by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,1972,1982,1992,2002,2012,2022,203. . .2,5072,508»

Al-zariba

Roborian wrote:On a completely random note, if you don't mind my asking, I'm curious to ask a firsthand source how you spell Quran/Qu'ran/Koran and how/if it matters. I've read and heard conflicting information on the matter, and I'm curious if you have any insight.

I don't mind at all. To be honest, I don't think it matters much, but Quran is the most common way of spelling it in English. The original Arabic word is al-Qur'an, but I don't think it makes too much sense to maintain what I think they call a "glottal stop", which is very common in Arabic. By spelling it "Qur'an" you are basically forcing English speakers to pronounce it correctly, which I think sounds kind of awkward when everything else is in English. Unless you are going to say al-Qur'an in its original Arabic form, I think you should only spell it Quran, since that's how it is said in English, without that "glottal stop" pronunciation. It's like the difference between Hawaii and Hawaiʻi. I wouldn't spell it a certain way unless you are also going to pronounce it that way.

And "Koran" is just how the English originally spelled it. Sort of like how Beijing used to be spelled "Peking". I think they use it that way in other Germanic languages as well.

Roborian wrote:
Presumably, (speaking again from something of a point of ignorance, open to correction) the counterargument there would be that the crucifixion need not have occurred, according to Muslims, in the exact manner described in the Gospels. To my knowledge, the Qu'ran provides no details on the crucifixion beyond referring to it as that, and since they obviously do not accept the death recorded in the Biblical account, it seems that they would not be bound to accept the earlier details of the account, the flagellation, the spear, etc., and assume a 'healthier' swoon, though crucifixion practices as we know them would seem likely to include at least something like the flogging.

Phydios wrote:I'm sorry, but where does the Bible record the miraculous saving of Jesus from crucifixion? One need only open a Bible to see all of the miracles that were described as miracles. But the Gospels say that Jesus died on that cross, and modern medical science agrees with them.

Phydios wrote:Yes, I suppose that's the only option for Muslims, since their beliefs aren't compatible with what eyewitnesses recorded in the Gospels.

None of the disciples (Mark 14:50), nor the writers of the Gospel or Epistle, witnessed the crucifixion. So there are no reliable eyewitness accounts, it is all second-hand. Therefore the study you cited from the American Medical Association is moot, since it is itself based on unreliable data. Even if you accept that a Biblical event could possibly be subject to the lowly scrutiny of human "science".

Second, not that I subscribe to the swoon theory, it is just a minority view, but for the sake of argument, I will point out a number of things. Apart from there not being any eyewitness accounts in the Gospel, it is also important to point out that Jesus was not reported to be on the cross very long, and that Pontius Pilate was surprised how quickly he "died". He was then taken down and into custody by Pilate, who gave Jesus to Joseph of Arimathea, a wealth secret follower of Jesus, who put Jesus in a cave on his land, with help from a Pharisee, Nicomedus. All of this together, especially when one considers that Pilate was reluctant to crucify him and according to apocryphal accounts later converted to Christianity, suggests it is more than possible that Jesus was spirited away, still alive, and allowed to recover on Joseph of Arimathea's land. He then would have emerged from the cave to speak to his disciples before being taken up by God. But again, the Quran says he was saved from the Cross and not crucified at all, so this would be a minority interpretation anyway.

Phydios wrote:But how then would the payment for a world of sin be made?

"The fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16)

"I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:11)

"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son." (Ezekiel 18:20)

"But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live." (Ezekiel 18:21-22)

"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 5:19)

"Then He will reward each according to his works." (Matthew 16:27)

"But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17)

"Your Lord has decreed upon Himself mercy: that any of you who does wrong out of ignorance and then repents after that and corrects himself — indeed, He is Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Quran 6:54)

"God will forgive you; and He is the Most Merciful of the merciful." (Quran 12:92)

"...no soul shall bear the burden of another, and that man shall have nothing but what he strives for, and that the fruit of his striving shall soon be seen." (Quran 53:38-40)

United massachusetts

Oh come now, regional residents! If you're too busy debating the theology of the Cross to click an option in the poll, I may just have to coup (again)!

United massachusetts wrote:Oh come now, regional residents! If you're too busy debating the theology of the Cross to click an option in the poll, I may just have to coup (again)!

I think I have a conflict of interest.

Horatius Cocles and United massachusetts

United massachusetts

Phydios wrote:I think I have a conflict of interest.

Oh you were that kid who lost the student council election by one vote because you refused to vote for yourself?

Your reward shall be great in Heaven, I suppose.

La france bonapartiste

United massachusetts wrote:Oh come now, regional residents! If you're too busy debating the theology of the Cross to click an option in the poll, I may just have to coup (again)!

Didn't know there was one!

If this results in another tie, I will be the first to recommend you just go ahead and seize power. Like the saying goes, "Democracy is wasted on the democratic." People say that, right?

Horatius Cocles and United massachusetts

La france bonapartiste:
Okay, you asked for Scriptures, so here you go. GotQuestions.org is a great (though firmly Protestant) site for explaining Christian doctrine, and the best thing about it is that its articles are packed with Scripture citations. This is a go-to site for me.

Regarding the concept of the Trinitarian God, which is taught (literally) from the very first verse of the Bible: https://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

The Trinity is one God existing in three Persons. Understand that this is not in any way suggesting three Gods. Keep in mind when studying this subject that the word “Trinity” is not found in Scripture. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God—three coexistent, co-eternal Persons who are God. Of real importance is that the concept represented by the word “Trinity” does exist in Scripture. The following is what God’s Word says about the Trinity:

1) There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5).

2) The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for “us” is used. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two. While this is not an explicit argument for the Trinity, it does denote the aspect of plurality in God. The Hebrew word for "God," "Elohim," definitely allows for the Trinity.

In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus’ baptism. Seen in this passage is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of three distinct Persons in the Trinity.

3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages. In the Old Testament, “LORD” is distinguished from “Lord” (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The LORD has a Son (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). The Spirit is distinguished from the “LORD” (Numbers 27:18) and from “God” (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17). This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another Person in the Trinity—the Father.

4) Each member of the Trinity is God. The Father is God (John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2). The Son is God (John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20). The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16).

5) There is subordination within the Trinity. Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship and does not deny the deity of any Person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son see Luke 22:42, John 5:36, John 20:21, and 1 John 4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit see John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and especially John 16:13-14.

6) The individual members of the Trinity have different tasks. The Father is the ultimate source or cause of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); salvation (John 3:16-17); and Jesus’ human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father initiates all of these things.

The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); divine revelation (John 1:1, 16:12-15; Matthew 11:27; Revelation 1:1); and salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.

The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and Jesus’ works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus, the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.

There have been many attempts to develop illustrations of the Trinity. However, none of the popular illustrations are completely accurate. The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves, just as the skin, flesh, and seeds of the apple are parts of it, not the apple itself. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts of God; each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better, but it still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapor, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God. So, while these illustrations may give us a picture of the Trinity, the picture is not entirely accurate. An infinite God cannot be fully described by a finite illustration.

The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential. Rather than attempting to fully define the Trinity with our finite human minds, we would be better served by focusing on the fact of God’s greatness and His infinitely higher nature. “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” (Romans 11:33-34).

Regarding the hypostatic union, the incarnation of God as a man: https://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html

The hypostatic union is the term used to describe how God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature, yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58, 10:30), but at the incarnation Jesus became a human being (John 1:14). The addition of the human nature to the divine nature is Jesus, the God-man. This is the hypostatic union, Jesus Christ, one Person, fully God and fully man.

Jesus’ two natures, human and divine, are inseparable. Jesus will forever be the God-man, fully God and fully human, two distinct natures in one Person. Jesus’ humanity and divinity are not mixed, but are united without loss of separate identity. Jesus sometimes operated with the limitations of humanity (John 4:6, 19:28) and other times in the power of His deity (John 11:43; Matthew 14:18-21). In both, Jesus’ actions were from His one Person. Jesus had two natures, but only one personality.

The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine we are incapable of fully understanding. It is impossible for us to fully understand how God works. We, as human beings with finite minds, should not expect to totally comprehend an infinite God. Jesus is God’s Son in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). But that does not mean Jesus did not exist before He was conceived. Jesus has always existed (John 8:58, 10:30). When Jesus was conceived, He became a human being in addition to being God (John 1:1, 14).

Jesus is both God and man. Jesus has always been God, but He did not become a human being until He was conceived in Mary. Jesus became a human being in order to identify with us in our struggles (Hebrews 2:17) and, more importantly, so that He could die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins (Philippians 2:5-11). In summary, the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, that there is no mixture or dilution of either nature, and that He is one united Person, forever.

Regarding original sin: Two passages of Scripture come immediately to mind.

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." - Psalm 51:5 (NIV)

"When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break. Still, everyone died—from the time of Adam to the time of Moses—even those who did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come. But there is a great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ. And the result of God’s gracious gift is very different from the result of that one man’s sin. For Adam’s sin led to condemnation, but God’s free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins. For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.

Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone. Because one person disobeyed God, many became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many will be made righteous." - Romans 5:12-19 (NLT)

If that's not enough, you can look at what GotQuestions has to say. But be warned: the different theological teachings on the exact nature of original sin make my head hurt.
https://www.gotquestions.org/original-sin.html

Jesus' predictions of His death and resurrection:

"For as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights." - Matthew 12:40 (NLT) [As an aside, this verse, among others, has led to much debate over what day of the week Jesus was crucified on!]

"From then on Jesus began to tell his disciples plainly that it was necessary for him to go to Jerusalem, and that he would suffer many terrible things at the hands of the elders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. He would be killed, but on the third day he would be raised from the dead." - Matthew 16:21 (NLT)

"After they gathered again in Galilee, Jesus told them, “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of his enemies. He will be killed, but on the third day he will be raised from the dead.” And the disciples were filled with grief." - Matthew 17:22-23 (NLT)

"When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, “As you know, Passover begins in two days, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”" - Matthew 26:1-2 (NLT)

"Then Jesus began to tell them that the Son of Man must suffer many terrible things and be rejected by the elders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. He would be killed, but three days later he would rise from the dead." - Mark 8:31 (NLT)

"As [the disciples and Jesus] went back down the mountain, he told them not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. So they kept it to themselves, but they often asked each other what he meant by “rising from the dead.”" - Mark 9:9-10 (NLT)

"[Jesus] said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of his enemies. He will be killed, but three days later he will rise from the dead.”" - Mark 9:31 (NLT)

"“Listen,” [Jesus] said, “we’re going up to Jerusalem, where the Son of Man will be betrayed to the leading priests and the teachers of religious law. They will sentence him to die and hand him over to the Romans. They will mock him, spit on him, flog him with a whip, and kill him, but after three days he will rise again.”" - Mark 10:33-34 (NLT)

"“The Son of Man must suffer many terrible things,” [Jesus] said. “He will be rejected by the elders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. He will be killed, but on the third day he will be raised from the dead.”" - Luke 9:22 (NLT)

"Taking the twelve disciples aside, Jesus said, “Listen, we’re going up to Jerusalem, where all the predictions of the prophets concerning the Son of Man will come true. He will be handed over to the Romans, and he will be mocked, treated shamefully, and spit upon. They will flog him with a whip and kill him, but on the third day he will rise again.”" - Luke 18:31-33 (NLT)

Jesus' statement that He could be supernaturally spared from the agonies of crucifixion, but would not be so that Scripture would be fulfilled:
"“Put away your sword,” Jesus told him. “Those who use the sword will die by the sword. Don’t you realize that I could ask my Father for thousands of angels to protect us, and he would send them instantly? But if I did, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that describe what must happen now?”

Then Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I some dangerous revolutionary, that you come with swords and clubs to arrest me? Why didn’t you arrest me in the Temple? I was there teaching every day. But this is all happening to fulfill the words of the prophets as recorded in the Scriptures.” At that point, all the disciples deserted him and fled." - Matthew 26:52-56 (NLT)

Regarding Jesus' apparent abandonment by the Father when He was on the cross:

Jesus quotes here from Psalm 22, a psalm written by David that applies not only to his present situation, but to Jesus' crucifixion centuries later. The interpretation that I grew up hearing is that the Father turned His face away from the Son because His eyes were too holy to look upon evil. However, there are other interpretations. Here's the GotQuestions article: https://www.gotquestions.org/forsaken-me.html

I also follow a site called The Berean Test, which analyzes Christian music through the lens of Scripture. This particular point became relevant when "How Deep the Father's Love For Us" was reviewed. The author, Vince Wright, provides a compelling argument from Scripture that God did not literally abandon Jesus on the cross at all. See below.

"This is a popular statement that is at odds with Psalm 22:1-31. Some believe that Jesus was abandoned by the Father due to the first statement within this Psalm that Jesus quoted in Matthew 27:46. However, when I examine Psalm 22 in context, this is what I see.

The Psalm starts with the quote Jesus gave, as previously mentioned. The Psalmist, King David, prays to the Father without a response. David feels abandoned by the Father. As does Jesus, when He quotes from it. Verse 3 acknowledges the holiness and majesty of the Father. Verse 4 and 5 describe past acts of the Father, where David’s ancestors trusted Him and were delivered.

David contrasts this with his scenario in Verses 6-8, calling himself a “worm” and a “reproach” due to the taunts of others. The Father rescued these people, why not David? This too is prophetic as Jesus was also insulted, asked “if you are God, save yourself” (Matthew 27:40 and Luke 23:3). Thus far, the parallels between the feelings and thoughts of Jesus hold true.

In Verses 9 and 10, David acknowledges that he trusts the Father since birth. As does Jesus, when we examine his life throughout all four Gospels.

In Verse 11, David asks the Father to “be not far from me” because he has nobody else. Verses 12-18 are yet more parallels between David and Jesus. The difference is that David is describing how he feels, but for Jesus, much of it is quite literal. Nouns such as “dogs” and “bulls” are figurative in both cases. While David feels poured out, Jesus’ blood was literally drained (Matthew 26:26 and Luke 22:20). Both are literally zapped of strength. While David feels pierced, Jesus experienced the anguish of crucifixion, pierced literally within his hands and feet (John 20:25). Though David feels that his enemies divided his clothes, the Roman soldiers literally gambled for His (Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, and Luke 23:34).

Verses 19-21 has the same prayer offered to the Father as Verse 11. Verses 22 and 23 is David’s resolve, that He will proclaim the Father to his brethren. As does Jesus throughout His entire ministry. Once again, we see multiple parallels within David’s anguish and Jesus’ crucifixion.

When we finally get to Verse 24, it says “For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.”

The context of “He” is the Father based on previous verses. If this is talking about Jesus (and there is little disagreement on that point), then the Father has not despised the affliction of Jesus. He has also not hidden his face from Jesus! The rest of the Psalm is about how David will praise and serve the Father, him and his brethren.

Why, then, do some people believe the Father abandoned the Son? It is because of Habakkuk 1:13. The text says:

“Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, And You can not look on wickedness with favor. Why do You look with favor
On those who deal treacherously? Why are You silent when the wicked swallow up Those more righteous than they?”

The problem with this is that Habakkuk asks a question immediately after the bolded text. Let’s take a look at it again:

“Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, And You can not look on wickedness with favor. Why do You look with favor
On those who deal treacherously? Why are You silent when the wicked swallow up Those more righteous than they?”

The prophet Habakkuk asks these questions in a response to the words of God in Habakkuk 1:5-6:

“Look among the nations! Observe!
Be astonished! Wonder!
Because I am doing something in your days—
You would not believe if you were told.

For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans,
That fierce and impetuous people
Who march throughout the earth
To seize dwelling places which are not theirs.”

Habakkuk is asking God why He is “raising up the Chaldeans”. They are “those who deal treacherously”. Habakkuk is not making a statement that God cannot look upon sin. Rather, it says the opposite. God sees the sin that is going on and allowing them to continue in it! What is the reason? God answers this in Habakkuk 2:1-20. The Chaldeans are raised up to punish Israel for their sin.

It is for these reasons that I conclude that this line is contrary to Scripture. The Father did not turn His face away from Jesus."

(https://www.thebereantest.com/stuart-townend-how-deep-the-fathers-love-for-us)

Regarding Jesus' statement that the Father is greater than Him: There is a relational subordination in the Trinity- a "leader among equals", if you will. This too is seen in Scripture. However, no Person of the Trinity is inherently below another. All three exist in perfect union as the one and only God. All are fully God by themselves- they are not parts of a whole. (https://www.gotquestions.org/subordination-Trinity.html)

It may sound strange to speak of subordination within the Trinity. After all, Jesus and the Father are “one” (John 10:30). Subordination makes us think of a lower rank or a subservient position. To understand how there can be subordination in the Trinity, it is important to understand that there are different types of subordination. The biblical or orthodox view of the triune nature of God acknowledges an economic subordination in the Trinity but denies the heretical view of an ontological subordination.

What does this mean? Simply that all three Persons of the Godhead are equal in nature. God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit all have the same divine nature and divine attributes. Contrary to the teaching of many cults, there is no ontological subordination (no difference in the nature of the three Persons of the Godhead). This means that the Trinity is not comprised of greater and lesser gods; rather, there is one God existing eternally in three co-equal Persons.

What the Bible does teach is an economic (or relational) subordination within the Trinity. The three Persons of the triune Godhead voluntarily submit to each other respecting the roles They perform in creation and salvation. So, the Father sent the Son into the world (1 John 4:10). These roles are never reversed in Scripture: the Son never sends the Father. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is sent by Jesus and “proceeds from the Father” to testify of Christ (John 14:26; 15:26). And Jesus perfectly submitted His will to the Father’s (Luke 22:42; Hebrews 10:7).

Economic or relational subordination is simply a term to describe the relationship that exists among God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Essentially, economic subordination within the Trinity refers to what God does while ontological subordination refers to who God is.

Biblically, all three Persons of the Trinity have the same essence, nature, and glory, but each One has different roles or activities when it comes to how God relates to the world. For example, our salvation is based on the Father’s power and love (John 3:16; 10:29), the Son’s death and resurrection (1 John 2:2; Ephesians 2:6), and the Spirit’s regeneration and seal (Ephesians 4:30; Titus 3:5). The different tasks that we see the Father, Son, and Spirit perform are the result of the eternal relationship that exists among the Persons of the Trinity.

The issue of subordination within the Trinity is nuanced, and the distinction between ontological and economic subordination is fine indeed. Theologians within Christian orthodoxy continue to debate the limits of subordination and its relation to the Incarnation of Christ. Such discussions are profitable as we study the Scriptures and think through the truth about the nature of God.

One more point: if Christ was not raised from the dead (either because He never died, or because He stayed dead), then Christianity is a dead, hopeless religion.

“But tell me this—since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost! And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world. But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. He is the first of a great harvest of all who have died. So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man. Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life.”‭‭ - 1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:12-22 (NLT)

Al-zariba wrote:None of the disciples (Mark 14:50), nor the writers of the Gospel or Epistle, witnessed the crucifixion. So there are no reliable eyewitness accounts, it is all second-hand

None of the disciples were there =/= no reliable eye witness accounts. Unless you reject the testimony of women, or believe Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the wrong body (Matthew 27:55-59), or believe the Gospels only record the disciple's experiences. But it's mute when we disagree on which scriptures accurately portray events. Anyway, I don't like debates, I just wanted to point out that your conclusion didn't follow from the premises.

It is nice to have a Muslim in the region, back in the day we tried to spark closer ties with our Islamic allies, and even managed to get the united empire of Islam to join PLI, but it never progressed as far as we had hoped at the time.

Culture of Life, Horatius Cocles, Phydios, and United massachusetts

Al-zariba wrote:I don't mind at all. To be honest, I don't think it matters much, but Quran is the most common way of spelling it in English. The original Arabic word is al-Qur'an, but I don't think it makes too much sense to maintain what I think they call a "glottal stop", which is very common in Arabic. By spelling it "Qur'an" you are basically forcing English speakers to pronounce it correctly, which I think sounds kind of awkward when everything else is in English. Unless you are going to say al-Qur'an in its original Arabic form, I think you should only spell it Quran, since that's how it is said in English, without that "glottal stop" pronunciation. It's like the difference between Hawaii and Hawaiʻi. I wouldn't spell it a certain way unless you are also going to pronounce it that way.

And "Koran" is just how the English originally spelled it. Sort of like how Beijing used to be spelled "Peking". I think they use it that way in other Germanic languages as well.

Thanks for the breakdown, I always find these sorts of little linguistic distinctions or mini-snarls interesting. I have tended to use Qu'ran for the Arabic origin, which I suppose is not universally correct, we use English for "Bible", but anglicizing the word seems vaguely wrong

(Plus, as any novice fantasy writer knows, any word can be improved by putting an apostrophe in it somewhere.)

United massachusetts wrote:Oh come now, regional residents! If you're too busy debating the theology of the Cross to click an option in the poll, I may just have to coup (again)!

I fully intend to wait until the last possible minute and then cast my vote based solely on who would end up creating a tie.

Culture of Life, Horatius Cocles, Phydios, and United massachusetts

Aawia wrote:None of the disciples were there =/= no reliable eye witness accounts.

Al-zariba wrote:None of the disciples (Mark 14:50), nor the writers of the Gospel or Epistle, witnessed the crucifixion. So there are no reliable eyewitness accounts, it is all second-hand. Therefore the study you cited from the American Medical Association is moot, since it is itself based on unreliable data. Even if you accept that a Biblical event could possibly be subject to the lowly scrutiny of human "science".

What. What. What?

Are we just forgetting John because his Gospel isn’t synoptic or something? It’s funny we’re talking about eye witnesses here, because he sort of makes a big deal out of it.

19:35 “An eyewitness has testified, and his testimony is true; he knows that he is speaking the truth, so that you also may [come to] believe.”

And he was right there with Mary at the foot of the Cross. So yes, one of the Apostles, and one of the Gospel writers, was a direct eye witness.

Lagrodia wrote:What. What. What?

Are we just forgetting John because his Gospel isn’t synoptic or something? It’s funny we’re talking about eye witnesses here, because he sort of makes a big deal out of it.

19:35 “An eyewitness has testified, and his testimony is true; he knows that he is speaking the truth, so that you also may [come to] believe.”

And he was right there with Mary at the foot of the Cross. So yes, one of the Apostles, and one of the Gospel writers, was a direct eye witness.

Good one! I had forgotten that part. And Jesus even spoke directly to John while on the cross, right? He commanded John to care for Mary.

Post self-deleted by Aawia.

Phydios wrote:Good one! I had forgotten that part. And Jesus even spoke directly to John while on the cross, right? He commanded John to care for Mary.

Indeed he did, as noted above the verse cited for the apostles abandonment only mentioned the arrest. We know from the trial that other apostles hung around, they just tried to hide themselves and blend into the crowd. Further eroding the argument that their abandonment was permanent and involved avoiding the proceeding events entirely. I think John 19:27 is a better prooftext for John being present and in the crowd during the crucifixion but the passage above is good too in context. But, again when we differ on scriptures with muslims it’s sort of mute.

United massachusetts wrote:LOL. A four-way tie. I am in the process of thinking about how to decide who wins lol.

Now, I've voted for all four candidates! Three in the election and a fourth in the tiebreaker poll.

La france bonapartiste wrote:Didn't know there was one!

A coup honestly wouldn't be that difficult at this point. United massachusetts could refuse to break the senatorial tie, and he could refuse to fill the High Court vacancies. Then, he could start issuing executive orders. Don't like them? Well, you'd normally challenge an executive order in the High Court, but there'd be no justices to hear your case. The Assembly could remove United massachusetts, but removal would require a two-thirds vote. Thus, as long as he could maintain the confidence of one-third of the region, he could rule by executive order.

Would the administrative branch intervene? No. The whole point of the third constitution was to remove the administration from day-to-day regional politics! All that's left is the founder's veto, which I've exercised once in this region's nine-year history. (It was a bill that sought to limit the powers of administrators.)

Roborian wrote:I fully intend to wait until the last possible minute and then cast my vote based solely on who would end up creating a tie.

That's what I did -- one minute before voting ended on the forums!

Lagrodia wrote:What. What. What?

Are we just forgetting John because his Gospel isn’t synoptic or something? It’s funny we’re talking about eye witnesses here, because he sort of makes a big deal out of it.

19:35 “An eyewitness has testified, and his testimony is true; he knows that he is speaking the truth, so that you also may [come to] believe.”

And he was right there with Mary at the foot of the Cross. So yes, one of the Apostles, and one of the Gospel writers, was a direct eye witness.

The Gospel of John is pretty rock solid. It's widely accepted by Christians and non-Christians that the Gospel was written in the late first century. John the Apostle was alive, and he probably dictated the Gospel to a scribe. John died in his 90s, around the year 100. A number of early Christians, including Polycarp (c. 69-155), were his students or otherwise met him. In short, John saw the events, he recounted them to somebody who could write, and numerous people met him. There are few ancient events to which you have such strong testimony.

Horatius Cocles, Phydios, The Rouge Christmas State, Imperii Ecclesia, and 4 othersUnited massachusetts, The Catholic State of Eire, American antartica, and Lagrodia

La france bonapartiste

Phydios wrote:
La france bonapartiste:
Okay, you asked for Scriptures, so here you go. GotQuestions.org is a great (though firmly Protestant) site for explaining Christian doctrine, and the best thing about it is that its articles are packed with Scripture citations. This is a go-to site for me.

Regarding the concept of the Trinitarian God, which is taught (literally) from the very first verse of the Bible: https://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html
[spoiler]The Trinity is one God existing in three Persons. Understand that this is not in any way suggesting three Gods. Keep in mind when studying this subject that the word “Trinity” is not found in Scripture. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God—three coexistent, co-eternal Persons who are God. Of real importance is that the concept represented by the word “Trinity” does exist in Scripture. The following is what God’s Word says about the Trinity:

1) There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5).

2) The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for “us” is used. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two. While this is not an explicit argument for the Trinity, it does denote the aspect of plurality in God. The Hebrew word for "God," "Elohim," definitely allows for the Trinity.

In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus’ baptism. Seen in this passage is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of three distinct Persons in the Trinity.

3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages. In the Old Testament, “LORD” is distinguished from “Lord” (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The LORD has a Son (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). The Spirit is distinguished from the “LORD” (Numbers 27:18) and from “God” (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17). This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another Person in the Trinity—the Father.

4) Each member of the Trinity is God. The Father is God (John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2). The Son is God (John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20). The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16).

5) There is subordination within the Trinity. Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship and does not deny the deity of any Person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son see Luke 22:42, John 5:36, John 20:21, and 1 John 4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit see John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and especially John 16:13-14.

6) The individual members of the Trinity have different tasks. The Father is the ultimate source or cause of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); salvation (John 3:16-17); and Jesus’ human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father initiates all of these things.

The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); divine revelation (John 1:1, 16:12-15; Matthew 11:27; Revelation 1:1); and salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.

The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and Jesus’ works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus, the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.

There have been many attempts to develop illustrations of the Trinity. However, none of the popular illustrations are completely accurate. The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves, just as the skin, flesh, and seeds of the apple are parts of it, not the apple itself. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts of God; each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better, but it still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapor, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God. So, while these illustrations may give us a picture of the Trinity, the picture is not entirely accurate. An infinite God cannot be fully described by a finite illustration.

The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential. Rather than attempting to fully define the Trinity with our finite human minds, we would be better served by focusing on the fact of God’s greatness and His infinitely higher nature. “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” (Romans 11:33-34).

Regarding the hypostatic union, the incarnation of God as a man: https://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html
[spoiler]The hypostatic union is the term used to describe how God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature, yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58, 10:30), but at the incarnation Jesus became a human being (John 1:14). The addition of the human nature to the divine nature is Jesus, the God-man. This is the hypostatic union, Jesus Christ, one Person, fully God and fully man.

Jesus’ two natures, human and divine, are inseparable. Jesus will forever be the God-man, fully God and fully human, two distinct natures in one Person. Jesus’ humanity and divinity are not mixed, but are united without loss of separate identity. Jesus sometimes operated with the limitations of humanity (John 4:6, 19:28) and other times in the power of His deity (John 11:43; Matthew 14:18-21). In both, Jesus’ actions were from His one Person. Jesus had two natures, but only one personality.

The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine we are incapable of fully understanding. It is impossible for us to fully understand how God works. We, as human beings with finite minds, should not expect to totally comprehend an infinite God. Jesus is God’s Son in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). But that does not mean Jesus did not exist before He was conceived. Jesus has always existed (John 8:58, 10:30). When Jesus was conceived, He became a human being in addition to being God (John 1:1, 14).

Jesus is both God and man. Jesus has always been God, but He did not become a human being until He was conceived in Mary. Jesus became a human being in order to identify with us in our struggles (Hebrews 2:17) and, more importantly, so that He could die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins (Philippians 2:5-11). In summary, the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, that there is no mixture or dilution of either nature, and that He is one united Person, forever.

Regarding original sin: Two passages of Scripture come immediately to mind.
[spoiler]"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." - Psalm 51:5 (NIV)

"When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break. Still, everyone died—from the time of Adam to the time of Moses—even those who did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come. But there is a great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ. And the result of God’s gracious gift is very different from the result of that one man’s sin. For Adam’s sin led to condemnation, but God’s free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins. For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.

Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone. Because one person disobeyed God, many became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many will be made righteous." - Romans 5:12-19 (NLT)

If that's not enough, you can look at what GotQuestions has to say. But be warned: the different theological teachings on the exact nature of original sin make my head hurt.
https://www.gotquestions.org/original-sin.html

Jesus' predictions of His death and resurrection:
[spoiler]"For as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights." - Matthew 12:40 (NLT) [As an aside, this verse, among others, has led to much debate over what day of the week Jesus was crucified on!]

"From then on Jesus began to tell his disciples plainly that it was necessary for him to go to Jerusalem, and that he would suffer many terrible things at the hands of the elders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. He would be killed, but on the third day he would be raised from the dead." - Matthew 16:21 (NLT)

"After they gathered again in Galilee, Jesus told them, “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of his enemies. He will be killed, but on the third day he will be raised from the dead.” And the disciples were filled with grief." - Matthew 17:22-23 (NLT)

"When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, “As you know, Passover begins in two days, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”" - Matthew 26:1-2 (NLT)

"Then Jesus began to tell them that the Son of Man must suffer many terrible things and be rejected by the elders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. He would be killed, but three days later he would rise from the dead." - Mark 8:31 (NLT)

"As [the disciples and Jesus] went back down the mountain, he told them not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. So they kept it to themselves, but they often asked each other what he meant by “rising from the dead.”" - Mark 9:9-10 (NLT)

"[Jesus] said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of his enemies. He will be killed, but three days later he will rise from the dead.”" - Mark 9:31 (NLT)

"“Listen,” [Jesus] said, “we’re going up to Jerusalem, where the Son of Man will be betrayed to the leading priests and the teachers of religious law. They will sentence him to die and hand him over to the Romans. They will mock him, spit on him, flog him with a whip, and kill him, but after three days he will rise again.”" - Mark 10:33-34 (NLT)

"“The Son of Man must suffer many terrible things,” [Jesus] said. “He will be rejected by the elders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. He will be killed, but on the third day he will be raised from the dead.”" - Luke 9:22 (NLT)

"Taking the twelve disciples aside, Jesus said, “Listen, we’re going up to Jerusalem, where all the predictions of the prophets concerning the Son of Man will come true. He will be handed over to the Romans, and he will be mocked, treated shamefully, and spit upon. They will flog him with a whip and kill him, but on the third day he will rise again.”" - Luke 18:31-33 (NLT)

Jesus' statement that He could be supernaturally spared from the agonies of crucifixion, but would not be so that Scripture would be fulfilled:
"“Put away your sword,” Jesus told him. “Those who use the sword will die by the sword. Don’t you realize that I could ask my Father for thousands of angels to protect us, and he would send them instantly? But if I did, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that describe what must happen now?”

Then Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I some dangerous revolutionary, that you come with swords and clubs to arrest me? Why didn’t you arrest me in the Temple? I was there teaching every day. But this is all happening to fulfill the words of the prophets as recorded in the Scriptures.” At that point, all the disciples deserted him and fled." - Matthew 26:52-56 (NLT)

Regarding Jesus' apparent abandonment by the Father when He was on the cross:

Jesus quotes here from Psalm 22, a psalm written by David that applies not only to his present situation, but to Jesus' crucifixion centuries later. The interpretation that I grew up hearing is that the Father turned His face away from the Son because His eyes were too holy to look upon evil. However, there are other interpretations. Here's the GotQuestions article: https://www.gotquestions.org/forsaken-me.html

I also follow a site called The Berean Test, which analyzes Christian music through the lens of Scripture. This particular point became relevant when "How Deep the Father's Love For Us" was reviewed. The author, Vince Wright, provides a compelling argument from Scripture that God did not literally abandon Jesus on the cross at all. See below.

"This is a popular statement that is at odds with Psalm 22:1-31. Some believe that Jesus was abandoned by the Father due to the first statement within this Psalm that Jesus quoted in Matthew 27:46. However, when I examine Psalm 22 in context, this is what I see.

The Psalm starts with the quote Jesus gave, as previously mentioned. The Psalmist, King David, prays to the Father without a response. David feels abandoned by the Father. As does Jesus, when He quotes from it. Verse 3 acknowledges the holiness and majesty of the Father. Verse 4 and 5 describe past acts of the Father, where David’s ancestors trusted Him and were delivered.

David contrasts this with his scenario in Verses 6-8, calling himself a “worm” and a “reproach” due to the taunts of others. The Father rescued these people, why not David? This too is prophetic as Jesus was also insulted, asked “if you are God, save yourself” (Matthew 27:40 and Luke 23:3). Thus far, the parallels between the feelings and thoughts of Jesus hold true.

In Verses 9 and 10, David acknowledges that he trusts the Father since birth. As does Jesus, when we examine his life throughout all four Gospels.

In Verse 11, David asks the Father to “be not far from me” because he has nobody else. Verses 12-18 are yet more parallels between David and Jesus. The difference is that David is describing how he feels, but for Jesus, much of it is quite literal. Nouns such as “dogs” and “bulls” are figurative in both cases. While David feels poured out, Jesus’ blood was literally drained (Matthew 26:26 and Luke 22:20). Both are literally zapped of strength. While David feels pierced, Jesus experienced the anguish of crucifixion, pierced literally within his hands and feet (John 20:25). Though David feels that his enemies divided his clothes, the Roman soldiers literally gambled for His (Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, and Luke 23:34).

Verses 19-21 has the same prayer offered to the Father as Verse 11. Verses 22 and 23 is David’s resolve, that He will proclaim the Father to his brethren. As does Jesus throughout His entire ministry. Once again, we see multiple parallels within David’s anguish and Jesus’ crucifixion.

When we finally get to Verse 24, it says “For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.”

The context of “He” is the Father based on previous verses. If this is talking about Jesus (and there is little disagreement on that point), then the Father has not despised the affliction of Jesus. He has also not hidden his face from Jesus! The rest of the Psalm is about how David will praise and serve the Father, him and his brethren.

Why, then, do some people believe the Father abandoned the Son? It is because of Habakkuk 1:13. The text says:

“Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, And You can not look on wickedness with favor. Why do You look with favor
On those who deal treacherously? Why are You silent when the wicked swallow up Those more righteous than they?”

The problem with this is that Habakkuk asks a question immediately after the bolded text. Let’s take a look at it again:

“Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, And You can not look on wickedness with favor. Why do You look with favor
On those who deal treacherously? Why are You silent when the wicked swallow up Those more righteous than they?”

The prophet Habakkuk asks these questions in a response to the words of God in Habakkuk 1:5-6:

“Look among the nations! Observe!
Be astonished! Wonder!
Because I am doing something in your days—
You would not believe if you were told.

For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans,
That fierce and impetuous people
Who march throughout the earth
To seize dwelling places which are not theirs.”

Habakkuk is asking God why He is “raising up the Chaldeans”. They are “those who deal treacherously”. Habakkuk is not making a statement that God cannot look upon sin. Rather, it says the opposite. God sees the sin that is going on and allowing them to continue in it! What is the reason? God answers this in Habakkuk 2:1-20. The Chaldeans are raised up to punish Israel for their sin.

It is for these reasons that I conclude that this line is contrary to Scripture. The Father did not turn His face away from Jesus."

(https://www.thebereantest.com/stuart-townend-how-deep-the-fathers-love-for-us)

Regarding Jesus' statement that the Father is greater than Him: There is a relational subordination in the Trinity- a "leader among equals", if you will. This too is seen in Scripture. However, no Person of the Trinity is inherently below another. All three exist in perfect union as the one and only God. All are fully God by themselves- they are not parts of a whole. (https://www.gotquestions.org/subordination-Trinity.html)

It may sound strange to speak of subordination within the Trinity. After all, Jesus and the Father are “one” (John 10:30). Subordination makes us think of a lower rank or a subservient position. To understand how there can be subordination in the Trinity, it is important to understand that there are different types of subordination. The biblical or orthodox view of the triune nature of God acknowledges an economic subordination in the Trinity but denies the heretical view of an ontological subordination.

What does this mean? Simply that all three Persons of the Godhead are equal in nature. God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit all have the same divine nature and divine attributes. Contrary to the teaching of many cults, there is no ontological subordination (no difference in the nature of the three Persons of the Godhead). This means that the Trinity is not comprised of greater and lesser gods; rather, there is one God existing eternally in three co-equal Persons.

What the Bible does teach is an economic (or relational) subordination within the Trinity. The three Persons of the triune Godhead voluntarily submit to each other respecting the roles They perform in creation and salvation. So, the Father sent the Son into the world (1 John 4:10). These roles are never reversed in Scripture: the Son never sends the Father. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is sent by Jesus and “proceeds from the Father” to testify of Christ (John 14:26; 15:26). And Jesus perfectly submitted His will to the Father’s (Luke 22:42; Hebrews 10:7).

Economic or relational subordination is simply a term to describe the relationship that exists among God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Essentially, economic subordination within the Trinity refers to what God does while ontological subordination refers to who God is.

Biblically, all three Persons of the Trinity have the same essence, nature, and glory, but each One has different roles or activities when it comes to how God relates to the world. For example, our salvation is based on the Father’s power and love (John 3:16; 10:29), the Son’s death and resurrection (1 John 2:2; Ephesians 2:6), and the Spirit’s regeneration and seal (Ephesians 4:30; Titus 3:5). The different tasks that we see the Father, Son, and Spirit perform are the result of the eternal relationship that exists among the Persons of the Trinity.

The issue of subordination within the Trinity is nuanced, and the distinction between ontological and economic subordination is fine indeed. Theologians within Christian orthodoxy continue to debate the limits of subordination and its relation to the Incarnation of Christ. Such discussions are profitable as we study the Scriptures and think through the truth about the nature of God.

This is a lot to take in, even for me, but my impression is that it's still highly interpretive and does not rely on any single, literal treatment of a scriptural verse.

It just all seems wonky and incomprehensible to me. Why would someone deliberately interpret scripture to construe God as being both his own son and father? It just doesn't make any sense at all. Far more logical to me is the more obvious interpretation (i.e. I never read the Bible as a child and thought, "hmm, yes, God is clearly three different people"), that God is one and indivisible and sent Jesus, a separate existence entirely, to spread the Gospel among the people of Earth. To read it any other way is like watching the Wizard of Oz and thinking you just sat through an allegory of the life and times of William Jennings Bryan.

Phydios wrote:One more point: if Christ was not raised from the dead (either because He never died, or because He stayed dead), then Christianity is a dead, hopeless religion.

“But tell me this—since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost! And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world. But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. He is the first of a great harvest of all who have died. So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man. Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life.”‭‭ - 1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:12-22 (NLT)

To be fair, I think there's a lot more to Christianity than just the Resurrection, as important as it is. Saying that there isn't feels a little too reductive. There are plenty of hopeful events from the Old Testament and from Jesus' life and ministry that can and do give people hope.

And if he was saved from the cross as Muslims say, that gives a very hopeful view of God"s mercy and power. I think Old World churches have an unhealthy, even morbid, obsession with the crucifixion.

Slavic lechia

Phydios wrote:La france bonapartiste:
Okay, you asked for Scriptures, so here you go. GotQuestions.org is a great (though firmly Protestant) site for explaining Christian doctrine, and the best thing about it is that its articles are packed with Scripture citations. This is a go-to site for me.

The only thing is that the Bible didn't come down from the sky fully canonized, explained, etc. I think this goes to the point raised by La france bonapartiste, in the sense that you could come up with thousands of personal interpretations of the Bible without any agreement between them. The hypostatic union, or any of the topics you quoted, isn't delved into the nitty gritty details in the Bible. This is why we know there were a multitude of heresies and diverse thoughts on the hypostatic union which wasn't unified without the decrees of the church councils. The canonization of the Bible, the clear statements re: Trinity, hypostatic union, etc. isn't from the Bible itself but by the binding church councils that gave us the definition of the hypostatic union, Trinity, etc. Like La France stated, you don't clearly get any idea of God being three persons yet one in essence/substance from the Bible alone. We wouldn't have had any of the heresies if that idea, or any of the others, was simply self-evident from the text. Which is why you've never had a scripture alone religion until Protestantism, as both Judaism and the early church simply didn't rely on the text alone. Each had/has a place for tradition, for needing authority outside of the text so as to understand the text.

The Gallant Old Republic, Lagrodia, and La france bonapartiste

La france bonapartiste

Hi, everyone, not to break the chain of the discussion, but I just wanted to repost and retool my senatorial platform, since I'm no longer in the running for Speaker. I guess this is the part where I concede to Imperii Ecclesia... 😂 Congratulations IE!

So here is my updated Senate platform:

1. Amend the constitution: I plan on proposing amendments to the RtL constitution to make it more democratic. This includes amendments on the following points:

a. Increasing the power of the Citizens' Assembly to give it the ability to initiate or amend legislation.

b. Reinforcing the separation of powers so that people cannot serve on multiple branches of the regional government (aside from the administrative branch) at the same time; I realize that there may be a manpower question, which is why I'm open to discussion on this point.

2. Fill the High Court: I think most people would agree it's important to fill the vacancies on the High Court as soon as possible. As Senator, I will work with the president, United massachusetts, on filling those vacancies and confirming nominees in the Senate, including holding brief (but thorough) hearings on each candidate's judicial philosophy. I also plan to recommend, for the president's consideration, Roborian to fill the first vacancy, as I believe he has the requisite perspicacity to be a High Court Justice. I may recommend others to President UM depending on the outcome of the election (since I believe in separation of powers and don't want to recommend someone who is already serving in another branch).

3. Amend the Legislative Elections Act: During the deliberation of the Legislative Elections Act (LEA) in the Citizens' Assembly, I tried to raise an objection to the Act and push for an amendment so that run-offs would be possible under the electoral scheme contemplated by the Act. Unfortunately, my suggestion was not taken up and the LEA passed without amendment, which I believe led to our current four-way tie. As a senator, I will amend the LEA to make sure this sort of "crisis" does not remain a weakpoint in our elections. I plan on developing a more robust reform that will streamline Senate elections and make it less of a headache for all involved.

Again, I am an Independent candidate, and I am eager to engage with everyone in RtL and make sure that people from all sides, no matter their party affiliation or ideology, get a fair and equal voice in the Senate.

Salut!

Aawia wrote:None of the disciples were there =/= no reliable eye witness accounts. Unless you reject the testimony of women, or believe Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the wrong body (Matthew 27:55-59), or believe the Gospels only record the disciple's experiences. But it's mute when we disagree on which scriptures accurately portray events. Anyway, I don't like debates, I just wanted to point out that your conclusion didn't follow from the premises.

It is nice to have a Muslim in the region, back in the day we tried to spark closer ties with our Islamic allies, and even managed to get the united empire of Islam to join PLI, but it never progressed as far as we had hoped at the time.

That's not really true... Weren't Peter and John there? Jesus told to Peter "This is your mother now" before dying... John wrote one of the gospels and Peter was an eye witness who helped in writing the gospel of Mark (Peter could not write/write in greek) who wrote the gospel under his supervision. Not to mention Luke's eye witness was Mary mother of Jesus.

I know myself that John may be seen as a bad example by some, as he was very old in the end and it took him years to learn greek and write the gospel, which is the most confusing of all the gospels... Still I think Luke who was Mary's doctor, who also drew her portraits (mind you he was not in the enlightenment xD) would have an eye witness... Unless we refute Mary witnessing her own Son's death...

Then there is the fact that some may say Mark wrote most of the gospel, or all of it without asking Peter for approval and only using his authority to spread the gospel. Not to mention Peter's gospel was not rendered as canonical, or in many cases falsified by others to look like it was written by him.

La france bonapartiste

Also, just to clarify any potential confusion, Archon Innocent XIII is the name of my leader in Basilicus, which was my nation when I signed up for citizenship; when I saw my name on the ballot, I didn't want to try and change it in the middle of the campaign, but after the election is over, I will be changing my display name on the RtL forum to H.I.M. [His Imperial Majesty] Napoleon IV, so that there's a more obvious connection between my name on the forums and my primary nation in RtL.

United massachusetts

Hello, Canadian quebecois antarctica! Welcome!

Horatius Cocles, The Rouge Christmas State, Slavic lechia, and Canadian quebecois antarctica

La france bonapartiste wrote:To be fair, I think there's a lot more to Christianity than just the Resurrection, as important as it is. Saying that there isn't feels a little too reductive. There are plenty of hopeful events from the Old Testament and from Jesus' life and ministry that can and do give people hope.

And if he was saved from the cross as Muslims say, that gives a very hopeful view of God"s mercy and power. I think Old World churches have an unhealthy, even morbid, obsession with the crucifixion.

I don't think that's the case at all- the Passion, Death, and Resurrection are the cornerstone to the Faith. The Cross has been central to the Faith from the very beginning, even according to Christ. "Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it." (Matthew 16:24-25, citing the English for your convenience). Following after Christ has always consisted in following after the Crucifixion and losing our life for the sake of Christ's. I'll cover this more in the second part of the post. Just because there's more than just these does not mean your other points follow, and as Saint Paul quite clearly and openly says, "And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." (1st Corinthians 15:14). If Christ had not died, and then not risen, Christianity is totally pointless.

Also how is devotion to Our Lord's Sacrifice unhealthy?

La france bonapartiste wrote:Sure enough, it is predicted. However, how do you then explain the apparent contradiction of "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" If everything was predicted, why then would there be an exclamation of abandonment? Lastly, isn't it possible that, while it was predicted, God saved Jesus anyway? God is capable of all things.

And I have seen no evidence so far in my reading for the notion of "crucifixion is necessary to cleanse original sin"; in the Bible, Jesus merely tells his followers to uphold the commandments. In this way, it seems more like following God's laws and doing good works is all that is necessary. Original sin seems kind of...illogical. Why would everyone have to pay for the "original" sin of Adam, who did not know right from wrong, but God would just wipe the slate clean, irrespective of individual goodness? God is fair and wise, and arbitrarily punishing people for sins they did not commit and then arbitrarily forgiving them for sins they did not commit would contradict what we know to be His benevolent and judicious nature.

Christ's words from the cross are a direct quotation of the beginning Psalm 21- "Deus, Deus meus, respice in me : quare me dereliquisti?" (lit. "God, my God, look upon me : why [by what means] have you abandoned me?"). Christ's quotation "Deus meus, Deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti me" has only two minor differences with the psalm - the "quare" to "ut quid", both of which means "why", which is the same in meaning, and Christ does not utter the "respice in me", but that is a clause. I don't know Hebrew well enough, but I assume the clause "look upon me" follows after the question in the Hebrew, since even in the Latin the "Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani?" is uttered. Regardless of these minor differences, Christ is quoting Psalm 21 directly. The first part of the Psalm is a cry of anguish and lament, but then it turns by the end to trusting in God- "quoniam Domini est regnum, et ipse dominabitur gentium...Et anima mea illi vivet; et semen meum serviet ipsi." (Psalm 21:29/31) - "For the Kingdom is of [belonging to] the Lord, and He will be master/be in control of the peoples... and my soul will live to [for] him; and my seed will serve Him." It's not so much a cry that he's been betrayed by God, but rather that despite the feeling of seperation and suffering, He trusts in God and that He knows that ultimately God will prevail, even when seemingly all is lost.

1st Corinthians 15:21-22 "quoniam quidem per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio mortuorum. Et sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita et in Christo omnes vivificabuntur." ("Because death indeed through man [implied "came or originiated"], and through man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, thus in Christ all will be made alive"). Death and original sin came through Adam, and Christ's resurrection is what allows for us to be cleansed of original sin.

For more texts on original sin? I'll just switch to English because I don't have time right now to do full translations for everything.

Romans 5:12-14 "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned."

Psalm 50:7 "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me."

1st John 8: " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

I don't have more time now. I'll get back to this later.

Canadian quebecois antarctica

United massachusetts wrote:Hello, Canadian quebecois antarctica! Welcome!

It is I the one, the only American antartica!

As a Canadian guy it was only a matter of time before I made a Canadian themed version of Antarctica. Now Canada can have even more ice. Yay!

Horatius Cocles, Phydios, The Rouge Christmas State, United massachusetts, and 1 otherLa france bonapartiste

La france bonapartiste

Imperii Ecclesia wrote:
If Christ had not died, and then not risen, Christianity is totally pointless.

Like I said, this seems like an overly reductive non sequitur to me. You would have to ignore 90% of the rest of the Bible. Subordinating oneself to God seems the most important aspect of any religion, to me. It's also kind of insulting. I have always considered myself a Christian, as does everyone in my family, but we don't talk about the crucifixion or the Resurrection all the time as the focal point of our belief. My great-grandmother preferred the symbol of the praying hands over the image of the cross or a crucifix, for that reason. And I know a lot of people in America also prefer the symbol of the Ichthyus (fish), which was also an early Christian symbol. These symbols represent other Christians (early, pre-Nicene Christianity and New World Protestantism) which focus more on devotion to God and the charity and miracles of Christ, than the Nicene and Old World obsession with his crucifixion.

Imperii Ecclesia wrote:Also how is devotion to Our Lord's Sacrifice unhealthy?

The obsession with blood, death, and human sacrifice seems overtly pagan to me, and not something that would have been supported by Christ during his time on Earth. They seem like elements which were added on afterwards by overzealous supporters, which overemphasized his martyrdom, to the point of fanaticism.

Imperii Ecclesia wrote:
Christ's words from the cross are a direct quotation of the beginning Psalm 21- "Deus, Deus meus, respice in me : quare me dereliquisti?" (lit. "God, my God, look upon me : why [by what means] have you abandoned me?"). Christ's quotation "Deus meus, Deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti me" has only two minor differences with the psalm - the "quare" to "ut quid", both of which means "why", which is the same in meaning, and Christ does not utter the "respice in me", but that is a clause. I don't know Hebrew well enough, but I assume the clause "look upon me" follows after the question in the Hebrew, since even in the Latin the "Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani?" is uttered. Regardless of these minor differences, Christ is quoting Psalm 21 directly. The first part of the Psalm is a cry of anguish and lament, but then it turns by the end to trusting in God- "quoniam Domini est regnum, et ipse dominabitur gentium...Et anima mea illi vivet; et semen meum serviet ipsi." (Psalm 21:29/31) - "For the Kingdom is of [belonging to] the Lord, and He will be master/be in control of the peoples... and my soul will live to [for] him; and my seed will serve Him." It's not so much a cry that he's been betrayed by God, but rather that despite the feeling of seperation and suffering, He trusts in God and that He knows that ultimately God will prevail, even when seemingly all is lost.

This is an interesting parallel, and not one of which I was aware; however, if it true that he was quoting Psalms, I don't understand why he would have quoted it incompletely--otherwise the quotation can give a misleading impression in isolation. I know a lot of people who talk about that quotation, and I feel like all the discourse over it could have been avoided if its meaning was made clearer in the Gospel.

Imperii Ecclesia wrote:
1st Corinthians 15:21-22 "quoniam quidem per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio mortuorum. Et sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita et in Christo omnes vivificabuntur." ("Because death indeed through man [implied "came or originiated"], and through man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, thus in Christ all will be made alive"). Death and original sin came through Adam, and Christ's resurrection is what allows for us to be cleansed of original sin.

For more texts on original sin? I'll just switch to English because I don't have time right now to do full translations for everything.

Romans 5:12-14 "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned."

Psalm 50:7 "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me."

1st John 8: " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

This seems to promote the premise of sin entering the world through Adam, though less so his descendants inheriting his sin. People still die, people still sin, we haven't become immortal innocents living in the Garden of Eden, so nothing has changed. Following the example of Christ, preaching the Word and doing good works, is the clear path towards salvation.

La france bonapartiste

Canadian quebecois antarctica wrote:It is I the one, the only American antartica!

As a Canadian guy it was only a matter of time before I made a Canadian themed version of Antarctica. Now Canada can have even more ice. Yay!

Vive le Québec libre

United massachusetts and Canadian quebecois antarctica

La france bonapartiste wrote:Like I said, this seems like an overly reductive non sequitur to me.

You must distinguish what is essential (and I mean that in a more philosophical sense) from what is secondary or accidental or even consequential. The suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ, the Son of God, and his atonement and redemption of mankind, is the Good News of the Gospel. It doesn't get more essential. The apostles and evangelists make this point clear, as do the creeds of the church and its traditions.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again from the dead.

That's 1/3 of the earliest Christian deceleration of faith outside of scripture.

Obviously there are other aspects, traditions, practices, and teachings to the Christian faith, but they all hinge upon this essential facts. The Old Testament was fulfilled in the life, teachings, and passion of Christ and the New Testament follows from it. As the scripture from Paul quoted above clearly states, Christian faith is useless with Christ's resurrection. He makes this point later on as well when he describes Christ as the New Adam. It's not like the symbol of the fish or praying hands are wrong, but they are certainly meaningless if the faith they are rooted in is meritless. I suggest On the Incarnation: http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/incarnation_st_athanasius.pdf
Of course Paul does also pretty directly confront your position when he says that Christ crucified is "a stumbling-block to the Jews, and folly to the Gentiles."

La france bonapartiste wrote:The obsession with blood, death, and human sacrifice seems overtly pagan to me, and not something that would have been supported by Christ during his time on Earth. They seem like elements which were added on afterwards by overzealous supporters, which overemphasized his martyrdom, to the point of fanaticism.

I do not think is qualifies as an obsession. Pagans (Aztecs, Mithras, Baal, Molech, etc.) certainly were obsessed with those things, but Christ supplanted this. As Thomas Aquinas so beautifully puts it:
Lo! o'er ancient forms departing
Newer rites of grace prevail

That's not to say these things completely disappear, rather they are uprooted, transplanted, and transformed: God did not desire blood, but charity and faith, now made fully possible by Christ's spotless, complete and total sacrifice, his death, and his blood (and body). Christ clearly insists that we must drink his blood and eat his flesh ("Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day"). He is also clearly the Lamb of God who will take away the sins of the world (in other words: the pure sacrifice), as John so pointedly tells the first disciples when he walks by and so clearly revealed by John in his narrative of the passion (his death and his sacrifice). These things are essential to Christian teaching and belief, even essential to the very teachings of Christ, not obsessions. Like so many other things, the Christian faith pulls the symbolism and mythical radiance from the pagan and Hebraic history of sacrifice and myths about dying gods and entirely changes them meaning into something real.

Horatius Cocles, Phydios, United massachusetts, The Catholic State of Eire, and 2 othersGallifrey Ireland, and American antartica

La france bonapartiste

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:
You must distinguish what is essential (and I mean that in a more philosophical sense) from what is secondary or accidental or even consequential. The suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ, the Son of God, and his atonement and redemption of mankind, is the Good News of the Gospel. It doesn't get more essential. The apostles and evangelists make this point clear, as do the creeds of the church and its traditions.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again from the dead.

That's 1/3 of the earliest Christian deceleration of faith outside of scripture.

Obviously there are other aspects, traditions, practices, and teachings to the Christian faith, but they all hinge upon this essential facts. The Old Testament was fulfilled in the life, teachings, and passion of Christ and the New Testament follows from it. As the scripture from Paul quoted above clearly states, Christian faith is useless with Christ's resurrection. He makes this point later on as well when he describes Christ as the New Adam. It's not like the symbol of the fish or praying hands are wrong, but they are certainly meaningless if the faith they are rooted in is meritless. I suggest On the Incarnation: http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/incarnation_st_athanasius.pdf
Of course Paul does also pretty directly confront your position when he says that Christ crucified is "a stumbling-block to the Jews, and folly to the Gentiles."

I do not think is qualifies as an obsession. Pagans (Aztecs, Mithras, Baal, Molech, etc.) certainly were obsessed with those things, but Christ supplanted this. As Thomas Aquinas so beautifully puts it:
Lo! o'er ancient forms departing
Newer rites of grace prevail

That's not to say these things completely disappear, rather they are uprooted, transplanted, and transformed: God did not desire blood, but charity and faith, now made fully possible by Christ's spotless, complete and total sacrifice, his death, and his blood (and body). Christ clearly insists that we must drink his blood and eat his flesh ("Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day"). He is also clearly the Lamb of God who will take away the sins of the world (in other words: the pure sacrifice), as John so pointedly tells the first disciples when he walks by and so clearly revealed by John in his narrative of the passion (his death and his sacrifice). These things are essential to Christian teaching and belief, even essential to the very teachings of Christ, not obsessions. Like so many other things, the Christian faith pulls the symbolism and mythical radiance from the pagan and Hebraic history of sacrifice and myths about dying gods and entirely changes them meaning into something real.

I just feel like these interpretations have strayed too far from the actual Bible and evolved into something unrecognizable. Religious organizations and their dogmas have accumulated so much baggage over the millennia that I can't even wrap my head around it. I won't argue anymore since I don't think it would be productive, and think I've made my points sufficiently clear--they're my honest feelings towards Old World dogma and I stand by them. I believe a more rational approach to religion and the scriptures will lead to a happier life.

One of the reasons I feel like a lot of people through the centuries have been disaffected by religion and Catholicism in particular is because of these theological excesses. If Christians could come together and trim theology to just the essentials, leaving all of the flowery, free-wheeling interpretations in the past, a lot more people who are currently lost could be brought back into the flock. Instead people fight over abstract theories and metaphysics while the world burns around them. I cannot imagine that is the fate Christ desired for his followers. Jesus was an active minister, spreading Truth and tending to the poor and sick. If everyone followed his example, and left all the highfalutin theology at the door, we'd all be a lot better off.

Trinitarianism, hypostaticism, the eucharist, original sin, atonement theology are all utterly alien to me. I see so much more in Christianity than, what appears to me as, mere ornaments and baubles of dogma. Nicene theology has solidified into a corrupt, rigid edifice of tombs, priests, and worldly powers. And that is not the Christianity I believe in. The Christianity I believe in is a religion of life and hope, not one that is obsessed with blood and death.

Religion should be based on a personal relationship with God, and the more levels of complexity and ritual you put between yourself and the Divine, the further away, in my opinion, you become from Him. All you really need is yourself and God.

«12. . .2,1972,1982,1992,2002,2012,2022,203. . .2,5072,508»

Advertisement