do not believe that God is beyond our understanding. 1 Cor. 2:12 "Now we have recieved, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." God is not far beyond our understanding. He is as close to you as your own heart. So here is one response to your questions, Larry. I hope my bumbling explanations have not been *too* amusing, and that somebody out there got something out of this. -- David Norris -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david